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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Malthus on November 21, 2012, 05:46:34 PM
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. :unsure: 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.
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
QuoteBut 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.
Quote from: Malthus on November 21, 2012, 06:26:58 PM
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
QuoteBut 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.
Quote from: Malthus on November 21, 2012, 06:26:58 PM
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
QuoteBut 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.
Quote from: Malthus on November 21, 2012, 06:26:58 PM
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
QuoteBut 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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2012, 06:39:30 PM
I've read in a variety of sources that the expense of *cannons* aided centralization
From my source watching the Borgias, you are correct.
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.
Quote from: Viking on November 21, 2012, 06:10:01 PM
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).
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2012, 11:48:14 PM
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.
Quote from: Viking on November 21, 2012, 11:49:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2012, 11:48:14 PM
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.
I'm going to go with "boomsticks are cooler than shit that shoots arrows".
Good question, actually. :hmm: 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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 22, 2012, 12:20:06 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 21, 2012, 11:49:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2012, 11:48:14 PM
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.
I'm sorry you don't like me because I'm not a hateful bigot.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 22, 2012, 12:53:17 AM
Quote from: Fireblade on November 22, 2012, 12:26:02 AMI have access to JSTOR
So jealous! :weep:
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Viking on November 21, 2012, 06:10:01 PM
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.
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.
Maybe it's harder to use a crossbow as a club.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2012, 11:48:14 PM
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.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 22, 2012, 06:12:37 AM
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.
Quote from: Tyr on November 22, 2012, 06:27:45 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 22, 2012, 06:12:37 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Tyr on November 22, 2012, 06:27:45 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 22, 2012, 06:12:37 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2012, 11:48:14 PM
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.
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. :D
Quote from: PDH on November 22, 2012, 08:58:39 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2012, 11:48:14 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on November 22, 2012, 08:39:22 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2012, 11:48:45 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on November 22, 2012, 08:54:29 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 22, 2012, 06:27:45 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 22, 2012, 06:12:37 AM
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.
So how expensive was iron in Japan?
Quote from: PDH on November 22, 2012, 08:58:39 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: The Brain on November 22, 2012, 12:12:53 PM
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.
Quote from: The Brain on November 22, 2012, 12:19:01 PM
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.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 22, 2012, 12:22:11 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 22, 2012, 12:12:53 PM
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
Quote from: Malthus on November 22, 2012, 12:23:24 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 22, 2012, 12:19:01 PM
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.
Mostly the massive switch to gunpowder weapons.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 22, 2012, 12:22:11 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 22, 2012, 12:12:53 PM
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.
I am not convinced.
Quote from: The Brain on November 22, 2012, 12:12:53 PM
So how expensive was iron in Japan?
Less expensive than the US. No unions.
Quote from: The Brain on November 22, 2012, 12:30:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 22, 2012, 12:23:24 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 22, 2012, 12:19:01 PM
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.
Mostly the massive switch to gunpowder weapons.
I guess tanks must be cheaper than horses.
Quote from: PDH on November 22, 2012, 12:10:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2012, 11:48:45 AM
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.
Uh, huh. Thank you, teach. I guess Heyerdahl wasn't involved in experimental archaeology. Thanks for telling me what I do and don't understand. Viking saw it on a TV show, I guess that checks out. I'm sorry that I wary of shit that Viking saw once on TV, I guess that 's really close to your fucking heart, otherwise you wouldn't have jumped down my throat for suggesting that Heyerdahl was involved in this.
Quote from: Malthus on November 22, 2012, 12:38:27 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 22, 2012, 12:30:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 22, 2012, 12:23:24 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 22, 2012, 12:19:01 PM
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.
Mostly the massive switch to gunpowder weapons.
I guess tanks must be cheaper than horses.
Er, OK.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 22, 2012, 12:32:40 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 22, 2012, 12:12:53 PM
So how expensive was iron in Japan?
Less expensive than the US. No unions.
And if only they had Swedes to sell them some.
Quote
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).
Nanban-influenced breastplates that I previously mentioned, and they were generally made of iron rather than steel. And again, they were 17th-century like single pieces of armor rather than full 16th Century plate. I think there's probably also a technological component-I think it's probably a more than safe bet that the Japanese at the tail end of the Sengoku period were technologically on par more with the England of the English Civil War than the England that saw Henry VIII fight in one huge piece of steel at a tournament. Japanese firearm technology and technique was superb.
