Chinese crossbow replica

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:51 am

Surviving Han crossbow bolts have nocks as do the bronze models from the tomb of Qin Shihuang.
Stephen would know if later crossbow quarrels in China were also nocked.

Romain · Post by **Romain** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:29 am

Would you have a picture of these quarrels nocks ?

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 5:50 am

Romain,
The nocks were straight cut with rounded bottoms. They were little more than slots cut in the ends of arrows. I think Stephen has pictures in one of the Letters.

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Sat May 13, 2006 3:00 am

Bede wrote:Surviving Han crossbow bolts have nocks as do the bronze models from the tomb of Qin Shihuang.
Stephen would know if later crossbow quarrels in China were also nocked.

Actually, I don't know the answer.

Quarrels for the repeating crossbow had no nocks.

Actually, for Han quarrels, I cannot be sure. I have two boxes for carrying quarrels dating from Warring States and Han periods. Neither has the original arrows. But they are both consistent in size: 20cm long.

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Sat May 13, 2006 4:11 am

Stephen,
The bronze models with the chariot were said to be half-sized and many of the Han stocks match the size of the Qin model crossbow if it is doubled. There are also surviving Han arrows which are about 66 cm long that almost certainly were for crossbows (because they would fit the surviving crossbow stocks). If I remember correctly the Qin model arrows had four feathers.

Yang Hong's book on Chinese weapons is my source for the Han arrows.

Repeating crossbows need unnocked bolts since there is no way to tell which way they will land in front of the string. There is no advantage to the missile having a nock because its path along the stock is more constrained than in an open grooved crossbow. Of course, the original makers may have had other reasons for their designs.

Your arrow boxes may have been for repeating crossbow arrows (which are quite short). This would be important if it could be proved because it would show continuity through the Han of the concept of repeating weapons from the Chu.

The Romans tapered each side of their ballista bolts so that they would fit in between the gap between the teeth of the lock. They were much shorter than the path of the string so the argument about stabilty along the track did not hold here. I wonder if there eas some continuity of design of bolts between late Roman times and the European Middle Ages?

West · Post by **West** » Sun May 14, 2006 11:23 am

I doubt there is such a continuity. The mechanisms used on early medieval crossbows and Roman ballistae are totally different. The "rising pin" mechanism is used in early medieval designs of European crossbow, where a wooden peg on a lever knocks the string out of a groove, like a repeating crossbow mechanism. Roman weapons were different, with more complex, and as you say, toothed mechanisms. The requirements are totally different. The bolts for the simpler mechanism would need no nocks, because they are just hit by the string (like the crossbows of south-west China and south-east Asia.) A nock would be no advantage. On a toothed mechanism, the bolt can be attached to the string, allowing for two things; firstly, a more efficient transfer of energy from the string to the bolt, and a more precise idea of how the bolt will fly, because you know the string is going to push the bolt forward on a very central line (as opposed to the simpler kind, where the string just hits whatever part of the bolt is showing above the notch); and secondly, it allows for downward shooting, if necessary, because the bolt will be, as aforementioned, attached to the string and unlikely to move. On the simpler mechanism-ed crossbow, there is no such impediment to movement of the bolt.
Incidentally: it is for these reasons that I believe that Chinese crossbows after the Song dynasty had simpler mechanisms, like those of Yunnan, especially after the arrival of the Jin Ruzhen. The talk in Ming books of quarrels falling off stocks, and dropping bolts, makes sense if the mechanisms are of the simpler kind. The fact that they were made of antler also corroborates this; an antler mechanism any more advanced than a Yunnan style would take many hours of labour, assuming you could even get hold of the antler in the shapes required. Other evidence is pictorial: an illustration of a crossbow in the Wujing zongyao, shows a crossbow of a much simpler design than earlier ones; and the various illustrations in Stephen's "Chinese Archery" - ie, the "mighty shoulder crossbow" and the "composite of three Ming illustrations..." on pages 243 and 245 show quite evidently simpler mechanisms on the weapons. Admittedly, these are pictures, where some things might have been simplified to facilitate easier reproduction, etc.

axel · Post by **axel** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 5:15 pm

Romain wrote:A proud future Han crossbowman

hey romain
I have been admiriring Your fine craftmannship.
I hav also made a Han,crossbow, and I use a mongol bow as bow.BUT the angle the bow has been fastened to the stok make the string to pop a side in the syals.
The correct bow ,the string has to be fastened on top of the bow and will be able to move to the sides whithout beein stopped by the syals.
Can You help?-
maybe I can buy a bow from You.
Greetings axel-denmark

Romain · Post by **Romain** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:29 am

Hmm, I'm not sure I understand the problem you had... in any case, I did not make myself any part of this crossbow, Ju Yuan Hao did.

The siyahs on the bow he made for my crossbow are very short and massive.

axel · Post by **axel** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:11 am

Romain wrote:A proud future Han crossbowman

hey romain
thank Ypo for Your reply.
However I have solved the problem (The string had a tendency to slip out of the groove because of the twisted angle when mounted on the crossbow)
You can see the pictures on
" axel.snebaer.dk"
greetings axel

Dave Peters · Post by **Dave Peters** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:23 pm

There are some lovely pictures of crossbow mechanisms with rulers close by. As someone who likes to make replicas of archery equipment, I am tantalized by having almost enough info to make one of these mechanisms.

Could someone who is fortunate enough to have one of these use a pair of calipers and post the lenght, width and thickness of each part?

cingold · Post by **cingold** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:20 pm

Romain
I'd like to take the time and express my admiration for Master Fuxi and his work on that crossbow. Is is still in working condition? It's a very nice historical piece.

Chris

TheAzn · Post by **TheAzn** » Fri Apr 02, 2010 9:26 pm

Hi, I am curious about the range of your crossbow replica.
What's the maximum range that you can shoot?

TheAzn · Post by **TheAzn** » Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:59 pm

Also, for the excavated Han crossbows, what wood was the stock made out of? Was it made out of elm like in this crossbow replica? Or was it something else?

Thank you

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Mon Apr 12, 2010 2:03 am

TheAzn wrote:Hi, I am curious about the range of your crossbow replica.
What's the maximum range that you can shoot?

Han crossbows are reputed to have been able to shoot over 100 paces. They probably commonly had a draw weight of over 55Kg. My reconstruction did not manage anything like that.

I can't comment on the wood for the original stock. Although I have samples, I never had it analyzed.

S

Chinese crossbow replica

Crossbow mechanism metrics