Repeating Crossbows in Medieval Warfare

[The Dude Bro]

Let's say that, instead of the traditional Medieval crossbow being introduced into armies, the Asian repeating crossbow is instead developed around the same time as the introduction of the crossbow into medieval warfare, and is instead introduced instead. The weapon only has half the effective range of a crossbow, but this is counterbalanced by being able to fire 10 bolts in 15 seconds, and being easier to reload.

My question is how does the use of a repeating crossbow change medieval warfare?

A repeating crossbow is below.

[von Adler]

How much armour does it penetrate? If it is low, its effect will be small.

[Malta Shah]

Probably best used against Non-Knightly forces. More likely make use of the much larger Repeating Crossbow Balistas.

[The Dude Bro]

Would it be possible to develop a repeating crossbow that had the strength of a regular crossbow? Or is this precluded by the design in general of the repeating crossbow?

[wcv215]

Originally Posted by The Dude Bro

Would it be possible to develop a repeating crossbow that had the strength of a regular crossbow? Or is this precluded by the design in general of the repeating crossbow?

Highly unlikely to say the least. The power of a crossbow comes from the amount of force generated from it. With a repeating crossbow nowhere near that amount of force can be generated. On the other hand this would be an extremely effective weapon against lightly armored forces, and possibly horses. Against a knight though it would be nearly useless.

[Malta Shah]

Unless you went Army of Darkness and attached explosives to the bolts.

[The Dude Bro]

Looking into it further, it appeared the Chinese used it mainly in sieges, to gain superiority in ranged weapons when armies tried to scale walls and things like that. In set-piece balls and campaigns it was used mainly be peasant levies who did not have familiarity with other weapons.

[BBadolato]

You would have to butterfly away Zhuge Liang, or do something in China in order to have repeating crossbow be developed around the same time, because they existed for a very long time in China. If the repeating crossbow is alot weaker than a crossbow where is it gonna see use? Western Europe against lightly armed troops.

[The Dude Bro]

You don't necessarily butterfly it away. Maybe it gets carried over to Europe on the Silk Road, or is developed separately and independently (probably in the middle 11th century, as crossbows are about to be introduced into warfare).

[Elfwine]

Though what's the point in Europe of a weapon that's effective only against lightly armored troops?

There's no great advantage to adopting it.

[The Dude Bro]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Though what's the point in Europe of a weapon that's effective only against lightly armored troops?

There's no great advantage to adopting it.

By using the massed fire offered by a repeating crossbow, a commander can effectively nullify to his counterpart the use of his infantry, many of which are unarmored and thus would be weak to even the weaker force of these bolts. If all the enemy has to rely on is his knights, then you've forced you enemy into using a one-dimensional force that can be easily countered.

[MNP]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Though what's the point in Europe of a weapon that's effective only against lightly armored troops?

There's no great advantage to adopting it.

In sieges you didn't always just have men at arms, you have much larger forces as both workers and as attackers without the money to have good armor. Attacking these targets can very well delay any kind of active siege buying you more time. At the same time the ease of use means you don't even have to have militia out there. You can arm just about any man the old young no training even women and children in a pinch. They are also effective in urban warfare though that was pretty rare.

I don't recall the draw weight off hand, but I think the maximum effective range for the Chinese repeaters was about 35 meters.

ED: I don't think you could classify knights/men at arms as a "one dimensional force easily countered"--it's not rock-paper-scissors--but if they have to rely more on those armored men it becomes more expensive and time consuming (and thus more expensive) to besiege successfully.

[The Dude Bro]

Wikipedia says 60 meters for an effective range and 120 for a maximum range, so it will be a short-range weapon, but in a siege most-combat is short ranged anyway, and since if used well one of these repeaters can clear an entire ladder of men in 15 seconds (the time it takes to fire the ten bolts the weapon can hold).

And I didn't mean that knights themselves were one-dimensional, I meant that effective use of repeaters on the battlefield can reduce the enemy to only have knights as an offensive tool. Archers aren't good for hand-to-hand combat in many cases and the fighting infantry, already a slow tool on the attack, will be at a further disadvantage since the enemy can put up a much heavier barrage as they are closing in.

[Kome]

Could probably do horrible things to a densely packed pike formation. Although by the time the pike becomes the backbone of most armies even a pikeman would have munitions armor and that would be more Renaissance era than Medieval era i suppose.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by The Dude Bro

By using the massed fire offered by a repeating crossbow, a commander can effectively nullify to his counterpart the use of his infantry, many of which are unarmored and thus would be weak to even the weaker force of these bolts. If all the enemy has to rely on is his knights, then you've forced you enemy into using a one-dimensional force that can be easily countered.

Except that in a medieval battle, all a commander has to rely on is his knights (or when burgher infantry starts emerging, them, but they could afford armor) anyway.

MNP: True. But I find the idea of a longbow or regular crossbow force mowing this down to be too funny.

[Seraph]

It would be limited used I think. Even Medieval armies often wore mail.

[Malta Shah]

It depends where you were. Areas which are poorer or less armored or more urban or face more light cavalry will want them.

[carlton_bach]

It certainly looks like a weapon with limited applications. My main problem is not seeing it used but seeing it bought. in most of medieval Europe, weapons were provided on an individual or small-group basis, with people purchasing their own or towns, guilds and nobles buying for their members or retainers. The only situation I could imagine it being purchased is if a very wealthy city decided to buy things like this for wall defense. Most places would have lacked the money to spend extravagantly on something that had only one use.

[oshron]

one alternative comes to mind: what if, instead of for warfare, repeating crossbows were used by the peasantry to hunt? it's not like they can't make more bolts or reuse the old ones, and being able to fire arrows faster like that would mean that they may not need to expend as much energy tracking and re-tracking a deer if it happens to get away from them. i know alot of the peasantry were farmers and got their meat from livestock, but it's just a thought

[carlton_bach]

Originally Posted by oshron

one alternative comes to mind: what if, instead of for warfare, repeating crossbows were used by the peasantry to hunt? it's not like they can't make more bolts or reuse the old ones, and being able to fire arrows faster like that would mean that they may not need to expend as much energy tracking and re-tracking a deer if it happens to get away from them. i know alot of the peasantry were farmers and got their meat from livestock, but it's just a thought

In most of Europe, hunting was explicitly forbidden except to the holder of feudal title to the land in question (in terms of the Sachsenspiegel, it was Herrenrecht). For hunting effectively, a more powerful and accurate weapon is better anyway, which is why hunters tended to go with high-end crossbows. And for small game, hunting which was legal in many jurisdictions, a simple bow or sling, or a snare or trap, are your choices. There is a reason why almost everyone who historically made a living hunting used traps.

I increasingly suspect the repeating crossbow is the answer to a question nobody ever asked. Useful applications are quite limited.