Alternative To Guns?

Yes, as larger states form they will be able to field larger and more effective forces, including fully armored knights and armored foot soldiers. Assuming a POD of roughly 1400 AD there aren't any such states in Europe, although the HRE comes close. After 1500, when the Spanish begin to expand, then we will see such forces appear.

A POD for the development of a repeating crossbow of the type you describe in Europe? I think that's what you mean, because with out it the repeater wouldn't be developed until after professional armies appear. In fact I don't see the weapon becoming useful until then any way, due to the massive amount of bolts needed to make it practical.

With regard to your tactical analysis, I agree, except that the attacker will close a little more rapidly than you seem to allow for. Starting at three hundred meters we can close to one hundred fifty in as little as thirty seconds while maintaining formation, which doesn't give much time for the crossbowmen to fire at them; perhaps enough for a couple of volleys. And if the crossbowmen withdraw to keep the range open they won't be able to reload; only the lightest of crossbows can be reloaded on the move. And the pikes have to move with them, or they become vulnerable to cavalry attack; such retrograde movements have a way of getting out of hand and resulting in the unit running off the field and out of the battle.

Here is my issue with that speed of closing. The fastest man in the world, Usain Bolt runs a 100 meter race in 9.58 seconds. If that speed is kept constant he would theoretically cover 150 meters in just under 15 seconds. A full out sprint is not conducive in any way to maintain formation. so lets put it down to a fast run, tack on anywhere from five to ten more seconds depending on how generous you want to be. Now put on a metal helmet, some light armor (perhaps leather), put a crossbow in his hands, and give him enough bolts for a meaningful number of shots. That easily exceeds thirty seconds, and expecting this performance along with sustained combat, is ridiculous. What's more, not all men in the unit are Usain Bolts, and not all men are even at the same level of speed, strength, and agility.

150 meters in 30 seconds is sprinting speed, not advancing in formation speed. Moving at such speed would make it impossible to maintain formation. It's hard enough to prevent unit brake up when soldiers are mounted on horseback, that's why cavalry typically advanced at a trot for as long as possible, and only charged the opposing line once they were close enough to limit the amount of formation brake up enough to keep a solid charging mass.

I'd give a well formed unit of men, 1 minute at the very least to cover that distance, and when you factor in the possibility of broken terrain, as well as other possible factors, I would expect typically more time to be spent. That gives at least two to six volleys time to be loosed at the advancing repeaters before they can even hope to return fire, and 50 more meters before they close to effective range.

What needs to be remembered is this is all assuming completely unopposed access towards said non-repeating crossbowmen. The beauty of the weapon is that it can be fired over fellow soldiers. Also as you pointed out crossbowmen will need pike escorts to protect them from exposure to cavalry attacks. This effects your advance just as much as my retreat. This fact means you've got to put out pikemen to shield your advancing crossbomen, and their armor, dense formation, and potentially unwieldy pikes, further slows any advance towards my crossbowmen by your repeaters.

Also in regards to the crossbowmen retreating out of range, your absolutely right that this movement could get out of hand, but it isn't like the repeaters are chasing the regulars down an empty field, there will be other soldiers to deal with while the crossbowmen reset and resume firing. Yes they can't reload on the run, but after losing a volley they can reload before they retreat, or they can retire after a volley and reload out of range. One idea I had was putting the crossbowmen out in front, firing until the repeaters could shoot back, and then falling back behind their pikemen and resuming their fire further away behind protection, possibly covered by crossbowmen already there. By sending some of my infantry forward I can also potentially move to prevent your repeaters from advancing within their 100 meter effective range, but still within the 150 meter effective range of my crossbows. Those fifty meters in my opinion are going to be the magic area where every battle along the lines of this scenario is decided: Either the crossbowmen deal out enough damage up to and in this area to turn the tide, or the repeaters are able to close the gap and strike back with enough force to carry the day.

I am glad we are mostly on the same page however, and I think your idea of a more powerful repeating crossbow then the Chinese one with a slightly slower rate of fire is a good one. I'm just saying it's going to need a significant amount of regular crossbows providing artillery support if it is to be an effective weapon. Like I previously mentioned, I'd think they'd be most effective mixed into a unit of regular crossbows as a significant though minority component, or mixed into units of regular infantry in order to provide organic firepower as ranges between armies close. A combination of both ideas might be even better.
 
I agree that thirty seconds would be a sprint for most troops; the formations would be a bit ragged after that. One minute would be average, which is enough time for say three volleys using an average figure.

Firing over the heads of your own troops precludes aimed fire, which reduces the effectiveness of your weapons considerably. Better to have them start in front of or between the other troops, then fall back as necessary.

