WI:Crossbows in 250 BC. Effects in armies?
- Thread starter Sersor
- Start date
I thought the 'stirrup thesis' for heavy cavalry had been refuted, or at least severely criticized?
I think full exploitation of the crossbow could have a major impact on armies. Tang dynasty manuals depicted formations of crossbowmen divided into shooters and stringers, rather like the various volley firing schemes in the gunpowder age. The drill necessary to make this happen could make standing armies economical, if the battlefield results are worth it.
To make it completely analogous to the 16th century military revolution, you'd have to contrive reasons to have the same kind of kickass angled bastion fortifications like the trace italienne, preferably separate from city fortifications These fortresses are impossible to take by immediate direct assault, so they make good refuge for a retreating army, but since they're good places to stockpile supplies for offensive operations, they're also tools of power projection.
If you have both those elements, you might well get cold steel gunpowder warfare in the Hellenistic period.
I think full exploitation of the crossbow could have a major impact on armies. Tang dynasty manuals depicted formations of crossbowmen divided into shooters and stringers, rather like the various volley firing schemes in the gunpowder age. The drill necessary to make this happen could make standing armies economical, if the battlefield results are worth it.
To make it completely analogous to the 16th century military revolution, you'd have to contrive reasons to have the same kind of kickass angled bastion fortifications like the trace italienne, preferably separate from city fortifications These fortresses are impossible to take by immediate direct assault, so they make good refuge for a retreating army, but since they're good places to stockpile supplies for offensive operations, they're also tools of power projection.
If you have both those elements, you might well get cold steel gunpowder warfare in the Hellenistic period.
I am not aware of that argument/refutation. If Shock Cavalry is likened to the armored knight of the 14th-15th century, it's hard to unerstand just how the charging warrior could stay mounted after the moment when lance meets opponent. If I understand it correctly Classical cavalry held on to their mounts by sheer leg strength. is that true?
I haven't read in depth about the controversy, but in physical terms, when you shoot someone with a.30-06, they don't get thrown back by 3000 ft lbs, and neither does the shooter, the bullet just goes straight through them and they fall down.
One issue is that early medieval European crossbows were self-bows - that is, unlike the example Sersor posted on the last page, initially crossbows were not of composite construction. The advantages of a self-bow crossbow over a regular bow are not great. The self-bow crossbow can afford to be a little stronger, because you span it with your legs (by sitting down, usually) and your leg muscles are stronger than your arm muscles, but you can't make it hugely stronger than a normal self-bow without making it inordinately large or making it impossible to span. Furthermore, until the 12th century or so, Europe also did not have use of the pole lathe, which allowed craftsmen to make precision cylindrical nuts from bone.
Early, pre-composite crossbows did have one notable advantage over normal bows, which was that they could be aimed for a period of time. You could span a crossbow, load your bolt, and stand there aiming as long as you wanted. This made the crossbow better for specific applications like siegecraft (because it lets you wait for a guy hiding behind a wall to pop his head up) and possibly for other applications in which accuracy is important (shooting back at a moving horse-archer, for instance). For a pitched battle, however, this is not a particularly useful attribute.
The point is that there are a variety of technological innovations that came together by the late 12th century to make what we consider an effective high medieval crossbow (and that's not even touching on later innovations that made it better, e.g. steel prods, the goat's foot lever, the windlass, etc.). You don't just "discover" the high medieval crossbow, because it wasn't just a matter of one good idea; it was the gradual adaptation of several new ideas to a weapon that had already been around in one form or another for some time.
The question is how and when the Greeks could make these discoveries and adapt them to their own proto-crossbow. I'm pretty sure they didn't have the pole/spring lathe, but I don't really know how good Greek precision manufacturing was. I know that composite bows were in use by some in ancient Asia, but I have no idea whether that technology was ever adopted by the Greeks. My assumption is that even if around 250 BC someone came up with something like the early medieval crossbow, it would still take centuries before this weapon developed into the effective high medieval crossbow (just as it did in the Middle Ages).
