Tactical value of crossbows? Both on their own or to muskets

[Zixinus]

What is the true tactical value of crossbows? I know that they had immense use during the Crusades when the ban of them was lifted to fight the Arabs. I also know that it takes much less time to train someone in the use of crossbows then compared to the regular bow?

Now, say we are in a period where gun-powder was not developed (its for a fantasy novel). No cannons and magic (again, fantasy novel) of any kind is inaccessible for the nobility at large.

The question is, how would a warfare made up with crossbows and pretty much the regular advanced medieval warfare look like? Would it alter the way it look, crossbows taking the role of muskets to a certain extant? Is that even possible?

I'm asking because I am not that familiar with medieval tactics and the like and I want to use a bit more interesting setting then "King Arthur England" thing.

[Eleventh Century Remnant]

I personally reckon that the true tactical value of the crossbow was compromised by the effectiveness of the men carrying it.

Think in terms of the sociology of it; to start with the obvious, English and Welsh longbowmen were drawn from the class of solid citizens, by and large- yeomen, rentiers and freeholders. Men with some standing in the community, and willing to commit to practising their weaponcraft that intensively.

Part of the effectiveness of the longbow derives, IMHO, from the fact that the men carrying it were- for the day- superior military material. They had a pride and dedication that many of their opponents, among them french and italian crossbowmen, simply couldn't match.

So, the question is; what sort of human material are you going to get carrying your crossbows? Men unwilling to take war seriously enough to train for it? The urban poor of the middle ages?

The weapon itself; in fair tests nowadays with modern reenactors, it seems to perform rather closer to the longbow in range and rate of fire than most of us think- six shots a minute to the longbow's twelve, and the arquebus's one, fifteen score paces to the longbow's twenty and the arquebus's accurate three score, ballistic forty score.

The other problem is with the system that contains the men; the thing is is that muskets themselves belong to, pretty much define the start of, the early modern.

On leadership, pretty much every source I have for the medieval period confirms the idea that theory massively outran practise. There were enough leftover Roman ideas and native thinkers to point the way, and a great many men who knew what they ought to be doing, but the practical difficulties of organised logistics, formed units, formalised training were almost insoluble. Steps were made in the right direction, but small ones.

It is the growth of a machinery of state that is capable of attempting to support an organised, formed army, and the surveying, tax collecting, and central authority, governance and law that go along with it that defines the end of the medieval and the beginning of the modern period. Long, long period of overlap ("L'Etat, c'est moi",) steps back and sideways, but overall, that's the trend.

Whether that has anything to do with the weaponry used- actually, yes. Not the arquebus as much as the cannon. Royal foundries, royal sponsorship of industry, the king's ability to batter down the castles of his renegade nobles above all- without gunpowder, how is that going to happen?
Without the strengthening of central authority that artillery brought in it's wake, how are you going to get a state that can put regiments rather than levies into the field?

In my own fantasy world, gunpowder is classed along with greek fire, mustard gas, what-have-you as an alchemical weapon, and they are not popular. They are widely considered as dangerous to their users as to the enemy, and catastrophically vulnerable to sorcerous counterbattery fire. It is the magical guilds, that depend on royal patronage and authority, that serve the same centralising and rebel-levelling role. Hope that helps.

[Zixinus]

So, the question is; what sort of human material are you going to get carrying your crossbows? Men unwilling to take war seriously enough to train for it? The urban poor of the middle ages?

The crossbow in my setting is a fairly common weapon for anyone who can afford it: rouges, milita, monster hunters, etc. There was simply no one able to suppress it.

Soldiers are a mix of proffesional soldiers under nobility, mercenaries and people who wanted to try to live.

EDIT: Let me try to elaborate that a bit.

Soldiers for kings and nobles are mix of lower nobility, knights and middle-class-ish soldiers and officers that take pride in their country/kingdom. They are mostly descendants of the old king-castle systems, although people with high competence have been occasionally given position.

Then there are mercenaries, homeless soldiers or just people that got arms and tried to make a living using them. Mercenaries are often used more freely, giving them more dangerous guard duty or assignments. Because of this, they are usually high-priced, but the price is usually worth it.

Then there are the people recruited from urban cities. They are usually there to keep the city's order (usually, they are placed in another city to remove corrupt ties) and fit the bill more of police then soldiers, although can still hold their own in a fight.

The other problem is with the system that contains the men; the thing is is that muskets themselves belong to, pretty much define the start of, the early modern.

Please elaborate. I don't quite follow this sentence.

Without the strengthening of central authority that artillery brought in it's wake, how are you going to get a state that can put regiments rather than levies into the field?