As for terrain and other factors precluding my troops from advancing, the same is true of yours having an unimpeded field of fire. Factors such as weather, visibility, fatigue, and morale will also affect the outcome. And no law says my troops can't show up on your flanks or rear either! (Or yours on mine, for that matter.)

And of course the repeaters would be supported by other missile troops; the only thing we differ on here is the proportions.
 
I think that's fair to say, we both agree on the weapon having an effective use, we just differ in how effective and under what circumstances it would be.
 

Meerkat92

Banned
Okay.

I just had a brainstorm.

So, let's say we have a world that makes it all the way through the Middle Ages to the Renaissance without developing gunpowder-based weapons, instead using repeating crossbows and polyboloses (polyboli?). What happens once these crossbow-wielding Europeans go exploring?

How would an expedition to the Americas armed with repeating crossbows fare as opposed to one armed with muskets? Do you think that the lack of firearms would somewhat nullify the techological advantage they had over the natives in OTL? Would they have been able to fight back more effectively? Or would there be no difference? Or would the natives be able to fight back better initially until disease epidemics kick in and leave them as badly off as they were in OTL? I MUST KNOW!!!
 
Early muskets are not particularly favorable by comparison to existing crossbows or longbows, let alone any repeating crossbow that develops.

If anything, a repeating crossbow is nastier than a slow loading and inaccurate arquebus.
 
Okay.

I just had a brainstorm.

So, let's say we have a world that makes it all the way through the Middle Ages to the Renaissance without developing gunpowder-based weapons, instead using repeating crossbows and polyboloses (polyboli?). What happens once these crossbow-wielding Europeans go exploring?

How would an expedition to the Americas armed with repeating crossbows fare as opposed to one armed with muskets? Do you think that the lack of firearms would somewhat nullify the techological advantage they had over the natives in OTL? Would they have been able to fight back more effectively? Or would there be no difference? Or would the natives be able to fight back better initially until disease epidemics kick in and leave them as badly off as they were in OTL? I MUST KNOW!!!

I agree with Elfwine here; assuming the natives have their OTL armament the Europeans will actually have a larger advantage than OTL; remember that they also had steel weapons, steel armor, and horses, all of which were unavailable to the natives. At sea it's a moot point; no OTL native culture had anything resembling ocean going vessels, so the Europeans are effectively unopposed, no matter how their ships are armed.

In Asia matters are going to be a little more difficult for the Europeans, especially when they encounter the equally well armed and organized Chinese and Japanese. And when those cultures acquire the Europeans' naval technologies the results could be very interesting indeed.
 
In the process of discussion I forgot one use that I think the repeating crossbow would be great for, defending coaches and wagons from highway robbers. Especially at the rate of fire of the Chinese bow, but even if you sacrificed some rate of fire for a little more power. Unarmored highwaymen at short range would be perfect targets, the only caveat is that highwaymen would probably also find the weapon useful to use.

Also while it has been discussed a little in this thread, air guns could eventually see use. The technology for an effective air rifle was around at the end of the 18th century, and if you believe the historic accounts, the Garibaldi air rifle was capable of emptying its 20 ball magazine with at least ten shots to spare. If steam cannons become popular, I can certainly see experiments leading to a similar weapon about the same time as OTL. While certainly having draw backs, it would have its niche, and come to think of it would be another great weapon for defense against robbers.
 

elkarlo

Banned
Chu-ko-nu? As in automatic crossbows, though they're less range-efficient.

Without hand guns you get a crossbow arms race, and possibly more reliance on the javelin.

At the siege of Malta, the Knights running out of ammo, broke open their armory. They found some of the super high powered crossbows in there. They were prolly 800lb pull. Would love to see some more of those crazy things.
 
In the process of discussion I forgot one use that I think the repeating crossbow would be great for, defending coaches and wagons from highway robbers. Especially at the rate of fire of the Chinese bow, but even if you sacrificed some rate of fire for a little more power. Unarmored highwaymen at short range would be perfect targets, the only caveat is that highwaymen would probably also find the weapon useful to use.

Also while it has been discussed a little in this thread, air guns could eventually see use. The technology for an effective air rifle was around at the end of the 18th century, and if you believe the historic accounts, the Garibaldi air rifle was capable of emptying its 20 ball magazine with at least ten shots to spare. If steam cannons become popular, I can certainly see experiments leading to a similar weapon about the same time as OTL. While certainly having draw backs, it would have its niche, and come to think of it would be another great weapon for defense against robbers.