QuoteI am not convinced.
Why do you think the Japanese built fighter planes out of wood long after it had fallen by the wayside in the west?
Quote from: Queequeg on November 22, 2012, 12:45:43 PM
Quote
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).
Nanban-influenced breastplates that I previously mentioned, and they were generally made of iron rather than steel. And again, they were 17th-century like single pieces of armor rather than full 16th Century plate. I think there's probably also a technological component-I think it's probably a more than safe bet that the Japanese at the tail end of the Sengoku period were technologically on par more with the England of the English Civil War than the England that saw Henry VIII fight in one huge piece of steel at a tournament. Japanese firearm technology and technique was superb.
QuoteI am not convinced.
Why do you think the Japanese built fighter planes out of wood long after it had fallen by the wayside in the west?
The European warrior elite wore silk and ate spiced food. My impression isn't that the Japanese warrior elite couldn't have afforded iron armor.
Quote from: PDH on November 22, 2012, 12:10:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2012, 11:48:45 AM
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.
He just doesn't get it. He managed to disagree with the premise that the existence of a thing proves that things of that kind exist. He has a fundamental problem with the scientific method itself.
Time Team's demonstration using the best knowledge within the field of experimental archaeology shows that building these early cannon was easy. Possibly within the skill set of the local cooper and doable within an afternoon per cannon.
That wasn't the only reason I gave though. Japan rains all the time, and snow is very common in the north. It's actually a pretty difficult climate, especially if you get high enough in the hills. And you'd probably be wearing this armor a bit more than your warrior elite compatriots in the West. I don't think iron armor was practical-which has a price component, obviously, but your armor isn't going to be any good if you're caught in a rainstorm in Tohoku of the far north and everything starts rusting. Imported iron is better spent on swords, which aren't exposed to the elements nearly as much and are not going to be substituted by ceramic.
Quote from: The Brain on November 22, 2012, 12:49:47 PM
The European warrior elite wore silk and ate spiced food. My impression isn't that the Japanese warrior elite couldn't have afforded iron armor.
To the best of my knowledge Japanese armour was not primarily about stopping armor piercing projectiles like european plate armour was. Japanese armour was about stopping blade cuts and bladed slicing arrows while giving primacy to movement.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 22, 2012, 12:57:20 PM
That wasn't the only reason I gave though. Japan rains all the time, and snow is very common in the north. It's actually a pretty difficult climate, especially if you get high enough in the hills. And you'd probably be wearing this armor a bit more than your warrior elite compatriots in the West. I don't think iron armor was practical-which has a price component, obviously, but your armor isn't going to be any good if you're caught in a rainstorm in Tohoku of the far north and everything starts rusting.
It's pretty damn wet in northern europe. Armies actually carted around heavy barrels full of sand so they could de-rust chainmail. Plate mail was even harder to maintain and required a whole bunch of retainers just to maintain the armor. Yes, weather is a big problem, that just makes the armor more expensive.
:hmm:
Actually, I guessed previously that your average Samurai would have to spend a lot more time in armor without the comfort of a large number of retainers or blacksmiths, but I'm not totally sure this is warranted. I'm not even sure that the rate of violence between the Sengoku and the Thirty Year's War aren't comparable-Thirty Year's might even be higher.
Quote from: Viking on November 22, 2012, 12:53:47 PM
Quote from: PDH on November 22, 2012, 12:10:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2012, 11:48:45 AM
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.
He just doesn't get it. He managed to disagree with the premise that the existence of a thing proves that things of that kind exist. He has a fundamental problem with the scientific method itself.
Time Team's demonstration using the best knowledge within the field of experimental archaeology shows that building these early cannon was easy. Possibly within the skill set of the local cooper and doable within an afternoon per cannon.
You keep telling yourself that, sparky.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 22, 2012, 01:07:14 PM
:hmm:
Actually, I guessed previously that your average Samurai would have to spend a lot more time in armor without the comfort of a large number of retainers or blacksmiths, but I'm not totally sure this is warranted. I'm not even sure that the rate of violence between the Sengoku and the Thirty Year's War aren't comparable-Thirty Year's might even be higher.
it did take 300 years for Germany's population to recover and the 30yw competes with the taiping revolution for the title of third bloodiest war in history.
