Since crossbows were easy to use and very deadly why they even bothered with infantry? Why not just have an army of crossbowmen instead?
Too fucking long to reload.
>>723549
Also the range isn't great.
>>723549
so were the muskets yet that didn't stop people
because no one is ever 'just' a crossbowman or bowman but fights hand to hand
which is necessary when those other dudes make it to your lines
>>723535
cavalry
>>723562
some cavalrymen had small crossbows as well why not give all of them said small crossbows?
>>723554
Muskets made armor obsolete while crossbows forced people to wear more armor.
>>723593
more armor as in?
>>723535
Despite what hollywood would suggest, pre-firearm missile weapons are pretty bad at killing people.
>>723535
Because you could just park yourself at the top of a muddy hill and use your longbowmen to pick them off.
>>723615
b-b-b-but my 1v1 'weapons and soldiers existed in vacuums' DEADLIESTWARRIOR-tier sensationalized meme view of history wouldn't allow that
You can do that if you are Rhodoks.
>>723635
>He thinks bows weren't the most deadly weapon throughout history.
Prepare to be educated, this is /his/ after all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0WDfNKX0Os
>>723660
I thought crossbows were deadlier?
>>723535
Arrow-based missile weapons have shit accuracy over all.
While your full crossbowman army is reloading, the enemy infantry and cavalry is cutting your shit up
>>723664
crossbows were known for accuracy
>>723663
Crossbows were the weapon of untrained peasants who lacked the strength and agility to use a bow. Bows were without a doubt the most deadly weapon on the battlefield, in the hands of the right person. People only care about crossbows because they were more common than bows.
Here's another video showing how superior bows were on the battlefield, even after the invention of gunpowder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhNArfdql2Y
Wasn't there some Scottish nut who got a longbow kill or two during WW2?
>>723535
Someone just watched the new Vikings episode
>>723535
A lot of valid points have been made (cavalry, reload time, enemy infantry getting up close and none to friendly), I think logistics would have been a problem too. Not too easy to haul enough bolts for an entire crossbow army around, and even harder to replace, unless you brought more craftsmen with you, further increasing cost, weight of materials/forges etc.... Nightmare.
>>723554
Cannons also got a lot better around the same time muskets started being used.
Infantry could charge your crossbow men as the reloaded. Much harder to do that when you have grapeshot ripping your front line to shreds during the charge.
There were still infantry charges and calvary was still useful after muskets.
The bolt action rifle totally made charges obsolete. See WWI.
>>723535
Cavalry don't wait for them to reload.
>>723674
expensive mercenaries used them as well they weren't poor man's bow despite what some people think
>>723680
"Mad Jack" Churchill is they guy you are thinking of. He was actually British, born in a colony in India. He killed a German NCO near some French village I think, the absolute mad man.
>>723535
Because "deadly" in the context of pre-gunpowder ranged weapons (and even early gunpowder weapons)is a relative thing. You're never going to do as much damage with them per minute of combat as you can with guys with melee weapons.
Go pick a random battle. Mark down the casualties as fractions of men deployed. Remember that most of those would have been caused in the post-rout pursuit by cavalry. Then try to work out how many people killed were done so by the ranged weapons, and for a lot of battles, you'll find it's like less than 1% of the defeated army's overall force.
You'll still need infantry, especially to keep enemy cavalry from moving at will. Plus, crossbows were pretty expensive, it wasn't usually practical to outfit an entire army.
>>723593
Muskets (early ones anyway) made people use what's commonly called "plate mail".
>>723704
>The bolt action rifle totally made charges obsolete.
You mean smokeless gunpowder. Charges died when you could actually see anything beside smoke after your first volley. Consider the late 19th century.
>>723674
A bow is like a crossbow but
*takes less time train in
*has stronger hits
*is more accurate
>>723593
>crossbows forced people to wear more armor
actually that was lances
>>724947
actually that was my penis
>>724480
>He was actually British
You mean English.
