Weapons Question: Crossbows vs. Early Firearms

[Malthus]

Anyone have some insight as to why crossbows never really "caught on" in popularity compared with early firearms? They both shared the advantage that they were far easier to use than longbows, and they both had the same drawback of low rate of fire. In terms of expense, gunpowder was always very expensive to make and a bitch to store and distribute. Not only that, misfires, accidental explosions, etc. made using the things risky.

It is easy to see why armies rejected longbows - as being too expensive to train soldiers to use effectively. Even if it's a better weapon, if you can't actually get enough longbowmen, that fact does you no good.

So why did early modern armies choose early firearms over crossbows?

[Jacob]

My guess is that initially crossbows and firearms were used alongside each other, but as firearms continued to develop they eventually became clearly superior to crossbows which faded out of use.

[MadImmortalMan]

Probably the same reason as longbows only to a lesser degree. Ammo is one. Logistics. It's a lot easier to make a musket ball than a reliable bolt. That's another factor maybe.

Crossbows weren't quite as rare as longbows though, I don't think. They were used in some places pretty heavily--like China. The larger siege versions maybe more widely.

[Malthus]

Logistically, though, gunpowder is terrible - it was in premodern times (allegedly) horribly expensive, get it damp and its useless, a spark and it explodes.

It is a lot less bulky than sheaves of bolts or arrows admittedly. 

[Viking]

Longbows require exceptional training and spirit to operate. It takes 20 years to make a longbowman.

Comparing Arquebus to Crossbows, Crossbows have a slightly higher rate of fire but with lesser range and power. Both weapons were just as heavy and just as useless in wet conditions. Crossbows will get their mechanism wet and warped due to water as well as their strings wet. The Arquebus will rust and the match and powder will get wet. The Arquebus had greater range and penetration. Furthermore the drill and maintenence for the arquebus was either easier or quicker than crossbow drill. Arquebus had the added advantage of scaring the living shit out of animals and peasants.

Regarding the expense of gunpowder, that doesn't seem to be an issue anywhere. Gunpowder mills seem to have been everywhere and the effort it takes to make a lead ball is orders of magnitude less than the work effort it would take to make a crossbow bolt.

[Razgovory]

Anyone have some insight as to why crossbows never really "caught on" in popularity compared with early firearms? They both shared the advantage that they were far easier to use than longbows, and they both had the same drawback of low rate of fire. In terms of expense, gunpowder was always very expensive to make and a bitch to store and distribute. Not only that, misfires, accidental explosions, etc. made using the things risky.

It is easy to see why armies rejected longbows - as being too expensive to train soldiers to use effectively. Even if it's a better weapon, if you can't actually get enough longbowmen, that fact does you no good.

So why did early modern armies choose early firearms over crossbows?

Crossbows did catch on.   Medieval armies made heavy use of crossbows so much so that most armies phased out composite and self-bows in favor of crossbows.  Gunpowder wasn't that expensive, and by the time of mass musket use, it was already being produced in large quantities for cannon.  Crossbows didn't replace knights or guys with swords, spears and axes, but then neither did the bow and arrow.  It took several centuries for the gunpower weapons to replace the knight or the melee infantry.  Hell they were using the lance and saber up until the 20th century.

[Malthus]

I'm basing the notion that manufacture of gunpowder was extremely expensive on reading this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Gunpowder-Alchemy-Bombards-Pyrotechnics-Explosive/dp/0465037186

But of the two, Kelly says, gunpowder has had a greater impact on the course of civilization. For example, he argues plausibly that, by the 16th century, the cost of gunpowder needed by an effective fighting force "favored strong centralized states" with the authority and ability to tax and in turn created "the foundations of modern nations."

I assume you have some reasons why this guy is wrong.

[Razgovory]

I'm basing the notion that manufacture of gunpowder was extremely expensive on reading this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Gunpowder-Alchemy-Bombards-Pyrotechnics-Explosive/dp/0465037186

But of the two, Kelly says, gunpowder has had a greater impact on the course of civilization. For example, he argues plausibly that, by the 16th century, the cost of gunpowder needed by an effective fighting force "favored strong centralized states" with the authority and ability to tax and in turn created "the foundations of modern nations."

I assume you have some reasons why this guy is wrong.

Gunpowder was used heavily used by non-centralized states.  It's probably requires no more centralization then iron production does.

[Viking]

I'm basing the notion that manufacture of gunpowder was extremely expensive on reading this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Gunpowder-Alchemy-Bombards-Pyrotechnics-Explosive/dp/0465037186

But of the two, Kelly says, gunpowder has had a greater impact on the course of civilization. For example, he argues plausibly that, by the 16th century, the cost of gunpowder needed by an effective fighting force "favored strong centralized states" with the authority and ability to tax and in turn created "the foundations of modern nations."

I assume you have some reasons why this guy is wrong.

My main reason would be that only strong centralized states (relatively speaking for the time) would be able to maintain and transport the steady stream of gunpowder that an army would need.

Remember, you are comparing the cost of gunpowder with the cost of quarrels made by the arbalists in the field or at home between campaigns.

The author is comparing states to states, not weapon to weapon. Once the superiority of guns is established the strong centralized states capable of funding and maintaining powder mills would be more successful than those who didn't.

Compare this with arbalists making quarrels as part of their own investment in gaining loot and I think the argument is pretty clear.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm basing the notion that manufacture of gunpowder was extremely expensive on reading this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Gunpowder-Alchemy-Bombards-Pyrotechnics-Explosive/dp/0465037186

But of the two, Kelly says, gunpowder has had a greater impact on the course of civilization. For example, he argues plausibly that, by the 16th century, the cost of gunpowder needed by an effective fighting force "favored strong centralized states" with the authority and ability to tax and in turn created "the foundations of modern nations."

I assume you have some reasons why this guy is wrong.

I've read in a variety of sources that the expense of *cannons* aided centralization, this sounds like a bad translation of that idea.

Add me to the list of people who think gunpowder not particularly expensive.

[MadImmortalMan]

I've read in a variety of sources that the expense of *cannons* aided centralization

From my source watching the Borgias, you are correct.

[Viking]

from what I gather the banded cannon of the late medieval ages was cheap. Experimental archeology has demonstrated that making a banded cannon of the kind used at bosworth was a mere matter of a few hours work. A skilled fletcher could probably knock off 10 quarrels in the same time.

The cost of cannon appears to go up when you start operating cast cannons (first bronze then iron) which makes powerful cannons which operate at high pressures possible. Large metal cast of this kind aren't really viable until the industrial age and effectively had to be produced one by one using a slow process with many specialists.

There is a clear increase in % of battlefield dead from cannonshot up til the breech loaded rifle era when industrial furnaces capable of mass production of cannon were in use by all major powers. At some point in this process field formations become obsolete.

[dps]

Comparing Arquebus to Crossbows, Crossbows have a slightly higher rate of fire but with lesser range and power. Both weapons were just as heavy and just as useless in wet conditions. Crossbows will get their mechanism wet and warped due to water as well as their strings wet. The Arquebus will rust and the match and powder will get wet. The Arquebus had greater range and penetration. Furthermore the drill and maintenence for the arquebus was either easier or quicker than crossbow drill. Arquebus had the added advantage of scaring the living shit out of animals and peasants.

My past reading would tend to support the idea that crossbows were inferior to early firearms in range, and that more training was required to use them (which seems odd to me, but I've read that in several sources, and haven't read any that claim the opposite).

[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.

[Viking]

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.

I don't care what you think.