Quote from: Malthus on November 22, 2012, 12:38:27 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 22, 2012, 12:30:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 22, 2012, 12:23:24 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 22, 2012, 12:19:01 PM
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.
Mostly the massive switch to gunpowder weapons.
I guess tanks must be cheaper than horses.
Depends on the tank and the horse.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 22, 2012, 12:45:43 PM
Quote
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).
Nanban-influenced breastplates that I previously mentioned, and they were generally made of iron rather than steel. And again, they were 17th-century like single pieces of armor rather than full 16th Century plate. I think there's probably also a technological component-I think it's probably a more than safe bet that the Japanese at the tail end of the Sengoku period were technologically on par more with the England of the English Civil War than the England that saw Henry VIII fight in one huge piece of steel at a tournament. Japanese firearm technology and technique was superb.
Apropos of nothing, Henry VIII's tourny armour in the Tower shows the man had some ... masculinity issues. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on November 22, 2012, 08:54:29 AM
I dunno, Samurai armour is pretty heavy duty.
Japan's, as well as Korea's, terrain is a lot more European than Asian.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 22, 2012, 12:11:56 PM
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.
Plate armor wasn't hard to fight in, that's a myth.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 22, 2012, 12:57:20 PM
That wasn't the only reason I gave though. Japan rains all the time, and snow is very common in the north. It's actually a pretty difficult climate, especially if you get high enough in the hills. And you'd probably be wearing this armor a bit more than your warrior elite compatriots in the West. I don't think iron armor was practical-which has a price component, obviously, but your armor isn't going to be any good if you're caught in a rainstorm in Tohoku of the far north and everything starts rusting. Imported iron is better spent on swords, which aren't exposed to the elements nearly as much and are not going to be substituted by ceramic.
If the English wore armor, then obviously rain wasn't too much of a problem if you took proper care.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 22, 2012, 05:15:19 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 22, 2012, 12:11:56 PM
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.
Plate armor wasn't hard to fight in, that's a myth.
No, it was hard to fight in. Armored knights passed out from heat exhaustion during the battle of Towton, and that was during the middle of a snowstorm. Melee combat is exhausting by itself. Add to that wearing heavy metal clothing that didn't dissipate heat, yeah that's hard to do.
I think I read somewhere that European armor was developed largely to accomodate the logic of the joust.
On the other hand, you have heavily armored professional soldiers like the landsknechts which sort of refutes this.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2012, 07:16:55 PM
I think I read somewhere that European armor was developed largely to accomodate the logic of the joust.
On the other hand, you have heavily armored professional soldiers like the landsknechts which sort of refutes this.
landsers were not typically fully plated. Pikes and muskets equipped with cuirassess and possibly helmets or thigh armor. Though the joust is not the driving factor of armor. The joust would drive for unidirectional limited armor.
Quote from: Viking on November 22, 2012, 07:31:51 PM
landsers were not typically fully plated. Pikes and muskets equipped with cuirassess and possibly helmets or thigh armor. Though the joust is not the driving factor of armor. The joust would drive for unidirectional limited armor.
We might be talking about two different things. I'm talking about the Krauthead mercs with the big two-handed swords.
As to the joust, the effects armor had on the participants mobility and endurance were beside the point in a joust.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 22, 2012, 05:20:36 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 22, 2012, 12:57:20 PM
That wasn't the only reason I gave though. Japan rains all the time, and snow is very common in the north. It's actually a pretty difficult climate, especially if you get high enough in the hills. And you'd probably be wearing this armor a bit more than your warrior elite compatriots in the West. I don't think iron armor was practical-which has a price component, obviously, but your armor isn't going to be any good if you're caught in a rainstorm in Tohoku of the far north and everything starts rusting. Imported iron is better spent on swords, which aren't exposed to the elements nearly as much and are not going to be substituted by ceramic.
If the English wore armor, then obviously rain wasn't too much of a problem if you took proper care.
Its not rain which is the issue, its humidity.
Too bad grumbler is no longer around to give us a first hand account.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2012, 08:19:35 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 22, 2012, 07:31:51 PM
landsers were not typically fully plated. Pikes and muskets equipped with cuirassess and possibly helmets or thigh armor. Though the joust is not the driving factor of armor. The joust would drive for unidirectional limited armor.