>>723535
Missile weapons only started being able to stop a charge of infantry by the Franco-prussian war or even WWI.
>>723535
Even in the age of muskets the bayonet was still the primary weapon. You have limited melee options if you have a crossbow. They are cumbersome they get in the way because of the lateral space the bow takes up and if you drop it on the ground you just trip over it while fighting or marching. You can't just sling it on you back when fighting on mass with a secondary weapon because once again the thing is awkward and gets tangled up in the press of melee. Crossbow bayonets did exist but again your range of motion was so limited by the lateral bow that you only had a chance at one shitty attack that left you open. And just forget about kind of parrying.
Until bayonets were developed for muskets you could still see a division between missile and melee troops (English civil war is best example). But after bayonets became common the versatility of a combined melee and missile weapon outweighed all other weapon developments since ancient times.
I should say though, crossbow arming 100 NPC's on walls in D&D is a great way to murder some giants. You can't beat that 19-20 crit range. At least 10% of them will be hitting every round and one will do double damage. Thats 11D8 every round, light those bolts on fire when you're fighting frost giants and you got the battle in the bag.
Sorry I'll go back to /tg/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-8DQYLjHJE
Good video for those interested FYI. the Franks didn't use crossbows until after the whole viking thing.
>>723674
Holy shit this guy might be serious.
>>723535
Why does everyone say crossbows were used by peasants? Weren't most used by trained mercenaries or upper-class folk that could afford and maintain them? Could someone clear this up please.
>>725919
It depends. The crossbow was certainly widely used because it was easy to pick up and use. That doesnt mean its easy to be proficient in its use though. So, while of course it was an easy militia weapon, it was also widely used by mercenaries (the milanese come to mind) who could be incredibly proficient in its use.
>>723535
Slow to reload, especially the more powerful types.
Short range
Expensive, at least for a mass infantry weapon
Liable to become ineffective in adverse weather conditions
Will run out of ammunition in extended engagements
They did not have the power, the range or the stopping power to force back a mass charge of enemy infantry. It's not as if there aren't plenty of examples of infantry cutting down unsupported archers, never mind what enemy cavalry did to them. They might be good for softening up the enemy, but you couldn't rout an army with bows alone
>>725190
Too be fair though, the rise of the bayonet itself was caused by the ever improvement of firearms, so that it became better to have 2 shooty guys with auxiliary hand to hand capabilities than 1 shooty guy and one guy with a pike.
Bayonets weren't that great melee weapons. If you took a Napoleonic regiment who were out of ammo, and they fixed bayonets and charged a group of renaissance pikemen, they'd be in for a rough time.
>>725919
People use terms like peasant and commoner interchangeably.
It's a bit like the modern term wage earner which can include minimum wage store clerks or corporate lawyers who haul in 500k a year.
>>725969
The descriptions of cavalry meeting Napoleonic infantry in line formation are pretty hilarious too. Evidently that pointy bayonet wasn't that good against a manlet hussar with an oversized knife.
>>725969
>>725983
>>725190
Bayonets were actually barely use to kill, usually when you get charged by enemeis armed with bayonetted muskets, you either flee or stand and you flee often. And when you engaged most of the kill counts were attributed to gunfire, the bayonets is more psychological in a 1v1 fight than really deadly. When you pursue an enemy then, its quite useful.
>>723535
>Why not just have an army of crossbowmen instead?
Because heavy cavalry would come and fucking murder you.
>>725935
>it was an easy militia weapon
One should consider that these were the weapons of the militias of the Free Cities of the Empire though, and the Italian city states, which were all incredibly rich places, well capable of outfitting their men properly.
>>726094
Not sure I buy this? You may be right that most people ran, rather than face a bayonet charge but the bayonet was still the primary force on the field, kills or not. What im saying is multi uses is what really made it a keeper. No other weapon had that versatility.
And back to OP's question. The crossbow didn't have any viability in hand to hand combat. That is why you didn't arm a whole army with them.