Very good point.

My first thought is control of trade: my settings economy relies very much on trade (very much more "adventurous" that way). Most areas can self-support themselves to not starve, but not much more then that. The world is very dangerous, there are entire zones between borders that cannot be claimed as they are very dangerous. Filled with everything from zombies, monsters, meat-eating plants, etc.

The king would be able to control trade. The king would merely have to establish an embargo and the rebel nobles army would starve or simply deflect without the income that the noble's army relies on. As you can guess, all mayor routes and choke-points are controlled by the king, old Imperial roads are resurrected and kings usually have a personal massaging system of some sort. This system may be magical.

My second thought is religion. The "Church" (I will want a better and less stereotypical-sounding name) gives recommendation to a king, that is, a right to rule. With that, the king also becomes a somewhat authority figure on his land to the churches that are in his territory. The main churches (and their god's) orders take precedence over his/her, but that is pretty high. This controls the population to a significant point. To fight againts a king that their very god recommended to be king is to question the god's judgement. Of course, this does not come DIRECTLY from the god but its mortal representative, thus the claim can be debated. Vaguely.

As for royally funded guilds, one of the most dominant religions view magicians of any kind besides their priests devils to be killed mercilessly. Thus magicians usually hide in the countryside or in the more dangerous zones (or merely one of the more isolated kingdoms where the religion in question has little influence). Kings do not remove this imposition as the church offers too many advantages in exchange, including the before mentioned authority. Of course kings tend to have dirty, little secrets and this imposition is less strict the more it is farther from the religion's capitol, however those regions tend to be more and more filled with danger-zones.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Range and accuracy

old muskets were very short ranged, and it wasn't until later that they were faster to reload than a crossbow. about the same amout of training needed, so they both could swamp the longbow.

basically it came down to this.

weight of ammo
cost to produce
with bayonnettes they could be used as pikemen in a pinch.

[Sea Skimmer]

The bayonet is key. Before it was introduced everyone used squares of pikemen with either crossbow men or musketeers in the middle. This sort of formation was dominate in Europe for somthing like five hundred years. In practical terms neither ranged weapon had any real advantage over the other, they both fired slowly, both required little training, and they could both pierce almost all armor. However once the bayonet was introduced you could get rid of the pipkemen, and double the number of ranged weapons you had, and infantry then became completely homogenous formations.

[Thanas]

There is also the issue of projectile cost - a quality iron bolt costs more than a lea bullet (especially in the middle ages, where iron was very scarce), and there is a reason why you almost never find bolts when doing excavations on medieval battlefields - the crossbowmen searched the field for them to recycle them.

Furthermore, whoever is saying crossbowmen require little training has obviously never shot a crossbow and tried to hit anything that's not the side of a barn. There is a reason why the genoese and other mercenery forces were feared.

[ray245]

What is the true tactical value of crossbows? I know that they had immense use during the Crusades when the ban of them was lifted to fight the Arabs. I also know that it takes much less time to train someone in the use of crossbows then compared to the regular bow?

Now, say we are in a period where gun-powder was not developed (its for a fantasy novel). No cannons and magic (again, fantasy novel) of any kind is inaccessible for the nobility at large.

The question is, how would a warfare made up with crossbows and pretty much the regular advanced medieval warfare look like? Would it alter the way it look, crossbows taking the role of muskets to a certain extant? Is that even possible?

I'm asking because I am not that familiar with medieval tactics and the like and I want to use a bit more interesting setting then "King Arthur England" thing.

Kinda like asian warfare in ancient china I guess...during the Qin to Han dynasty period.

Crossbow are developed first in china, and is quite widespread before europe adopted them, with ideas like a repeating crossbow and etc.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

What is the true tactical value of crossbows? I know that they had immense use during the Crusades when the ban of them was lifted to fight the Arabs. I also know that it takes much less time to train someone in the use of crossbows then compared to the regular bow?

Now, say we are in a period where gun-powder was not developed (its for a fantasy novel). No cannons and magic (again, fantasy novel) of any kind is inaccessible for the nobility at large.

The question is, how would a warfare made up with crossbows and pretty much the regular advanced medieval warfare look like? Would it alter the way it look, crossbows taking the role of muskets to a certain extant? Is that even possible?

I'm asking because I am not that familiar with medieval tactics and the like and I want to use a bit more interesting setting then "King Arthur England" thing.

Kinda like asian warfare in ancient china I guess...during the Qin to Han dynasty period.

Crossbow are developed first in china, and is quite widespread before europe adopted them, with ideas like a repeating crossbow and etc.

