Talk:Arbalest

Untitled

22kN is ridiculous, unless there's a source to cite that needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.82.82 (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: the very last line Do we really need a link to arbalest on the site for arbalest? -- DUFFMAN Sun 3 Jul 2005 (AEST)

Early vs Late Medieval Crossbows

Early European crossbows (8th cent, etc) were merely roughly hewn slabs of wood, and were neither reliable nor effective. Only after centuries of development did the European crossbow become an effective weapon on the battlefield. There has to be a distinction made. Intranetusa 01:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

How old is the distinction?

Since the name "arbalest" is essentially just the French word for crossbow, borrowed into English, I would be inclined to think that the distinction between the two terms is modern, and that in the period they were in use they were both just called "crossbows." Yet the text of crossbow seems to imply that this is not the case:

Pope Urban II banned the use of crossbow against Christians in 1097, and the
Second Lateran Council did the same for arbalests in 1139.

If this is true, there must have been separate words for "crossbow" and "arbalest," at least in Latin in which such declarations would have been made. But so far as I know these are both usually termed arcuballista in Medieval Latin.

I have already asked this question at Talk:Crossbow, but have yet to get a full answer. I was hoping maybe someone who watches this page can fill me in.

As far as I know you are correct. The OED quotes "arbalest" from c. 1100, long before the crossbow with steel bow and windlass was used. A quick Google suggests that the earliest record of a steel bow is from 1314, and that these didn't become common until the end of the 14th century, which agrees with what I've read elsewhere. In fact OED doesn't cite "crossbow" until the 15th century. If this distinction exists (and I've never heard of it), it must be a modern one.

The Second Lateran Council actually banned something that can be translated as "slingers" as well as "crossbowmen" ("ballistares", IIRC), in addition to archers. It also banned fighting in general except on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays! I can't find the text of Urban's ban, but apparently it was canon 7 of the Lateran Synod of 1097. Megalophias 04:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It's Greek to me

Wasn't there an ancient Greek equivalent? What was it called? Trekphiler 03:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Gastraphetes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.22.172 (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The gastraphetes is a rather different device, though it is effectivelly an oversized crossbow, or a hand-portable ballista built in the manner of a crossbow. The gastraphetes and "arbalest" are not technologically related, other than being bows that can span and hold the bowstring in place before a shot. The arbalest was a continuation of previous self-bow crossbows and composite bow crossbows, it just added a steel bow instead of the more traditional materials.
The gastraphetes was only ever equipped with a wooden selfbow or maybe a composite bow. The gastraphetes was also not very common, and is relatively little attested in antiquity, based on surviving documentation and art. They certainly built it or could build it, but it was nowhere near as common as later medieval crossbows, whether ones with selfbows, composite bows or steel bows (at least not based on the archaeological record). Not only are spanning methods of the gastraphetes and of other crossbows from antiquity and the Middle Ages (including steel-bowed crossbows from the late Middle Ages) utterly different, the trigger systems of the two weapon types are even more different. Saying that the gastraphetes and arbalest are typologically "pretty much the same thing" is like saying a flintlock musket and an assault rifle are the same thing.
Part of why steel bows caught on by the 14th and especially in the 15th and 16th century was their durability and performance in military applications. They're more readily repairable and resistant to weathering, and offer a performance on par with composite bows, or even better. Neither selfbow or composite bow crossbows vanished with the introduction of the steel-bowed crossbow, but the steel bow innovation certainly challenged them in popularity, especially in military use, and even in some civilian applications like hunting. Here's a steel-bowed military crossbow with a windlass system, a steel-bowed military specimen spanned by a lever, a steel-bowed hunting crossbow with a cranequin spanning system and an early modern, steel-bowed hunting crossbow spanned by a lever system. --ZemplinTemplar (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

What laws on it?

What laws, if any, are there on the ownership and/or use of an arbalest, especially in the US? Is it legal to hunt with one? Is it legal for minors to hold/use/own one? Is it legal to own one at all, for self-defense? After all, it's apparently legal to own a machine gun, otherwise that one store wouldn't have a sign advertising that they sell machine guns there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.204.53 (talk • contribs)

You can't buy fully automatic machine guns in all states in the USA - in fact, you can't in most of them (but a few permit it). In some states, you can buy one only as a collector's item while paying enormous taxes and fees to the government (not just one time fees, but I believe annual fees as well). I don't believe there's any regulation on a crossbow that differs from that which applies to a regular bow or a compound bow - surprising given the difference in ease of use but I believe true.

My own state (Wisconsin) only allows crossbows for hunting under specific circumstances (usually only if you have a disability), as show by the DNR application. Hardburn (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you may own one even if you are a minor. AFAIK, they are not regulated and do not fall under the authority of the ATF. It would not be a choice weapon for self-defense and it is far-fetched imagining it used as one. It is more powerful than you would want for hunting and I agree with Hardburn that it is only legal for disabled folk who apply ahead of time for it. As for machine guns, you pay a one-time $200 tax to the government..that's it. See National Firearms Act.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Manga links

Do we really need a link to some obscure Asian comics at the top of the page? There are things called "arbalest" in many fictional works. Perhaps we also need a link to 'Arbalest' missile launchers from EVE Online. The line needs to be drawn somewhere, and I think manga is firmly on the other side of it. Just seems like this needs to be stopped before every page on the wiki is crammed full of useless links to synonyms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.178.73 (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Just want to point out, as an encyclopedia, the more references that are catalogued the better. However, you are right that they should not be at the top of the page. If more references to arbalest are recorded, then that would be the proper time to create a disambiguation page listing all the references. This would condense the top of the arbalest page into a single link to the disambiguation page. If you want tostart onee and add a couple of the other references to arbalest that you are familiar with, be my guest. 192.12.88.13 (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

5000 lbf and accurate to 900m?

I've got to say, that this is a ridiculous number given here. There's no source cited, and compared to modern crossbows, even high-powered compounds, typically only shoot with around 150-300 lbf of energy. 5000 is more on par with a bullet from a magnum round, and would require a draw weight of around 3,000 lbs. Modern crossbows can only shoot as far as about 300m at best, and are only significantly accurate up to about 100m. Even with composite, modern materials and compound systems, I can't see the energy of a bolt fired from a handheld crossbow exceeding 1000 lbf without making it near impossible for a single person to draw and fire. Xander T. (talk) 05:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I often compare Wikipedia articles from different languages and the german article mentions up to 5,000 N = 1,124 lbf (instead of 22,000 N = 4,946 lbf). This number is also mentioned in the german book "Arbalest" by Klaas Apostol. The 22,000 N or 5000 lbf are mentioned far more often on the internet, but i have not found a book mentioning it. It is possible that all those posts quoted it from this wikipedia article. Sebastian M. 23:22, 21 April 2015

22 kN?

I find it hard to believe, after all 22kN is a force required to lift (within Earth's gravitiy) 2,2 TONS of mass. How could this crossbow or it's string endure that? Or how could have someone pull it twice in a minute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.63.34.221 (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Crannequin rack is improperly drawn, the teeth are facing the wrong way to engage the small center gear.

Crannequin rack is improperly drawn, the teeth are facing the wrong way to engage the small center gear. I am a Society of Archer-Antiquaries member and have been involved with archery and crossbows for over 60 years. 2603:6081:2300:FBD:159E:8B32:5469:DFB3 (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)