I've been reading some Robert O'Connell, and his theory that warfare and thus weapons development are very culturally driven. He cites several examples of weapons which were not exploited when they were available; the crossbow in ancient Greece or the breech loading Ferguson rifle from the late 1700s being two. This is despite their undoubted ability to kill the enemy, and thus presumably, win war for those who used them first. He believes that this is for cultural reasons; beliefs about what is heroic and/or sneaky and/or class distinctions in warfare and power, and so forth. ________________ So WI weapons which IOTL were shunned until much later on were adopted soon after they became practical? Would the Persian invasion of Greece, or the Pelleponesion wars turn out much different if the Greek light infantry were armed with crossbows? How would the Napoleonic wars have gone of the British had developed the Ferguson BLR as their main infantry smallarm? Or dozens of others which I don't know about? Could the nature of aristocracy be altered with every peasant in Europe having access to a crossbow from 1AD? Would trench warfare stalemate arise in 1800?