Okay, so the invention of the repeating crossbow is widely attributed to Zhuge Liang in the early 3rd century. So my POD is to have the repeat crossbow be discovered by Rome during trade from the Silk Road and then seeing the obvious benefits. Obviously this won't save Rome but I am curious to see how European use of the crossbow will impact wars and history? Could this delay the use of guns?
WI: Europe imports the repeating crossbow
- Thread starter MrNumbahOne
- Start date
The Romans had something similar to this themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbow#Roman_Empire
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?113998-The-Use-of-the-Arcuballista-and-Manuballista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbow#Roman_Empire
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?113998-The-Use-of-the-Arcuballista-and-Manuballista
But it was still very used by Chinese militaries, so it had to have enough power behind it.
The lessened force of bolts was historically compensated for by smearing venom on them, so that even slight wounds could kill.
What obvious benefits? Making the individual shots too weak to be effective?
Impact? Little to none. The complex machinery involved is too expensive, and requires too much maintenance, so it's quickly abandoned, except for a few minor niche uses.
Would it delay guns? I hope you're joking.
Lets remember that the number one threat to China was nomadic horselords. A group that tends not to have particularly heavy armor.
Generally speaking, the only major opponents that Europeans faced that were similarly lightly armored would be the Arabs. So, perhaps it might have some limited utility in the Crusades, but inter-European wars? Not so much.
As others indicated it is not a useful weapons for the conditions the Romans (and later Europeans) faced. In general the backbone of most armies were heavily armored cavalry or (in some cases at least until the 11th century) heavy infantry. Against neither the repeating crossbow would be a practicable weapon.
Well, the effects I thought it would have would be not needing a lifetime worth of practice to be able to use the weapon, like for bows. That is the main reason muskets replaced bows in armies, is it not? Well, I hoped that repeating crossbow would cause something similar, with it a much higher rate of fire.
As for guns, when guns started getting popular and we had armies that stood still while firing barrage of musket fire, they weren't wearing much armor then as gunfire would punch through easily. Being lightly armored and wielding weapons that took too damn long to reload after one shot should be conditions for which the repeating crossbow would be ideal.
Although given the responses to this thread, all of what I just said is probably wrong.
Flocculencio
Donor
Well, the effects I thought it would have would be not needing a lifetime worth of practice to be able to use the weapon, like for bows. That is the main reason muskets replaced bows in armies, is it not? Well, I hoped that repeating crossbow would cause something similar, with it a much higher rate of fire.
As for guns, when guns started getting popular and we had armies that stood still while firing barrage of musket fire, they weren't wearing much armor then as gunfire would punch through easily. Being lightly armored and wielding weapons that took too damn long to reload after one shot should be conditions for which the repeating crossbow would be ideal.
Although given the responses to this thread, all of what I just said is probably wrong.
Basically it doesn't provide enough of an advantage over standard crossbows in European conditions. One shot with stopping power behind it per 2 minutes is better than X weak shots in the same amount of time.
Romans were aware of this tech but never used it. The Greek polybolos of similar tech was used since 300bc.
The Romans have a knack of adapting tech but also have knack of losing it like Greek fire.
However if you meant adapting Chinese form of repeating crossbow, the Romans will not adapt to it not unless china and Rome have directly military conflicts.
Absent of sino-roman conflicts, there is no reason why the Romans should adapt to that weapon when the current weaponry is sufficient for the empire.
Is there a rule that states the repeating crossbow must be mentioned once a year?
Anyway, it's really been said above. The technology just isn't that great. Think about it: You can speculate that the Romans/Europeans/Arabs did not use the repeating crossbow because their technology wasn't as good as the Chinese, but you'd still have to explain why the Chinese did not use the Chinese repeating crossbow on a large scale. They did not. The preferred ranged weapon for infantrymen was either the regular single-shot crossbow or the bow. And Chinese military administrators were many things, but they were not stupid or technophobic.
It's down to power. Crossbows have worse efficiency than bows anyway. You can't change that, it's inherent in the design. Their advantages are that they are easier to use, and that they store their power mechanically, so you can make them a lot stronger than bows. The Chinese repeating crossbow takes away the second advantage. It needs to be actively held until release, and it's an ergonomic nightmare. the power you get is so underwhelming you don't just have penetration problems, you lack decent range. Historically, it's a niche weapon, something you can use when you have something solid to brace against and no concern over being outranged. The thing is, by the time the Europeans had the organisational strength to build stuff for niches that specific, they had swivel guns to fill it. For actual field battles, repeating crossbows are inferior to bows, single-shot crossbows and muskets.
Anyway, it's really been said above. The technology just isn't that great. Think about it: You can speculate that the Romans/Europeans/Arabs did not use the repeating crossbow because their technology wasn't as good as the Chinese, but you'd still have to explain why the Chinese did not use the Chinese repeating crossbow on a large scale. They did not. The preferred ranged weapon for infantrymen was either the regular single-shot crossbow or the bow. And Chinese military administrators were many things, but they were not stupid or technophobic.
It's down to power. Crossbows have worse efficiency than bows anyway. You can't change that, it's inherent in the design. Their advantages are that they are easier to use, and that they store their power mechanically, so you can make them a lot stronger than bows. The Chinese repeating crossbow takes away the second advantage. It needs to be actively held until release, and it's an ergonomic nightmare. the power you get is so underwhelming you don't just have penetration problems, you lack decent range. Historically, it's a niche weapon, something you can use when you have something solid to brace against and no concern over being outranged. The thing is, by the time the Europeans had the organisational strength to build stuff for niches that specific, they had swivel guns to fill it. For actual field battles, repeating crossbows are inferior to bows, single-shot crossbows and muskets.
And Zhuge Liang probably wasn't such a brilliant mind to begin with, he wasn't known for winning wars and many of his supposed inventions are either bogus or wasn't so good (hence disappeared). Probably the reason he is so overblown is because Shu Han somehow triggered the Chinese people's "Byzantine Complex" and got wanked further with each iteration of his story for an entire millennium before Luo Guanzhong finalized the story.