Weapons Question: Crossbows vs. Early Firearms

[Malthus]

I'm unsure why the consensus is that early modern gunpowder was cheap. What I have heard is that what made gunpowder expensive in Europe was a relative shortage of saltpetre - until the English started to exploit Indian sources, and (later) industrial methods were developed to manufacture it.

For example, the relative expense of gunpowder is sometimes cited offhand as the reason why English armies practiced drilling with live ammo, while continental armies generally did not (giving the former and advantage in speedy firing). 

However, if this understanding is incorrect, I welcome any sources on the topic.

[Malthus]

I had this very discussion with a friend of mine nearly 30 years ago. Being a physicist he went back to first principles and together we calculated the kinetic energy of a musket ball compared to that of a crossbow quarrel. We came to the conclusion that the kinetic energy imparted to a musket ball was at least an order of magnitude greater than that imparted to a crossbow quarrel.

Also an issue.
In Asia they tended not to have armour on the level of that seen in Europe to deal with, hence cutting, piercing, slashing, etc... remained good things to have your weapons do.
In Europe you just had to hit knights as hard as possible.


That's another history question really...why don't you get such heavily armoured soldiers outside of Europe?
Just a case of feudalism and Asian armies being mostly commoners supplied by the government as opposed to rich guys who bought themselves all the best stuff? In Japan there was the shortage of decent iron issue too but I doubt that applied everywhere.

I dunno, Samurai armour is pretty heavy duty.

[PDH]

I don't know where Viking got his stuff about cheap cannon.  I'm wary of "experimental archeology".  I imagine it was expensive to dig up, smelt and shape all that iron in the late middle ages.  Quality of iron was probably inconsistent, and that made the guns dangerous.  I don't think using cannon as field artillery occurred with much regularity until the Renaissance period.  They were mostly used to knock down fortifications.

You do realize that experimental archaeology for historical subjects like this involve the tying of written sources, extant remains (from museums, etc) to actually producing the products like cannons.  Your backhanded dismissal shows you do not care to understand.  It does not seek to be an end-all, but rather to fill in some of the space between theory and events.

Iron was expensive, but well available.  The problem was, as you say, casting large pieces.  Still, the first gunpowder weapons were proto-cannons, and they were used on the battlefields from the time of the 100 Years War at least.

Lastly, the Renaissance was part of the Late Middle Ages.

[Malthus]

My own opinion is that the reason people chose firearms over crossbows has nothing to do with the relative technical attributes of the weapons.

I'm thinking that the smoke & noise factor may have been the most significant - purely as a psychological boost, as well as practically in terms of scaring the enemy and their horses. It is very satisfying to shoot off a gun, one really has the feeling one is dealing out death & destruction - even if on a harmless tin can.

[Razgovory]

I don't know where Viking got his stuff about cheap cannon.  I'm wary of "experimental archeology".  I imagine it was expensive to dig up, smelt and shape all that iron in the late middle ages.  Quality of iron was probably inconsistent, and that made the guns dangerous.  I don't think using cannon as field artillery occurred with much regularity until the Renaissance period.  They were mostly used to knock down fortifications.

You do realize that experimental archaeology for historical subjects like this involve the tying of written sources, extant remains (from museums, etc) to actually producing the products like cannons.  Your backhanded dismissal shows you do not care to understand.  It does not seek to be an end-all, but rather to fill in some of the space between theory and events.

Iron was expensive, but well available.  The problem was, as you say, casting large pieces.  Still, the first gunpowder weapons were proto-cannons, and they were used on the battlefields from the time of the 100 Years War at least.

Lastly, the Renaissance was part of the Late Middle Ages.

You do understand there is a difference between people who have a strong understanding of chemistry, metallurgy and physics trying to do something they know would work, and illiterate people who were frequently killed experimenting with this kind of thing?  Thor Heyerdahl, was big into experimental archeology which he used to bridge his wild theories with events.  It didn't make those theories anymore right.  Hence I'm wary of it, especially the vague reference that Viking referred to. The cannons used on battle fields in the 100 years war were immobile and often put up on earthworks.  They didn't become an effective mobile battlefield weapon until the 30 years war or so.

[Razgovory]

I'm unsure why the consensus is that early modern gunpowder was cheap. What I have heard is that what made gunpowder expensive in Europe was a relative shortage of saltpetre - until the English started to exploit Indian sources, and (later) industrial methods were developed to manufacture it.