Before you prattle about possible trade of ideas between China and Europe, you might like to note that Europe has a long history of using weapons that rely on torsion forces such as Ballistae (some variants themselves are giant crossbows firing huge arrows) dating back to the Romans and Greeks. The Greeks themselves had a kind of crossbow back then themselves.

[Zixinus]

So what happens when I have a good enough infrastructures (imperial roads that would have shamed the actual roman imperial roads), manufacture (good factories with quality tools), common metal (trough trade if nothing else, also why not use bronze bolts?) and crossbows with bayonets? Do I get something resembling the musket battle-orders?

As for the history of the crossbow in real life, I do have a book that discussed it. It mentioned that they knew how to make something like it way back in Greece but it was suppressed for a long time as a inhuman weapon. That is, until the Crusades came.

Furthermore, whoever is saying crossbowmen require little training has obviously never shot a crossbow and tried to hit anything that's not the side of a barn. There is a reason why the genoese and other mercenery forces were feared.

Are they not easier to shot then a regular bow? Especially when you don't have to be pin-point precise?

[Eleventh Century Remnant]

The wealth generated by trade and the usefulness of the roads make organised logistic trains much more feasible. You can fund and support a very organised military effort- which is more than the vast majority of the musketry period actually managed to do.

Mobilisation becomes relatively easy and alliances become crucial- with that logistic background, you're looking at closer to the American Civil War, or Bismarck's wars, than the 1500's-equivalent. You can concentrate on the inter-border danger zones, bring forces to bear from a relatively wide area and burn them out if they become a serious problem.
Actually, I reckon the process of this happening would be good meat for a story.

Consider that trade spreads ideas as well as wealth; you're going to have a growing educated middle class, relatively familiar with the rest of the world. At the very least, religious repression is going to be starting to fray around the edges.

I'm not sure sedentary kings are the way to go; it sounds like the keys to the situation are actually in the hands of the merchant princes, or at least the financiers who put up the money. Unless the two are actually one and the same; royal chartered companies? Do you think that would work?


As far as the original topic goes, I've shot 30-pound pull re-enactment and LRP bows and crossbows, a 52-pound recurve and 60-pound long bow- barns are easy. Rabbits are a bit harder.

Crossbows, you can cock and aim- wind the thing up, place the bolt, then take all the time you like lining up the actual shot. Ordinary bows are more fluid- you don't want to strain the bow by keeping it at full draw any longer than you have to.
Ideally, it's a single motion- out of the quiver, on to the string, look at the target and aim while you draw, loose as soon as you reach full draw. It's building up the strength to make it smooth and practising until the hand-eye coordination becomes instinctive that takes the time.

Volley fire, you do follow the commands "nock, draw, loose"- hold at full draw until everyone is with you then loose the arrows all together.

[ray245]

What is the true tactical value of crossbows? I know that they had immense use during the Crusades when the ban of them was lifted to fight the Arabs. I also know that it takes much less time to train someone in the use of crossbows then compared to the regular bow?

Now, say we are in a period where gun-powder was not developed (its for a fantasy novel). No cannons and magic (again, fantasy novel) of any kind is inaccessible for the nobility at large.

The question is, how would a warfare made up with crossbows and pretty much the regular advanced medieval warfare look like? Would it alter the way it look, crossbows taking the role of muskets to a certain extant? Is that even possible?

I'm asking because I am not that familiar with medieval tactics and the like and I want to use a bit more interesting setting then "King Arthur England" thing.

Kinda like asian warfare in ancient china I guess...during the Qin to Han dynasty period.

Crossbow are developed first in china, and is quite widespread before europe adopted them, with ideas like a repeating crossbow and etc.

Before you prattle about possible trade of ideas between China and Europe, you might like to note that Europe has a long history of using weapons that rely on torsion forces such as Ballistae (some variants themselves are giant crossbows firing huge arrows) dating back to the Romans and Greeks. The Greeks themselves had a kind of crossbow back then themselves.

But is it as widespread as china? I seem to remember the reason chinese army are usually spread out is due to crossbows and etc.

[Gil Hamilton]

I understand for a while arquebuses were somewhat inferior to crossbows. The first line of them, at least according to my archeology/history teacher, were not particularly easy to use (something like 21 steps to load and fire one shot), extremely heavy, and unlike crossbows, didn't have a fair chance to explode next to your head if they didn't work.

[Zixinus]

Mobilisation becomes relatively easy and alliances become crucial- with that logistic background, you're looking at closer to the American Civil War, or Bismarck's wars, than the 1500's-equivalent.

And what does that look like without trains or even without steam or gunpowder?