Any military weapon is going to be useful in other roles as well. In the case of the highwayman and the guard regular crossbows will serve just as well, since the threat is often more effective than the actual use.

Air guns require a fairly advanced technology to handle pressures of 300 PSI or more, which will be necessary for the weapon to have sufficient range and stopping power for military use; say nineteenth century OTL, with the possible exception of China, as previously noted. Once that is achieved they will come into common use; they are guns, with all of the advantages of guns.

Steam cannons will be used aboard ships and fortifications, and for seiges, in which roles they will be quite effective. When steam powered land vehicles become possible they will be mounted on them as well. But they will never be small enough to be man portable, and no one is going to carry a firebox and boiler on his person.
 
Any military weapon is going to be useful in other roles as well. In the case of the highwayman and the guard regular crossbows will serve just as well, since the threat is often more effective than the actual use.
Steam cannons will be used aboard ships and fortifications, and for seiges, in which roles they will be quite effective. When steam powered land vehicles become possible they will be mounted on them as well. But they will never be small enough to be man portable, and no one is going to carry a firebox and boiler on his person.
No, actually the regular crossbow would be at a disadvantage due to rate of fire. This is where the repeater comes into its own because it can deal with multiple adversaries. Also I wasn't saying the steam cannon would be man portable. I was saying that experimentation with steam cannons should give us a good chance to see air guns develop around the same time OTL: The end of the 18th century. The air gun is the weapon I'm referring to as good for personal defense.
 
No, actually the regular crossbow would be at a disadvantage due to rate of fire. This is where the repeater comes into its own because it can deal with multiple adversaries. Also I wasn't saying the steam cannon would be man portable. I was saying that experimentation with steam cannons should give us a good chance to see air guns develop around the same time OTL: The end of the 18th century. The air gun is the weapon I'm referring to as good for personal defense.

For both the robber and the guard the primary purpose of the weapon is intimidation; the robber uses it to persuade his victims to hand over their valuables and the guard uses it to persuade the robber to take his business elsewhere. To the person being threatened it makes little difference whether the crossbow is a repeater or not. If either robber or guard actually has to use his weapon then they have failed of their purpose, and only in that case will it make a real difference whether the weapon is a repeater or not. (That they may choose to use them anyway is beside the point; such persons are a small minority of robbers and guards.)

I grant that circumstances are slightly different if there are multiple robbers and/or guards; the repeater will be seen as slightly more threatening in those circumstances. But the same principle applies; the intent is to intimidate, not to actually inflict harm.

Concerning air guns and steam cannons, we're on the same page there. Low powered air guns for personal defense first, starting roughly 1800 OTL, followed by higher powered ones for military use later. Steam cannons in the role of heavy artillery.
 
For both the robber and the guard the primary purpose of the weapon is intimidation; the robber uses it to persuade his victims to hand over their valuables and the guard uses it to persuade the robber to take his business elsewhere. To the person being threatened it makes little difference whether the crossbow is a repeater or not. If either robber or guard actually has to use his weapon then they have failed of their purpose, and only in that case will it make a real difference whether the weapon is a repeater or not. (That they may choose to use them anyway is beside the point; such persons are a small minority of robbers and guards.)

I grant that circumstances are slightly different if there are multiple robbers and/or guards; the repeater will be seen as slightly more threatening in those circumstances. But the same principle applies; the intent is to intimidate, not to actually inflict harm.

This is pointless to turn into an argument, so just to clarify, all I'm saying is that the repeater is more intimidating since a guard isn't vulnerable after one shot. Highway robbers tended to act in gangs, and a repeater is a far more intimidating weapon for a guard to have as a result. Guards are going to prefer a weapon that delivers if intimidation fails. One shot with a crossbow isn't going to cut it when repeaters are on the market. That's my thought process.
 
This is pointless to turn into an argument, so just to clarify, all I'm saying is that the repeater is more intimidating since a guard isn't vulnerable after one shot. Highway robbers tended to act in gangs, and a repeater is a far more intimidating weapon for a guard to have as a result. Guards are going to prefer a weapon that delivers if intimidation fails. One shot with a crossbow isn't going to cut it when repeaters are on the market. That's my thought process.

True, repeaters will be preferred. (I find it amusing that we seem to have switched sides, with you espousing repeaters and me defending normal crossbows; strange how things work out, no?)
 
(I find it amusing that we seem to have switched sides, with you espousing repeaters and me defending normal crossbows; strange how things work out, no?)

Oh highly amusing. Like I said, we both support them, we just have different ideas on where, when, and how they would be effective. I hope we can continue this method of agreeing by disagreeing to agree.:D
 
Top