For example, the relative expense of gunpowder is sometimes cited offhand as the reason why English armies practiced drilling with live ammo, while continental armies generally did not (giving the former and advantage in speedy firing). 

However, if this understanding is incorrect, I welcome any sources on the topic.

The Chinese were using it as a toy, so it couldn't be that expensive to make.  I don't think practicing with live ammo was common even during the American Civil War.

[Richard Hakluyt]

On the cost issue I would imagine that an efficient crossbow and a supply of true-flying quarrels were also rather expensive. It was certainly not a matter of equipping any old rabble with a weapon that could be produced by any old blacksmith or carpenter. I recall the French hiring Genoese crossbowmen in their wars against the English, these professionals were very expensive.

[PDH]

You do understand there is a difference between people who have a strong understanding of chemistry, metallurgy and physics trying to do something they know would work, and illiterate people who were frequently killed experimenting with this kind of thing?  Thor Heyerdahl, was big into experimental archeology which he used to bridge his wild theories with events.  It didn't make those theories anymore right.  Hence I'm wary of it, especially the vague reference that Viking referred to.

No, you don't understand experimental archaeology, theories, or methods used.  Using Heyerdahl as your reference point shows that.

[Queequeg]

I had this very discussion with a friend of mine nearly 30 years ago. Being a physicist he went back to first principles and together we calculated the kinetic energy of a musket ball compared to that of a crossbow quarrel. We came to the conclusion that the kinetic energy imparted to a musket ball was at least an order of magnitude greater than that imparted to a crossbow quarrel.

Also an issue.
In Asia they tended not to have armour on the level of that seen in Europe to deal with, hence cutting, piercing, slashing, etc... remained good things to have your weapons do.
In Europe you just had to hit knights as hard as possible.


That's another history question really...why don't you get such heavily armoured soldiers outside of Europe?
Just a case of feudalism and Asian armies being mostly commoners supplied by the government as opposed to rich guys who bought themselves all the best stuff? In Japan there was the shortage of decent iron issue too but I doubt that applied everywhere.

I dunno, Samurai armour is pretty heavy duty.

It's more comparable to contemporary Russian or Turkish armor.  Largely lamellar and ceramic, occasional nanban-inspired breastplate.  I think it would actually probably be a lot easier to fight in than the Western equivalent, and due to Japan's inclement weather and iron shortage it was probably ideally suited to the period. 

[The Brain]

So how expensive was iron in Japan?

[Viking]

You do realize that experimental archaeology for historical subjects like this involve the tying of written sources, extant remains (from museums, etc) to actually producing the products like cannons.  Your backhanded dismissal shows you do not care to understand.  It does not seek to be an end-all, but rather to fill in some of the space between theory and events.

Iron was expensive, but well available.  The problem was, as you say, casting large pieces.  Still, the first gunpowder weapons were proto-cannons, and they were used on the battlefields from the time of the 100 Years War at least.

Lastly, the Renaissance was part of the Late Middle Ages.

the source I had for the early guns was this time team episode, the link is to the relevant time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=I_o2ShhsKd0#t=1189s

the amateur builds one in an afternoon.

[The Brain]

I don't think the consensus is that gunpowder was cheap, but rather that it wasn't that expensive.

If I were to guess I would say that the cost of a crossbow bolt may not have been that much different from the cost of ball and powder. The powder probably gained more from mass production than the bolt, and the balls could be manufactured trivially easy by the gunner himself (no skill required). I don't know the price of lead.

[Queequeg]

So how expensive was iron in Japan?

South of Hokkaido and most northern Honshu, Japan is pretty mineral poor.  I don't know exactly how expensive it was, but I don't think it was practical to have massive steel plate of the type seen in the west. 

[Malthus]

I don't think the consensus is that gunpowder was cheap, but rather that it wasn't that expensive.

If I were to guess I would say that the cost of a crossbow bolt may not have been that much different from the cost of ball and powder. The powder probably gained more from mass production than the bolt, and the balls could be manufactured trivially easy by the gunner himself (no skill required). I don't know the price of lead.

Yeah, and given that I've read that the opposite was true, I wonder what people are basing this idea on.

[Malthus]

So how expensive was iron in Japan?

South of Hokkaido and most northern Honshu, Japan is pretty mineral poor.  I don't know exactly how expensive it was, but I don't think it was practical to have massive steel plate of the type seen in the west.

Japanese armour included types which had, basically, massive steel plates for breastplates. Where it differed was in how the armour was articulated (the Japanese used laces a lot).

More than you ever wanted to know about it: http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/katchu/katchu.html