We might be talking about two different things. I'm talking about the Krauthead mercs with the big two-handed swords.
As to the joust, the effects armor had on the participants mobility and endurance were beside the point in a joust.
You're talking about the Doppelsöldner, which were a sub group of Landsknechts, recieving double pay to stand i the front line. They were typically heavily armored and armed with the zweihänder (two hander) heavy swords and were not equipped with shields. They (allegedly) went in and used their swords to either cut off the pike heads or knock them aside and kill (or more ideally scare the living shit out of) the pikemen. They had cuirass and greaves on hands and thighs (bits easily accessible to pikes) and were heavily armored yes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2012, 08:19:35 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 22, 2012, 07:31:51 PM
landsers were not typically fully plated. Pikes and muskets equipped with cuirassess and possibly helmets or thigh armor. Though the joust is not the driving factor of armor. The joust would drive for unidirectional limited armor.
We might be talking about two different things. I'm talking about the Krauthead mercs with the big two-handed swords.
As to the joust, the effects armor had on the participants mobility and endurance were beside the point in a joust.
Jousting armor diverged from combat armor, but I am uncertain about when exactly this happened. I find it unlikely that jousting was a significant factor when designing combat armor though.
I find it hard to believe that your run of the mill knight kept two suits of armor in the closet.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2012, 09:23:48 AM
I find it hard to believe that your run of the mill knight kept two suits of armor in the closet.
I find it hard to believe that there was such a thing as a run of the mill knight.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2012, 09:23:48 AM
I find it hard to believe that your run of the mill knight kept two suits of armor in the closet.
Why?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2012, 09:23:48 AM
I find it hard to believe that your run of the mill knight kept two suits of armor in the closet.
I don't think all knights participated in jousts. It may not have required two totally separate suits of armor just some pieces. I don't think early knights used special armor for jousting, it may have been late invention. There were certainly jousting helmets that were unsuited for actual combat.
"Jousting armour" was indeed a later invention, and it was much heavier than armour actually used in battle - it was specialized for the game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jousting_armour#Jousting_armour
It is this stuff which gave rise to the misconceptions about medieval knights being unable to move in armour, being winched onto their horses, etc. This form of armour was (a) not medieval, and (b) not intended for actual warfare - only for the game of jousting, which only involved poking at each other with lances on horseback.
Earlier "jousts" were more like actual battles and used ordinary armour.
What sort of armor did they use in the jousts with flying ostriches?
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2012, 01:41:11 PM
"Jousting armour" was indeed a later invention, and it was much heavier than armour actually used in battle - it was specialized for the game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jousting_armour#Jousting_armour
It is this stuff which gave rise to the misconceptions about medieval knights being unable to move in armour, being winched onto their horses, etc. This form of armour was (a) not medieval, and (b) not intended for actual warfare - only for the game of jousting, which only involved poking at each other with lances on horseback.
Earlier "jousts" were more like actual battles and used ordinary armour.
Yi could still be right if the knights didnt keep it in a closet.
Quote from: sbr on November 23, 2012, 01:42:33 PM
What sort of armor did they use in the jousts with flying ostriches?
One that allowed hitting the two buttons fast enough to stay airborne.
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2012, 01:41:11 PM
Earlier "jousts" were more like actual battles and used ordinary armour.
I seem to recall late Roman Equites using dedicated, ornate armor for mock battles. Can't place where I read about it though.
Quote from: Viking on November 23, 2012, 09:48:22 AM
I find it hard to believe that there was such a thing as a run of the mill knight.
Don Quixote.
Oh wait... he was a run
at the mill knight.
:bleeding:
Quote from: Jacob on November 23, 2012, 06:29:56 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 23, 2012, 09:48:22 AM
I find it hard to believe that there was such a thing as a run of the mill knight.
Don Quixote.
Oh wait... he was a run at the mill knight.
:yeah:
Quote from: Jacob on November 23, 2012, 06:29:56 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 23, 2012, 09:48:22 AM
I find it hard to believe that there was such a thing as a run of the mill knight.
Don Quixote.
Oh wait... he was a run at the mill knight.
:lol:
Quote from: Jacob on November 23, 2012, 06:29:56 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 23, 2012, 09:48:22 AM
I find it hard to believe that there was such a thing as a run of the mill knight.
