"Why didn’t the crossbow last longer in warfare?" Topic

I've read many discussions as to why long bows were supplanted by early firearms, despite the latter being wildly inaccurate, with much more limited ranges. And they make sense to me— easier to train, maintain and practice, so that larger numbers of gunners could be used on a battlefield at lower overall cost than trained bowmen— but it occurred to me to ask "what about the crossbow?"

Like the gun, a crossbow is easier to aim and easier to learn to use (about the same, in fact, if not easier). Anybody can pick up a crossbow, aim and shoot it.
The range and accuracy are far superior to a musket (much less earlier guns), and like guns a crossbow has a relatively flat trajectory.
The reload time is high, but is it really higher than a muzzle-loader— especially things like the matchlock and wheel lock guns?
Certainly the "goats foot" style crossbow is much more rapid to load than a powder, wad and ball gun. (The windlass variety might take longer— I honestly don't know.)
And compared to a muzzle loader, I'd think the crossbow is cheaper and quicker to make.
Plus, crossbows don't create clouds of sight-obscuring black powder smoke to fill the battlefield and spoil future aim.

So, why didn't it hold the field? Is it simply a case of power-at-impact? Certainly armor did not long survive the appearance of the musket on the battlefield… is that it? (If so, it'd be interested in knowing whether crossbows could or even were re-introduced as potentially useful "sniper" weapons when armor plating went away.)

Also, how long did crossbows remain in the field as significant weapons or units after the medieval period?

The period of transition from bow to musket is not one I've studied much. I suspect many here have. What enlightenment can you offer?

Hunting crossbows were in common use much longer than military use versions. My best guess is cost, the later crossbows are serious pieces of work. A musket is basically a tube pinned to a length of wood. Once your foundry tech has got good at making tubes you are good to go.

I know that a couple of Popes banned their use in warfare saying that they were too deadly! I doubt anyone seriously listened to the Popes and their edicts. The idea of warfare is to kill your enemy before they can kill you! The crossbow was, as you say, a medieval rifle: powerful, accurate, deadly, easy to learn, easy to use.

Remember how short-lived the English Long Bow was? That took training from youth, to master, and the user had to be well fed, to maintain strength and combat ability. The crossbow did not require any of this: as long as you could cock, load, aim, and fire, you were good to kill your enemies!

In modern times, my State bans their use for hunting by most people, unless you are handicapped: mostly silent, easy to use, and deadly accurate -- point, click, kill.

If you search YouTube, you will find many videos on medieval crossbows. I've watched several where a person made his own, as close to the medieval versions, as possible, and then he tested them alongside of modern crossbows. Quite interesting stuff. Cheers!

"Hunting crossbows were in common use much longer than military use versions."

They are still in use. Last month my nine year old son killed an eleven point buck with a crossbow at a distance of 40 yards.

Instead of thinking about the individual accuracy and efficiency of the weapon, you might consider the relative mass deployment effects of the two.

Witnessing a volley of 200 crossbow bolts is certainly frightening, but witnessing the noise and smoke of 200 firearms going off probably has a greater psychological effect.

Gunpowder is better vs armor.
Armor remained in use for longer than you think. (Currasiers)

Also mass production of the weapon AND the ammo.

Good question btw.

Arrows and quarrels are much more cumbersome to store and carry than gunpowder and shot too.

Congratulations to your son, Kevin C. That's a nice deer.

@SgtSlag "a couple of Popes banned their use in warfare"

That was in the 12th century, fairly soon after they had made their appearance on the western European battlefield (the issue was their use in killing Christians. Killing infidel was not a problem) but this evidently had little effect on their continuing use.

42flanker, you are absolutely correct! I forgot about the fact that the Popes were fine with killing infidels with impunity, by any means. Thanks for adding that bit of clarity on the history of the Papal Bulls issued on the topic. Cheers!

I agree that the penetrative capabilities of shot were greater than arrows/bolts – they could compromise plate armour. They just did more damage.

Filed casting lead shot is much simpler than fletching and bolt making. Once mastered, powder is a mass produced chemical process and becomes relatively simplified.

By the time hand-guns appear the crossbows in operation were quite complex instruments and often substantial weapons. As armour improved, the crossbows had to become more powerful and beyond unassited spanning. I suspect hand-guns being a tube on a stock were relatively simpler and cheaper.

I suspect windage is less for shot.

It is worth keeping in mind that gunpowder was in any case needed (in large amounts) for the artillery.

At that point logistics are probably simplified by changing the rest of your ranged weapons into gunpowder ones. Then you only need to worry about different calibres of shot, and for the small arms lead shot can actually be field cast (requires a bullet mould, small ladle, lead and a small fire).

Parzival:

Here is a great book for you on the subject:

Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe
by Bert Hall

It is worth buying.

Basically the guys posting above all have it correct.

Joe Collins

Really nice, informed, scholarly commentary/analysis on this issue here: link

Plus links to other articles relating to armor and arms.

Thanks for all the input.
I'll look for the Hall book, and that blog post was indeed excellent.

Just simple economics
Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe : Gunpowder, Technology, and Tactics 1997

As well as the penetration of firearms compared to crossbows, if you examine the illustrations of crossbowmen during the 15th century, a large number have pavisses which are not effective against firearms.
Which bring a the question why the pavisse was not used by hand gunners as they fought against crossbowmen especially in the Italian wars.

Crossbows had some utility into the early 16th century at sea, but were replaced even there by firearms fairly quickly. The range and accuracy of a medieval crossbow is probably overrated – certainly not a "sniper" weapon as suggested in the OP, since the bolt gets slapped by the string, and the more powerful the crossbow, the more the slap.

They were great for arming crews not otherwise skilled in archery (whether longbows for the English or composite bows for the Turks and Venetians), for use at short range as vessels closed to board (or merchant crews tried to repel boarders), but the firearm had the advantage of matching the crossbow for armour penetration but also creating splinters if you hit, say, the railings or bulwark tops instead of the chap at whom you were aiming. Neither the crossbow nor the arquebus/musket were probably used at any sort of range at sea, as you might only get one shot off, so save it for the moment before your boarders tried to get across. Longbows/composite bows had a much higher rate of fire, which is why the Venetians and Ottomans kept them in use at sea for longer, as they allowed accuracy and multiple shots at longer range; the problem was replacing lost experts with them after bloody defeats such as Djerba or Lepanto.