Crossbows: More Prevalent & Easier to Use?

[Kayin Dreemurr]

I've had thoughts like this before, but wanted to ask...

What effect might there have been had Crossbows become much more prevalent then they did, and easier to use?

EDIT: I decided to expand on the why I had for asking this. I've often wondered if it might have been possible to use some later gunpowder weapon tactics with crossbows, especially if they reached a point where they were just as easy to use and employed in enough numbers.

 

[Analytical Engine]

When does this happen, and where?

The Chinese had them, as did the ancient Greeks.

 

[Faeelin]

I think this is difficult, for a reason you touch on. Gunpowder gave a power source other than muscle power. Crossbows don't.

 

[Prism]

I always thought that crossbows were fairly easy to use. They came in a huge variety as well. Some were used as siege engines,the Chinese had repeating crossbows and people are now making miniature crossbows and wrist-mounted to boot. I don't know how powerful they were in comparison to traditional bow and arrows,but they were definitely commonplace in Antiquity and Middle Ages and were portrayed frequently in hunting tapestries and illustrations. As for gunpowder tactics,maybe. Have some gunpowder or other explosive attached to or part of a crossbow bolt. Maybe a modified grenade.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Crossbows aren't magic.
If you need something that will punch through plate, say, then you need an incredibly strong pull on the bow. This can't be done with just wood, so you need composite bows or spring steel bows.

Composite bows have problems with delamination in humid weather, and steel of that quality is EXPENSIVE,!!

 

[Lucius Verus]

snip

Just to add to your enlightening post.

The power of a crossbow is also correlated with the length of reloads. Crossbows were storage devices for force, the generation of which was limited by the strength of the user. It started with leveraged hand cocked crossbows which did fine against lightly armored troops at close range while maintaining respectable reload times. Then came better and heavier armor which required slow cranking mechanisms or foot leverage that made the crossbowmen vulnerable to direct charges (especially cavalry) since they couldn't put up the volume of firepower needed to repel off direct attacks by themselves. Eventually by the time crossbows reached their zenith in power in the form of the arbalest the reload time made them prohibitive in contrast to firearms or long-bows both of which had better rates of fire.

Its not to say that they didn't have their place, in sieges where time was less of a concern and combat was relatively close range an accurate and powerful crossbow did wonders. But I wonder, how well would villagers with crossbows behind mobile walls do against nomadic archers? I don't think there are too many accounts of this but the implications of an effective way to repel nomads pre-gunpowder is interesting.

... repeating crossbows...

Their main appeal was that the bolts were coated in poison, otherwise the historical accounts seem to suggest that the shots were quite weak in of themselves (only so much force could be applied to each bolt at its rate of fire).

 

[longsword14]

Their main appeal was that the bolts were coated in poison, otherwise the historical accounts seem to suggest that the shots were quite weak in of themselves (only so much force could be applied to each bolt at its rate of fire).

Or as an anti-boarding weapon used for point defence on a ship where the semiautomatic crossbow can be scaled up without much regard for the weight.
With the bow slung on some sort of a pivot you could have a person or two use both of their hands for propelling the darts.
I think I actually saw a period picture with such a weapon on a ship.

 

[James Ricker]

Crossbows aren't magic.
If you need something that will punch through plate, say, then you need an incredibly strong pull on the bow. This can't be done with just wood, so you need composite bows or spring steel bows.

Composite bows have problems with delamination in humid weather, and steel of that quality is EXPENSIVE,!!

Consider the cost of a cross bow vs a suit of plate armor. A cheaper cross bow makes expensive armor ineffective. It's cheaper to buy a bunch of cross bows to deal with enemy armored soldiers than to equip your own soldiers with armor to deal with enemy armored soldiers.

 

[elkarlo]

Think also bows seemed to not be that great until the high middle ages. The Crusaders, when fully armorered, seemed to be ok against Arab archers. Which would make the crossbow more appealing, even with less range, it had more stopping power. The Byzantines were surprised by it against the Normans.