Don Quixote.
Oh wait... he was a run at the mill knight.
:lol:
One thing that really sealed to dominance of the musket was the invention of the simple socket-bayonet. That turned the musketman into the modern infantryman, and saw the end of "specialized" infantry troops as the bulk of formations - now everyone was an infantryman, and could fight at range with mass volley and close and fight shock as well.
Obviously, once you start lining up your infantry and using volley musket fire to soften up the opponent and then charge and give them the bayonet, there is no real place for anyone with something as cumbersome as crossbow.
Also, I don't think the cost of powder/shot per soldier was necessarily more expensive than quarrels. Rather the advent of massed musket bearing infantry meant that you had to have some way to supply a lot them with a LOT of powder, which was very expensive. In other words, if you could manufacture crossbows and quarrels in the same numbers as muskets and powder/shot, you would likely have the same problem. But nobody was putting thousands of crossbowmen into the field.
But I rather doubt you can mass produce crossbows and quarrels in that manner anyway. Poweder might be problematic for a lot of reasons, but it seems much more conducive to mass manufacture than quarrels.
I don't think crossbows were in much use by the time of socket-bayonet. I wonder how much a Renaissance age crossbow weighted vs an early firearm. The earliest firearms were looked pretty heavy (being essentially a mini cannon attached to a pole), and even the original muskets had a portable rest to put the gun on when firing. Late model crossbows often had winches to pull back the string, so they might be fairly heavy as well. Since soldiers marched more then they fought, even a few pounds of weight might one weapon preferable to another.
Quote from: Jacob on November 23, 2012, 06:29:56 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 23, 2012, 09:48:22 AM
I find it hard to believe that there was such a thing as a run of the mill knight.
Don Quixote.
Oh wait... he was a run at the mill knight.
:lol: Nice
Quote from: Malthus on November 22, 2012, 12:23:24 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 22, 2012, 12:19:01 PM
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.
Complete speculation . . .
Powder might not be cheap, but it would be amenable to centralized production. If you were say an early modern state with some ambition and the desire to create a rudimentary standing army, you probably wouldn't start training up crossbowmen, because the Genoese (and other mercenaries) already had that market cornered. But gunnery was new and the technology upgrading pretty regularly, so provided the cash and will were there, it wouldn't take that long to train up and field whatever passed for state of the art troops - and the arms could be built in state sponsored or financed facilities, with the side benefit of nice opportunities for patronage, monopolies, etc. Hence the Three Musketeers and not the Three Crossbowmen.
Quote from: Jacob on November 23, 2012, 06:29:56 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 23, 2012, 09:48:22 AM
I find it hard to believe that there was such a thing as a run of the mill knight.
Don Quixote.
Oh wait... he was a run at the mill knight.
^_^
Adoption of the firearm as a means of centralizing violence by early modern states. Very interesting. Read that somewhere, Minsky? It's novel enough that a book could probably be written on it.
Anyone know what the ratio of crossbow to firearm in the old tericos was? I bet there'd be differences in using them en masse.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 24, 2012, 02:29:27 AM
Adoption of the firearm as a means of centralizing violence by early modern states. Very interesting. Read that somewhere, Minsky? It's novel enough that a book could probably be written on it.
Ouch.
Quote from: The Brain on November 24, 2012, 03:48:43 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 24, 2012, 02:29:27 AM
Adoption of the firearm as a means of centralizing violence by early modern states. Very interesting. Read that somewhere, Minsky? It's novel enough that a book could probably be written on it.
Ouch.
Most certainly not meant as an insult.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 24, 2012, 02:36:13 AM
Anyone know what the ratio of crossbow to firearm in the old tericos was? I bet there'd be differences in using them en masse.
To the best of my knowledge tercios didn't use crossbows. I don't really know much about the proto-tercio evolving deep within the reconquista of andalucia so I'm not going to suggest I do. However, the tercio as experienced by non-spanish europeans the hard way started out as a formation of unarmored pike supported by arquebusiers to a formation of arquebusiers with mixed armored and unarmored pikemen in support over about 100 years after Charles V inheritance.
Quote from: Viking on November 24, 2012, 11:35:59 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 24, 2012, 02:36:13 AM
Anyone know what the ratio of crossbow to firearm in the old tericos was? I bet there'd be differences in using them en masse.
