WI ancient repeaters were widespread?

I've seen TV docs demonstrate chain-driven crossbows, & read about Greeks having the ability to pressurize & store air in cylinders. I've also seen diagrams of ancient Chinese "arrow battery" shields (one guy with a tall shield & 3-5 crossbows).

How much impact on ancient, & up to Medieval (or later?), warfare would this tech have, had it been commonplace? Is it even practical? (I picture a two- or three-man team carrying a shield with bows plus a couple of airbottles & a few hundred arrows.)

Does the proliferation of rapid-fire archery drive the need for *armored cars, or even *tanks?:eek::eek: (That does seem to follow.)

What would this do to naval warfare? What do ships look like if they can "rapid"-fire arbalests? Do they end up much like cannon-armed ships?

Does this make castles enormously harder to capture? Or easier? Or does it balance out?

Or am I just trying to get Ancient Steampunk?;)
 
How practical is this tech to be produced in any large numbers? It all seems very expensive trying to find ways around the inherent low penetration of repeating crossbows.
 
How practical is this tech to be produced in any large numbers? It all seems very expensive trying to find ways around the inherent low penetration of repeating crossbows.
Dangerous enough for unarmored infantry, no? Or especially for heavy arbalests.

As to cost or practicality, IDK.
 
Dangerous enough for unarmored infantry, no? Or especially for heavy arbalests.

As to cost or practicality, IDK.
Then why not just use a simpler repeating crossbow but tip the arrows in poison, as they did OTL. From what I get at, the repeating crossbow was doomed to be an expensive siege weapon or used in limited amounts because they were expensive to make and low-powered, although I'm not totally clear why you didn't have the ancient equivalent of cannons where you'd bring a few large ones to a battle or mount them on walls and use them to rain arrows/break up enemy formations. It could just be the price combined with the animal/human requirements wasn't considered worthwhile for anything but a niche.
 
I'm not totally clear why you didn't have the ancient equivalent of cannons
AFAIK, using this tech for an onager or trebuchet is impossible.

As for lack of power in crossbows, this tech would mean stronger bows would become practical, since they wouldn't depend entirely on the archer's strength to draw, no? (That might require longer bows, better materials, or, least probable, compounding...which has its own issues of invention.)

If penetration is an issue, AP arrowheads could be improved, even if bow draw weight stays constant.
 
Top