You can concentrate on the inter-border danger zones, bring forces to bear from a relatively wide area and burn them out if they become a serious problem.

Actually, dealing with the danger-zone is very serious problem, and most kings settle for merely containing them or stopping another swarm.

There is also the Underground, a highly extensive cave system once built by the Empire for logistical purposes but became overrun by war-demons and the like. Almost all entries are blocked off rather then taken use of, as it is impossible to secure any region.

Consider that trade spreads ideas as well as wealth; you're going to have a growing educated middle class, relatively familiar with the rest of the world. At the very least, religious repression is going to be starting to fray around the edges.

Yah, that's a problem as well. The world (or this region of the world anyway) has a increasing problem with the very intrusive religious system. The Church tries its best to adopt and has a history of a strong hand in everything, but its power is weaning more and more, the farther it is from its capitol.

For the main character, this represents down to a simple thing: he is from a guild of monster hunters (who are ironically often monsters themselves) from a wild region of the world. The guild has a "monster's head or other identifying organ - money" policy (very businesslike) while the religious system has their own organization (the same that deals with magicians and heretics, its people whom are chosen for their fanaticism, not competence) that they occasionally have clashes with. In some kingdoms his guildsmen are hunted down, but the ruling can order them safe. Of course the organization does look for its first excuse to quell any competitors.

[Crazedwraith]

The bayonet is key. Before it was introduced everyone used squares of pikemen with either crossbow men or musketeers in the middle. This sort of formation was dominate in Europe for somthing like five hundred years. In practical terms neither ranged weapon had any real advantage over the other, they both fired slowly, both required little training, and they could both pierce almost all armor. However once the bayonet was introduced you could get rid of the pipkemen, and double the number of ranged weapons you had, and infantry then became completely homogenous formations.

This seems highly unlikely to me. Simply sticking a bayonet on a crossbow will not transform it into an effective pike. Pikes are quite long and can be braced on the ground. Crossbow's just aren't that big.

[Jadeite]

This seems highly unlikely to me. Simply sticking a bayonet on a crossbow will not transform it into an effective pike. Pikes are quite long and can be braced on the ground. Crossbow's just aren't that big.

He was talking about bayonets for muskets.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

But is it as widespread as china? I seem to remember the reason chinese army are usually spread out is due to crossbows and etc.

Does it matter? The Romans themselves are known to have mounted small Ballistae on forts that can be manned by a few legionaries. They were effective weapons especially when certain ballistae could fire one huge bolt could skewer several in one go. The idea of a crossbow is not new, but old. Even the onager itself is a variation of the crossbow idea

[Broomstick]

I don't see sticking a bayonet on a crossbow, either.

I happen own a crossbow, by the way - actually a "crosspistol", a scaled down version.

Crossbows DO have a couple advantages - for one thing, they don't require as much training as a longbow. That's not to say there's NO training involved, there certainly is - but not as much. Because the heavier draw crossbows using stirrups/winding thing to draw you don't need as much physical strength for a very powerful draw. These days, they have crossbows for bear hunting - the bolts look like a shovel. They can be as powerful as a rifle.

On the downside, longbows have a faster rate of fire, and they can kill you. Strictly speaking the bolt tips don't have to be metal, although that does work best. Crossbows seem to have more moving parts, at least until you get to modern compound bows.

But yeah, they can be very effective weapons. We used ours on a would-be truck thief a few years ago. We still have the truck, we didn't get hurt, and for somereason MrArrowInTheAss hasn't been back.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Furthermore, whoever is saying crossbowmen require little training has obviously never shot a crossbow and tried to hit anything that's not the side of a barn. There is a reason why the genoese and other mercenery forces were feared.

Don't be silly, crossbows do require very little training compared to the alternatives. Most of the elements that made up a typical medieval army would have been men who had trained for years. The crossbow is comparatively easy to master, requiring only weeks for a trainee to reach combat effectiveness. Given a month a crossbowman could be trained up who could kill a knight at fifty paces and compared quite favorably to a longbowman--and both of them are the product of years of training.

[Thanas]

^where do you get that specific information from?

And yes, crossbowmen require little training compared to the alternatives of knights or lonbowmen. Compared to the training of the majority of medieval armies received however, they still stand out. Especially specialized crossbowmen like the ones employed by the Italians.

[Sea Skimmer]

There is also the issue of projectile cost - a quality iron bolt costs more than a lea bullet (especially in the middle ages, where iron was very scarce), and there is a reason why you almost never find bolts when doing excavations on medieval battlefields - the crossbowmen searched the field for them to recycle them.