To the best of my knowledge tercios didn't use crossbows. I don't really know much about the proto-tercio evolving deep within the reconquista of andalucia so I'm not going to suggest I do. However, the tercio as experienced by non-spanish europeans the hard way started out as a formation of unarmored pike supported by arquebusiers to a formation of arquebusiers with mixed armored and unarmored pikemen in support over about 100 years after Charles V inheritance.
Yes, my understanding has always been that the tercio was developed as a formation that allowed the arquebusiers to have a decent field of fire while still enjoying the protection of the pikemen. I've never come across any reference to tercios using crossbowmen instead of, or supplementary to, the arquebusiers, either. But I also haven't studied the history of the formation in detail, and most of the general reference works deal mostly with its usage after the reconquista.
Quote from: dps on November 24, 2012, 10:48:30 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 24, 2012, 11:35:59 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 24, 2012, 02:36:13 AM
Anyone know what the ratio of crossbow to firearm in the old tericos was? I bet there'd be differences in using them en masse.
To the best of my knowledge tercios didn't use crossbows. I don't really know much about the proto-tercio evolving deep within the reconquista of andalucia so I'm not going to suggest I do. However, the tercio as experienced by non-spanish europeans the hard way started out as a formation of unarmored pike supported by arquebusiers to a formation of arquebusiers with mixed armored and unarmored pikemen in support over about 100 years after Charles V inheritance.
Yes, my understanding has always been that the tercio was developed as a formation that allowed the arquebusiers to have a decent field of fire while still enjoying the protection of the pikemen. I've never come across any reference to tercios using crossbowmen instead of, or supplementary to, the arquebusiers, either. But I also haven't studied the history of the formation in detail, and most of the general reference works deal mostly with its usage after the reconquista.
Payroll records of the tercios (they had a doppelsöldner type shock troop as well) show that early tercios consist of about 2/3 pikemen without doppelsöldners while late tercios have about 1/3 pikemen of which 1/2 are doppelsöldners.
To me this suggests a move from defensive to exceptionally aggressive tactics.
An early text quoted in Spanish wiki specifically mentions crossbowmen (and espingarderos) as the ranged component of the proto-Tercio shortly after the Reconquista ended.
Wasn't there a time when Spanish infantry was primarily sword-armed?
All I've got to base this on is one SPI game (Medieval Battles Quadrigame or somesuch) about some totally obscure Spanish civil war in which the English participated plus one scenario from SPI's Ancient Battles (title??) which took place in Italy in the 16th century--Spanish swordsmen against Swiss pikemen and French handgunners.
The last civil war was Castille's Succession War between Alfonso V and Isabel after the latter married Fernando of Aragón. France and Portugal were directly involved and England made a brief show of force to get ahold of some French ducats. It's likely the composition of the armies then was less sophisticated (militias and knights).
My guess is army reforms that lead to the Tercios started a couple decades later, mostly under El Gran Capitán during his italian campaigns. But in any case there was a sword and buckler component in the army from the very beginning and pretty much every soldier had a sword as sidearm.
Quote from: Malthus on November 22, 2012, 08:54:29 AM
I dunno, Samurai armour is pretty heavy duty.
It needed to be, certainly by the time of the Sengoku Jidai.
The Japanese were avid adopters of western firearms technology (at least prior to the Tokugawa Shogunate's decision that now that they were in charge, Japan no longer needed them) and in fact may even have been the first adopters of a "cartridge" system for use with muskets (see Oda at Nagashino.)
Quote from: Iormlund on November 23, 2012, 06:18:42 PM
I seem to recall late Roman Equites using dedicated, ornate armor for mock battles. Can't place where I read about it though.
Peter Connelly's book, "Greece and Rome at War", has a particularly good painting of Roman Equites exercising in their parade/competition armour; that may be where you read about it.
Quote from: Berkut on November 23, 2012, 07:38:56 PM
One thing that really sealed to dominance of the musket was the invention of the simple socket-bayonet. That turned the musketman into the modern infantryman, and saw the end of "specialized" infantry troops as the bulk of formations - now everyone was an infantryman, and could fight at range with mass volley and close and fight shock as well.
The socket bayonet wasn't invented until the 1690s; I don't think the earlier plug bayonet was invented until the 1600s when the arquebus had developed into the heavier musket either (although I will admit I haven't checked on this.) Crossbows had almost entirely dropped out of European warfare by the 1530s, the performance of the Spanish Arquebusiers at Pavia in 1525 probably being the crossbow's death knell. Although the writing had been on the wall for the crossbow for some years - Bicocca in 1522 had been a notable victory for firearms over the previously invincible Swiss Pike formations.
Quote from: Berkut on November 23, 2012, 07:38:56 PMBut I rather doubt you can mass produce crossbows and quarrels in that manner anyway. Poweder might be problematic for a lot of reasons, but it seems much more conducive to mass manufacture than quarrels.
I'm sure you're right here; moreover, powder has a further advantage over mass producing quarrels as it is also needed for the cannon that had completely superceded the older forms of siege artillery such as the trebuchet. Since arquebusiers/musketeers were expected to cast their own bullets on campaign firearms were logistically simpler to maintain than crossbows.
In fact, it's interesting that it appears that by the time of the 30 Years War the most expensive and difficult to procure component for armies of the period was not the powder or the shot for firearms but the match that the matchlock muskets of the time required in great quantities.
Quote from: Viking on November 24, 2012, 11:35:59 AMTo the best of my knowledge tercios didn't use crossbows. I don't really know much about the proto-tercio evolving deep within the reconquista of andalucia so I'm not going to suggest I do. However, the tercio as experienced by non-spanish europeans the hard way started out as a formation of unarmored pike supported by arquebusiers to a formation of arquebusiers with mixed armored and unarmored pikemen in support over about 100 years after Charles V inheritance.
The earliest tercios were equipped with crossbowmen and sword-and-buckler-men as well as pikemen; it was the Italian Wars of the early sixteenth century that saw the sword and buckler men disappear and the arquebus replace the crossbow. In the latter case the reasons were, I believe -
(1) Ease of training, as the Spanish commanders were forced to recruit local troops.
and
(2) Penetration, as French and, in particular, Italian armour was heavier and thus a lot more resistant to crossbow bolts than Spanish and Moorish types
.
..
...
....
.....
Ah, this does bring back memories of my misspent youth studying history at King's College London. :)
I have a question. Were crossbows used for indirect fire? I know bows were which is why the guy who had them were called archers. They fired in an arc. Firing in an arc would give them better range, but probably reduce accuracy and penetration. I get the feeling that penetration was a problem with crossbows through out the middle ages. I mean they kept improving the draw power on crossbows with gadgets like stirrups, levers, and winches. I vaguely remember that the design for a crossbow was not optimal, and had less kinetic force the a bow of the same size, but I don't remember where I read that or if that's true.
If Medieval Total War 2 game is accurate, crossbows were indeed fired indirectly, especially from the castle walls with perfectly good loopholes.
Yeah, and Mayans had whole units devoted to throwing bees at people.
Quote from: DGuller on November 30, 2012, 03:44:30 PM
If Medieval Total War 2 game is accurate, crossbows were indeed fired indirectly, especially from the castle walls with perfectly good loopholes.
A quick google found this
http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/AncientTactics/message/3854
QuoteHi
Actually, Peter, I would offer, "more accurate".
Some decades ago, I was lecturing on this, long story, doesn't matter....
Anyway, I found I can teach ANYONE to shoot well with crossbow, say kill
at 75-100 yards in about half an hour, and do indirect fire at 150yds if
the target is a "company" rather than an individual. Where an archer
takes YEARS.
Easier than shooting a gun.
Dunno who Rocky Russo is, but if he is right then indirect fire is possible. A plunging bolt at 45 degrees kills.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 24, 2012, 02:29:27 AM
Adoption of the firearm as a means of centralizing violence by early modern states. Very interesting. Read that somewhere, Minsky? It's novel enough that a book could probably be written on it.
IIRC Charles Tilly's theory was that the cost of gunpowder was one of the factors that raised the cost of warfare and that the resulting competition between polities to finance more expensive military apparatuses gave rise to the early modern state. What I was suggesting was more the reverse - that proto-modern states were attracted to firearms because they had relative comparative advantages in developing, training, equip and controlling musket-based troops and so that is what they pushed.
I thought the commonly held idea was the ability of cannon to knock down castles quickly and easily that did it?
It's The Sun wot did it.