As for effectiveness, the non-composite version would probably be used as a niche siege weapon just as it as in the medieval period. Real changes in battlefield tactics, equipment, etc. would probably not take place until you had the high medieval (that is, composite) version of the weapon.
Early, pre-composite crossbows did have one notable advantage over normal bows, which was that they could be aimed for a period of time. You could span a crossbow, load your bolt, and stand there aiming as long as you wanted. This made the crossbow better for specific applications like siegecraft (because it lets you wait for a guy hiding behind a wall to pop his head up) and possibly for other applications in which accuracy is important (shooting back at a moving horse-archer, for instance). For a pitched battle, however, this is not a particularly useful attribute.
The point is that there are a variety of technological innovations that came together by the late 12th century to make what we consider an effective high medieval crossbow (and that's not even touching on later innovations that made it better, e.g. steel prods, the goat's foot lever, the windlass, etc.). You don't just "discover" the high medieval crossbow, because it wasn't just a matter of one good idea; it was the gradual adaptation of several new ideas to a weapon that had already been around in one form or another for some time.
The question is how and when the Greeks could make these discoveries and adapt them to their own proto-crossbow. I'm pretty sure they didn't have the pole/spring lathe, but I don't really know how good Greek precision manufacturing was. I know that composite bows were in use by some in ancient Asia, but I have no idea whether that technology was ever adopted by the Greeks. My assumption is that even if around 250 BC someone came up with something like the early medieval crossbow, it would still take centuries before this weapon developed into the effective high medieval crossbow (just as it did in the Middle Ages).
As for effectiveness, the non-composite version would probably be used as a niche siege weapon just as it as in the medieval period. Real changes in battlefield tactics, equipment, etc. would probably not take place until you had the high medieval (that is, composite) version of the weapon.
Last edited:
For mass-production you have to take the Qin/Chin crossbow, they are made in cast bronze and there are no big technological gap between the hellenistic and chinise civilization.
https://www.google.com.br/url?sa=t&...hXH1UyeocVKDrjJyA&sig2=tROxFgnsLZ74fnqIDm1MOg
https://www.google.com.br/url?sa=t&...hXH1UyeocVKDrjJyA&sig2=tROxFgnsLZ74fnqIDm1MOg
In 250 BC they would probably just replace the weapons archers used.
Once Rome comes in, the legion would probably be modified in such a way that crossbowmen are better integrated into the legion. Remember legions were mostly melee formations.
The effects on a new Roman legion could lead to 2 radically different TLs:
- Rome's bow-legions are extremely effective, leading to greater victories at Zama and Teutoburg (maybe no 3rd Punic war?). This could easily result in the migrations of the 4th and 5th centuries being postponed until Rome rots further, or completely beaten back. Long story short, Roman influence is around for much longer, and effects places like Germany and Persia more heavily.
On the other hand,
- Rome's new legions don't work as well, especially against the barbarian cavalry armies of the north. Rome falls earlier and its influence is less widespread.
Either of these leave too many butterflies to explore without choosing between one of the two possible situations.
- BNC
Once Rome comes in, the legion would probably be modified in such a way that crossbowmen are better integrated into the legion. Remember legions were mostly melee formations.
The effects on a new Roman legion could lead to 2 radically different TLs:
- Rome's bow-legions are extremely effective, leading to greater victories at Zama and Teutoburg (maybe no 3rd Punic war?). This could easily result in the migrations of the 4th and 5th centuries being postponed until Rome rots further, or completely beaten back. Long story short, Roman influence is around for much longer, and effects places like Germany and Persia more heavily.
On the other hand,
- Rome's new legions don't work as well, especially against the barbarian cavalry armies of the north. Rome falls earlier and its influence is less widespread.
Either of these leave too many butterflies to explore without choosing between one of the two possible situations.