You seem to have totally missed the fact that the gunpowder needed to fire one shot was and often still is more expensive one bullet. Gunpowder was so expensive and beyond that simply difficult to mass produce that it wasn’t common for armies have men fire more then one or two shots in training until the second half of the 19th century. At least with bolts you can just as you said, go out and pick them up for reuse, making training costs more or less irrelevant.

Furthermore, whoever is saying crossbowmen require little training has obviously never shot a crossbow and tried to hit anything that's not the side of a barn. There is a reason why the genoese and other mercenery forces were feared.

Good thing an enemy army is a target the size of a cornfield, not a barn. I find it just funny though that you’d question the accuracy of crossbows when we are comparing them to early smoothbore firearms, which even in trained hands might have trouble hitting a barn door.

[Baka^Ni]

Are they not easier to shot then a regular bow? Especially when you don't have to be pin-point precise?

Whilst I've never shot a crossbow, by the sheer mechanics, it must be easier to shoot accurately than a longbow.

When shooting you have to bare in mind 3 different variables.

1). Your aim point. Unless you use a sight ring, you're basically shooting barebow, there is no 'sight' or anything else to accurately/consistently point at your target.

2). I'm not sure what you'd call it, but horizontal consistency. If the back of the bow isn't lined up with the front, then your shot will drift to the left or the right of where you're aiming it at.

3). Draw length. When shooting a longbow the power of the shot and therefore the height of the arrow will vary depending on how consistently you can pull back to exactly the same point.

All of the above apply to a longbow.

Now ignoring any other differences, the crossbow must be easier to shoot purely because it has exactly the same draw length everytime. There is no human error involved, an important variable is removed.

A tiny bit of history, after they raised the wreak of the Mary Rose, a cache of original longbows were discovered intact. In testing these longbows to destruction, they were found to be ~150lbs in force.

150 foot pounds of force is a considerable amount, I find it highly unlikely that anyone could shoot a bow of that strength, accurately without years of training and physical development. I could be wrong but I remember reading that the very skeletons of archers were deformed by the stresses placed on their bodies.

A crossbow conversely, once the string is pulled back either by hand or winch, is held by the bow itself.

[Pablo Sanchez]

^where do you get that specific information from?

The book Medieval Warfare: A History, ed. Maurice Keen, specifically the essay by Andrew Ayton titled "Arms, Armor, and Horses."

How about you?

And yes, crossbowmen require little training compared to the alternatives of knights or lonbowmen. Compared to the training of the majority of medieval armies received however, they still stand out.

What do you mean? Are you perhaps buying into the popularly held misconception that medieval armies included large peasant levies? The historical record of battles for which we have good records (e.g., Agincourt, Crecy, Lechfeld, and others) shows that medieval hosts were usually made up almost entirely of real fighters--professional mercenaries, knights, and their feudal retainers. Of these, the mercenary crossbowman would generally have been the most parsimoniously trained and equipped.

[Zixinus]

So what's the consensus for bayonets on the crossbows? Worth it or not?

[Gil Hamilton]

So what's the consensus for bayonets on the crossbows? Worth it or not?

I'm not even sure how you'd put a bayonet on a crossbow. The front end of any sort of heavy crossbow has something called a "goatsfoot", which you put your foot through so you can use your entire body to quickly reset the bow due to its tremendously large draw weight. Maybe on a cranked one, but I don't see much point.

[Thanas]

There is also the issue of projectile cost - a quality iron bolt costs more than a lea bullet (especially in the middle ages, where iron was very scarce), and there is a reason why you almost never find bolts when doing excavations on medieval battlefields - the crossbowmen searched the field for them to recycle them.

You seem to have totally missed the fact that the gunpowder needed to fire one shot was and often still is more expensive one bullet. Gunpowder was so expensive and beyond that simply difficult to mass produce that it wasn’t common for armies have men fire more then one or two shots in training until the second half of the 19th century. At least with bolts you can just as you said, go out and pick them up for reuse, making training costs more or less irrelevant.

Yeah, I guess I did. Conceded.

Good thing an enemy army is a target the size of a cornfield, not a barn. I find it just funny though that you’d question the accuracy of crossbows when we are comparing them to early smoothbore firearms, which even in trained hands might have trouble hitting a barn door.

Ehh...I was actually trying to argue that crossbows are actually superior in accuracy than an early fire arm.

What do you mean? Are you perhaps buying into the popularly held misconception that medieval armies included large peasant levies?

I can attest that at least some early medieval armies up until the 12th century did indeed include large peasant levies, like in the case of the saxon usurpers against Henry IV (HRE). Lampert mentions them explicitly in his annales (MGH Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usu scholarum, vol. 38 ).