Western Adoption of Repeating Crossbows

Delta Force

Banned
Smoothbore muskets and Chinese style repeating crossbows had relatively similar range (120 yards effective range versus 60 yards effective range). While repeating crossbows have less power than non-repeaters, the adoption of firearms resulted in armor being largely abandoned anyways, making it less of an issue. It seems that a repeating crossbow would have been an excellent support weapon for an army equipped with firearms, allowing a single soldier to fire up to 10 shots before being forced to reload. What would it take for the repeating crossbow to have become one of the classical weapons of post-medieval Western warfare, alongside the pike, musket, and bayonet?
 
Well they would chew through I armored formations at close ranges so maybe repeater crossbow cavalry and probably repeater crossbow ballista and such for defending choke points and urban centers of battle. Of course it would probably lead to the sophistication and continued use of brigandine.
 
I suspect it would mostly have taken more range. The effective range of a musket is determined by its poor accuracy - reliably hitting anything at ranges over 100 metres is simply not a realistic option. That of the repeating crossbows is determined by power - an impact beyond the first 50 metres or so is unlikely to cause notable injury. That's not an easy sell in a world where you expect a hit to be pretty much decisive.

If you could get someone to adopt a weapon like it from desperation, it might catch on as a niche design. The problem is that it lacks the versatility of the musket, and there are already dedicated weapons for area denial with much greater stopping power. The Chinese solution to the problem - poisoning the projectiles - would be culturally difficult with Europe's strong taboo against poison in warfare.
 
Well they would chew through I armored formations at close ranges so maybe repeater crossbow cavalry and probably repeater crossbow ballista and such for defending choke points and urban centers of battle. Of course it would probably lead to the sophistication and continued use of brigandine.

The problem with a cavalry bearing repeaters is that reloading the weapon takes too much time, and too much effort. More probably they will fire all rounds of the weapon, ditch it, and wield a regular bow, lance or a saber as replacement. That way they could be in action continuously rather than the casual hit and run.

Fire crossbow to scatter enemies -> Charge to decimate them.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't read the choke points and urban conflict.
 
The problem with a cavalry bearing repeaters is that reloading the weapon takes too much time, and too much effort. More probably they will fire all rounds of the weapon, ditch it, and wield a regular bow, lance or a saber as replacement. That way they could be in action continuously rather than the casual hit and run.

Fire crossbow to scatter enemies -> Charge to decimate them.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't read the choke points and urban conflict.

That would be tactically interesting, actually. It's in keeping with the fighting style of pistoleers - approach enemy, fire ranged weapons, then attack with sabres. The engagement range was extremely close, often barely over pike length. I'm not sure a repeating crossbow is all that suited to handling from horseback, unfortunately.
 
That would be tactically interesting, actually. It's in keeping with the fighting style of pistoleers - approach enemy, fire ranged weapons, then attack with sabres. The engagement range was extremely close, often barely over pike length. I'm not sure a repeating crossbow is all that suited to handling from horseback, unfortunately.

Yup. You need two hands.
 
Top