- BNC
So maybe instead of pila the infantry of the manipular legion switch to crossbow? or maybe mixed units of pila infantry and crossbow infantry?
RodentRevolution
Banned
Perhaps the velites of the old manipular legions are retained with crossbows. However the lethality and stopping power of bows and crossbows was considerably less than gunpowder arms so it is likely the emphasis will remain on shock/melee action.
Agincourt says otherwise.
```````
If Rome had crossbows, I envision something like a 50/50 (or 3000/3000) sword/crossbow force, with adjustments as necessary to take into account enemy.
Machines simply are much more powerful than pointy sticks. Crossbows can fire off 5-10 times a minute in skilled hands, but a sword can never kill that many in a case with opposition.
- BNC
Agincourt was won by French stupidity,not arrows.Most deaths weren't due to longbow arrows.
IIRC people have done tests with replica Roman-style stirrups, and these do a pretty good job of keeping the rider in the saddle. Besides, there were effective shock cavalry in the ancient world -- Persian cataphracts, for example, Macedonian Companions, etc.
Most of the French deaths at Agincourt were through hand-to-hand combat, rather than missiles.
5-10 shots, most of which will miss, bounce of armour, get stuck in shields, or make only minor flesh wounds.
Wasn't it the mud that killed the French? Heavy armour + quagmire = sinking feeling and all.
During the early Spanish wars in Central America, the conquistadores classifies crossbows and arquebuses as essentially the same weapon.
One important difference, though, is that crossbows don't produce anywhere near as much noise as an arquebus, and no smoke whatsoever, which does significantly affect the nature of the battlefield.
One important difference, though, is that crossbows don't produce anywhere near as much noise as an arquebus, and no smoke whatsoever, which does significantly affect the nature of the battlefield.
Henry V's army, which was something like 2/5s the size and consisted almost entirely of longbowmen, was able to defeat a near-fully melee army. This demonstrates the importance of the bowmen in a pre-gunpowder army.
Mongol arrows were able to pierce a knights armour (and maybe even what the Panzer I had). What I understand, Crossbows are stronger, so are more likely to pierce the armour than the mongol composite arrows.
My point I that a crossbow can kill (much?) faster than a swordsmen, who has to carry a big shield and worry about blocking enemy strokes, as well as striking himself.
So, I don't believe that swordsmen would still be the predominant force, especially considering the mobility of a mostly unarmoured bowmen vs. a foot soldier in 40kg of armour.
- BNC
No.Actual tests showed that bodskin arrows,which the English use to fight armoured opponents couldn't actually harm an armoured soldier.The fact that you said that Agincourt shows the importance of bowmen means that you are ignorant of what happened during the battle.What happened was that the French idiotically charged into a narrow area that's extremely muddy in full armour.This meant that their ability to move through the area was extremely problematic and that they could not get back up if they fell.The Longbowmen actually fought in melee was the most part of the battle.They were able to easily topple the heavily armoured French in the mud as they were much more manueverable considering they weren't wearing much armour.
Last edited:
I have been going off what I have heard about it, which was that the longbowmen fought off more than twice their number with superior tactics and skilful use of the bow.
However it isn't the only example of this occurance: Liegnitz (1241) occurred similarly, with bowmen fighting off huge numbers of melee forces.
- BNC
However it isn't the only example of this occurance: Liegnitz (1241) occurred similarly, with bowmen fighting off huge numbers of melee forces.
- BNC
By the 1400s,the advantagous of longbowmen have been nullified by better armour.Prior to that,arrows can do substantial damages.
The question is which of the two scenarios is more like the crossbow in the Hellenistic period; would they punch right through contemporary armor, or could the protective methods of the day deflect crossbow bolts?
I think they could.To my knowledge,most Roman soldiers at the time were using mail,while some people were still using leather armour.The best armour of this period seems to be mail or lamellar,both of which to my knowledge can be penetrated by crossbows.
Last edited: