Weapons Question: Crossbows vs. Early Firearms

[jimmy olsen]

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.

His post has enough merit to deserve a response other than dismissal.

[Fireblade]

I'm going to go with "boomsticks are cooler than shit that shoots arrows".

Good question, actually. Whoever said on page 1 that guns and crossbows were used together until gun technology clearly outclassed crossbows is probably correct. I have access to JSTOR and I'm kind of curious about that question myself, so I'll look at a few articles tonight or tomorrow and see what's up.

[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.

His post has enough merit to deserve a response other than dismissal.

The content of his character doesn't.

[Razgovory]

I'm sorry you don't like me because I'm not a hateful bigot.

[jimmy olsen]

I have access to JSTOR

So jealous!

[Fireblade]

I have access to JSTOR

So jealous!

I'm kind of sick of looking at JSTOR because I've been writing my big historiography paper and a little one for another class. But I'll make a sacrifice for Languish.

But seriously, I'm going to bribe some people to let me keep my shit active after I get my masters and get a job that pays a decent wage.

[The Brain]

Crossbows clearly "caught on" and were very widely used for centuries. They were gradually phased out in favor of guns but it took a long time.

Initially gunpowder was expensive, but after saltpeter plantations were introduced (late 14th century) prices fell dramatically.

[Martinus]

Could the fact that some Popes banned crossbows under the pain of anathema also decrease their popularity (but this is also a testament to their popularity in the first place)?

Besides, as others said, crossbows were widely used through high-to-late middle ages. I suspect early guns had a novely factor behind them, but I think crossbows continued to be used until reliable guns were introduced.

[Martinus]

Arquebus had the added advantage of scaring the living shit out of animals and peasants.

Yeah, I didn't think of it but it could be this - the armies of the era relied on cavalry heavily.

[Josquius]

Gunpowder was difficult to make but so were crossbows and bolts- guns were a fair bit simpler than crossbows, less mechanics.

The big advantages guns had IMO is they scale up a lot better. A cannon is much better than a giant crossbow for knocking down castles. You're already paying a lot for ammunition for your cannon so you've already got the infrastructure there to make gunpowder, less stuff to haul around on campaign too.

Gupowder is just so much more versatile than the rather bespoke one type of bolt:one type of crossbow relationship of crossbows.
Even if you don't have any guns, gunpowder can still be rather useful for sieges.

[chipwich]

Maybe it's harder to use a crossbow as a club.

[Richard Hakluyt]

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.

[dps]

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 think there's any doubt about early artillery being dangerous.  Even in the 19th century, bursting cannon were a concern (especially when new designs were introduced).

Being dangerous doesn't make them expensive, though.

[Josquius]

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.

[dps]

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.

Partly, I think, it was a question of mobility.  Heavily armored knights, despite being mounted, weren't really all that mobile.  Look at the differences that the Mongols covered--you couldn't do that with armored knights.  Plus, on the plains, at the tactical level light cavalry and horse archers could have ridden circles aroung heavily knights.  Western and central Europe was mostly just wooded enough and just mountainous enough that the battlefield mobility advantage lighter mounted troops had on knights went away without denying the knights their advantages over foot soldiers (it's not an accident or coincidence that the first place in western or central Europe that foot soldiers were first able to consistantly fight knights on equal or even favorable terms was a place where the terrain was mountainous enough to take the knights advantages away--the Swiss Alps).

Also, there's the problem of the horses themselves.  You couldn't put a knight in full plate on a steppe pony--you needed specially bred horses to carry the load.  It wouldn't surprise me that finding suitable mounts was more of a problem in equipping knights than acquiring decent armor.