>>723535
China did it with city defence. They used auto loading crossbows and just passed them out with a few magazines of bolts to everyone. It would rain poison tipped bolts from the walls and rooftops if anyone was stupid enough to get close.
Picture related, obviously destrung.
>>723636
Lol
>>726920
Holy shit Berserk is more realistic than I thought. I bet it's a true story.
>>727908
Not sure if sarcasm.
Ghe crossbow was *very* real. It was also relatively weak when to compared to traditional crossbows, and it was completely useless outside of siege defence. It was literally just a semi automatic poison dart delivery system.
Fuck, they predate the waring states in China; and they were used as late as the boxer rebellion, and as partisan resistance weapons during communist revolutionary times and during WWII against the Japanese!
Berserk does feature a ton of cool, real, historical weapons, though. I will give it that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_crossbow
https://youtu.be/nkyrhNgZAg0
I actually have worked with that Chad guy when I worked tech crew. He doesn't own that workshop anymore, though. Fell on hard times, and I haven't seen him in years. I doubt we'll see any more cool stupid shit from him.
>>727908
>>727972
>Ghe
Thanks, phone.
And here we have a picture of them depicted on naval ships. Some versions were far larger and more powerful.
>>724994
>X was American
>you mean Nevadan
>>728087
context is important
>Washington was a New Yorker
>he was actually American
>you mean Virginian
see Scotland is a part of Britain, as is England
I imagine most repeating crossbows were prone to jamming and breakages.
>>728218
The real problem is that they were low poundage. Hence the poison.
>>727972
Not him, but I thought the "repeating" crossbow first appeared in the later Han period, not the earlier warring states.
>>723535
Shields, armor, reload speed, range, line of sight problems, flanking cavalry, etc
>>728331
They are good for sieges though, appear to be very accurate.
>>728296
Read the wiki link. There are archaeological records of it existing before then.
>>728541
Disregard, I suck cocks and confused BC/AD again.
>>723568
>my facts come form video games
>>728732
Or, you know. Sources?
>>728732
crossbows were quite common light cavalry weapons in finland and scandinavia during early medievals
In one word, cavalry.
>>723554
Muskets were a sideshow to pikes for centuries.
>>723704
People could and WOULD charge cannon batteries. A detachment of pikes would suffer horrible casualties, but inevitably kill the gun crews. And then try to turn the gins on the enemy.
>>725919
Both parties used crossbows of varying complexity with varying levels of skill and attendant equipment.
>>726686
European observers in the US civil war actually commented on how the lack of bayonet use contributed to far, far more casualties.
Men being rushed with bayonets tend to run the fuck away. Battle over.
Two parties shooting at each other will fight longer and kill more of each other.
>>728383
Crossbows are the reason European castles evolve the way they do.
>>729041
Infantry could and would overwhelm them as well.
The idea of MUH SKIRMISHERS simply kiting infantry forces is generally a myth.
>>729489
>Muskets were a sideshow to pikes for centuries.
You could say this about the Italian Wars, maybe, but even then the shot was better paid than the pikemen and were useful for more diverse tasks. The ratio of pikes to shot shrunk very quickly throughout the 16th and 17th centuries.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A49473.0001.001?view=toc
>>723554
it was only after the development of the bayonet that all infantry were equipped with muskets (because they now had a speargun). Prior to that, an, albeit shrinking, portion of them used pikes to keep other infantry and especially cavalry at bay
Since artillery and aerial vehicles are the most deadly weapons of this age how come there is still infantry and tanks?
>>723535
because you need melee units to take cities
>>732426
Yes in Total War you do
>>732428
Well I would like to see how a squad armed with nothing but crossbows would fare in maze of small streets and housing blocks assaulted by horde of soldiers using melee weapons.
This is somewhat stupid discussion anyway, since balanced mix is better than sum of it's parts. Archers have their uses sure, but saying they'd diminish melee-soldiers useless is just stupid
>>725624
Thats pretty gay.
