"Crossbow decline" Topic

I've started building army lists for the first half of the 16th Century and am having problems detailing declining crossbow usage. Can anyone help me with percentages of crossbow to arquebus to musket on a year-to-year or battle-to-battle or army-to-army basis? Any assistance,including simply pointing me in the right direction, would be much appreciated.

History of Warfare in the Middle Ages – vol2

Look at the Burgundian Wars and Swiss tactics throughout the period and beyond.

I do not think there are any clear answers as to percentages at any given time until you get to the mid to late part of the 16th century, when the breakdown between harquebus and musket can be gleaned from the records. It's simply not that straightforward. Different "powers" adopted the harquebus at different rates. The French tended to hold onto the crossbow longer, although they had harquebus armed troops contemporaneously. The Italians adopted the harquebus earlier than most for their militia forces (1470s onward), but also used the crossbow at the same time. Even the definition or origins of the "musket" is in dispute (somewhat).

It might not exist, but it would be interesting to see real numbers showing the decline of the crossbow with the increase in accuracy and efficiency in harquebus'.

Steve
cavalcadewargames.com
nycjadie.wordpress.com

I'd agree with Tripod – the info just doesn't exist in any detail, often not even vague detail.

The odd snippet about particular bands or what was provided by a certain city for a campaign/battle but that is about all, and even then, not plentiful.

The German town militias were among the first to change over to firearms. That may have had more to do with the major arm factories being there for firearms.

Remember one of the reasons of the switch over was that an arquebus and lead ammo was cheaper then a steel crossbow and its ammo. Took much less time to produce also. Once cheap gunpowder became common it was all over for the crossbow.

On the battlefield there was no big difference between the two weapons. Both were slow to load, cumbersome to use, short range and not very effective in wet weather. So when you have two weapons that are both equally effctive, but one is much cheaper to use, the cheaper weapon wins out.

You need Bert Hall's
Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology, and Tactics (Johns Hopkins Studies in the History of Technology)

Available on Amazon…

Great book…. percentages are difficult to come by. 1525 was the main turning point. Past that time…. crossbows were in decline even amongst the French..

Joe Collins

The rise of the Arquebus is well linked to improvements in producing gunpower cheaply, any increase in weapon proformance though that peroid is a very minor factor. Atleast thats my take- and i've read a fair amount of books on it.

Remember that the crossbow was kept in use in the colonial warfare years after it had been dropped as a battlefield weapon in Europe.

Not enough data to produce the kind of report you are looking for as they didn't report it like we had hoped and most records that have survived are somewhat vague. Further, the continuing refinement of the construction of the firearm has hampered research too as each weapon was of a slightly different caliber due to man-made differences in boring out the weapon. Further, the production of gun powder was a significant issue – as lutonjames stated above, as they got better at making it in larger quantities, you saw more and more fire arms used.

Hi

AND, there is no such thing as "The Crossobow" anymore than you can ask about "the automobile in the 20th century". Do we mean a 1908 curve dash olds or a 65 mustang.

Crossbows range from light simple weapons that start off as small game hunting weapons through monsters too heavy for field armies and only used in sieges.

Rocky

Hi

Oh, and just to take criticism. Being the hardware guy, for our rules, I grouped "crossbow" into 4 basic catagories based on ability.

rocky

Oh, and just to take criticism. Being the hardware guy, for our rules, I grouped "crossbow" into 4 basic catagories based on ability.

OK, so how does this assist in answering the initial inquiry, namely:

Can anyone help me with percentages of crossbow to arquebus to musket on a year-to-year or battle-to-battle or army-to-army basis?

Thank you to all who responded. My summation is that the crossbow played a significant role as a missile weapon at the beginning of the 16th century,slowly declining in use until around 1525, when availablity of cheap gunpowder brought a much speedier rate of change. Crossbows did however continue to play a significant role in colonial forces for some time beyond 1525. A good general guide for army building,with the kind of flexibility that makes the Renaissance/Pike and Shot period so much fun.

Hi

John, because the question was vague, giving an answer had to be equally vague!

Crossbows were still in use during the 20th century in ex-colonies in South east Asia.

In our rules in the period, we use a range of available something like "up to 15% light infantry with crossbow 2", but answering with how our rules specifically do it would be misplaced.

Rocky

Mr RockyRusso. The next time I ask a question on this forum I'd appreciate your keeping your nose out. You took the thread in another direction and, when called on it, claimed that my question was vague and deserving of your vague answer. Your answer was not vague sir,just irrelevant. And I did not appreciate the insult.

Hi

i apologize for your seeing an insult where none was ment.

Not knowing you and what you know, the thing seemed vague. It would be like "tell me specifically how fast a car goes". Would that be a Model T or would that be a 1969 ferrari P4?

Switch the question about and say "armor" in WW2. This is a big question. Everyone here, including me, just wanted to help.

R

Apology accepted.