Repeating Crossbows in Medieval Warfare

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.

"Massed fire". What do you think an elaborate piece of equipment like this would cost? How many artisans do you have that can produce work like this? How quickly would a complex mechanism like this break down in muddy field conditions?
 

PhilippeO

Banned
Cost of making and repeating repeating crossbows will be balanced that its have no training cost. Pike formation need long training cost before it could be effective. Knight cost horse, armour and training since childhood. Hiring mercenaries also very costly.

Repeating crossbows would give benefit on ruler who have many people that can be conscripted, weakening feudalism and strengthening monarchy (assuming monarchs control cities and can conscript peasant).

Massive peasant armies with pike for defence and repeating crossbows for offensive would be used by rulers. State with management and financial capability to conscript and arm peasant would be strengthened against state with better martial class.
 
I doin't see how any state has that kind of infrastructure on the ground. Even polities that relied on their own infantry forces by necessity or preference had their own military tradition to fall back on and did not actually conscript and train the men the way a nineteenth-century government would. The training cost does not really balance out because training with crossbows, pikes, bows or halberds was something people did on their own time.
 
I doin't see how any state has that kind of infrastructure on the ground. Even polities that relied on their own infantry forces by necessity or preference had their own military tradition to fall back on and did not actually conscript and train the men the way a nineteenth-century government would. The training cost does not really balance out because training with crossbows, pikes, bows or halberds was something people did on their own time.

The Byzantines might have been able to do it, but they'd regard the repeating crossbow as almost useless - its not good enough to be field artillery and it doesn't do any of the things where they used archers well.

And the main thing you need to train pikemen to do that's a painful process is something you need to train any soldiers to do, so the repeating crossbow saves nothing.

Also, no state wants a massive peasant army. It upsets the entire social order something terrible.
 
Also, no state wants a massive peasant army. It upsets the entire social order something terrible.
Except for the Swiss and Hussites who wanted to upset the social order.:p

The thing is that the armies such as the Swiss, Hussites, Irish and Scots who might have been interested had to be able to take on armoured armies such as the HRE and English. That means long spears/halberds and/or armour piecing ranged weapons.
 
Except for the Swiss and Hussites who wanted to upset the social order.:p

The thing is that the armies such as the Swiss, Hussites, Irish and Scots who might have been interested had to be able to take on armoured armies such as the HRE and English. That means long spears/halberds and/or armour piecing ranged weapons.

There's a reason I said "state". :p And the Swiss seem to have liked the social order, just not the guy in charge.

But anyway, yeah. Outside sieges, it doesn't fit any roles anyone would want to fill. The regular crossbow does.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
Even with just sieges, it will still have powerful effect, lots of battle in Middle Ages is sieges, it will strengthen cities political clout. City have manufacturing abilities and can easily conscript citizens. Defending city wall would become easier.


Another uses of repeating crossbows will be on civil conflict. Powerful Bishop might arm their followers with repeating crossbows. Family conflict in Italian cities could have people shoot at each other in the city street. If it become cheap enough, repeating crossbows would be used by rioters. Some youth gangs might use it against other. In urban battle, repeating crossbows would be highly effective.
 
Even with just sieges, it will still have powerful effect, lots of battle in Middle Ages is sieges, it will strengthen cities political clout. City have manufacturing abilities and can easily conscript citizens. Defending city wall would become easier.


Another uses of repeating crossbows will be on civil conflict. Powerful Bishop might arm their followers with repeating crossbows. Family conflict in Italian cities could have people shoot at each other in the city street. If it become cheap enough, repeating crossbows would be used by rioters. Some youth gangs might use it against other. In urban battle, repeating crossbows would be highly effective.

Not necessarily more effective than regular crossbows, especially given their lack of punch.

And youth gangs? Seriously?
 

PhilippeO

Banned
And youth gangs? Seriously?


Eh why ? Italian youths had a habit of rioting and fighting each other isn't it ? or that only after renaissance ? London apprentice also recorded fighting and rioting. It a lot easier to shoot from behind walls than fighting with knife on street.
 
Eh why ? Italian youths had a habit of rioting and fighting each other isn't it ? or that only after renaissance ? London apprentice also recorded fighting and rioting. It a lot easier to shoot from behind walls than fighting with knife on street.

This is not the weapon you want for that.
 
So if they don't stack up well to regular crossbows why did China and Korea use them?

Why don't their reasons apply to Europe?
 
Eh why ? Italian youths had a habit of rioting and fighting each other isn't it ? or that only after renaissance ? London apprentice also recorded fighting and rioting. It a lot easier to shoot from behind walls than fighting with knife on street.
On the other hand if you really want to clear the streets pre gunpower, you can send in heavy infantry or cavalry instead of dicking about. The more rioters you kill now the less you have to hang later. The only reason why authoritarian governments now use ranged weapons for riot control is they can achieve a good body count with them and that applies to both grape shot and machine guns.
 
So if they don't stack up well to regular crossbows why did China and Korea use them?

Why don't their reasons apply to Europe?

There are a few limited situations where sheer weight of fire (to use an anachronistic phrase) is useful.

But medieval European warfare, reliant on heavy cavalry, is not one of those situations outside sieges.
 

Paul MacQ

Donor
I believe this image shows why it would be no use on a Battle field

It was mostly a defensive weapon mostly used on Battlements needing the front of it balanced so both hands can be used to work the action. Though can be used.

This youtube shows a reconstruction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo13R_fSvnI&feature=related

Though most were show to rest the But of Crossbow on belly or chest not underarm

As the Article shows they have some disadvantages.

http://www.atarn.org/chinese/rept_xbow.htm.

"The small and light arrow of the comparatively weak Chinese crossbow here described had little penetrative power. For this reason the head of the arrow was sometimes dipped in poison, in order that a slight wound might prove fatal."

I do believe poison arrows in many places are frowned on.

The lack of power was the big thing it seemed to have have had problems with penetration even a couple of layers of leather stopped it dead.

Image34.gif
 
Last edited:
Actually, the idea of it as a civilian weapon is pretty appealing. Lots of things developed as civilian weapons - multiple-shot pistols, for example, smallswords, left-hand daggers. Besides, people carried weapons all the time, it was armour that was clearly taken as a sign that you had aggressive intent.

Likewise as an anti-civillian weapon by guards.
 
Top