"Crossbows (in WRG rules)" Topic

I have a cavalry unit with crossbows equiped and I play the WRG rules.
Now I haven't played these for years, but the WRG rules make a difference between an arbalest (heavy crossbow) and a latch (light crossbow): which would the cavalryguys have used?

Light X-bows would seem more likely for cavalry, especially if they want to use them mounted.

We always assumed it was the lighter version too when we played those rules.

Most arbalests are very large, so would be rather unwieldy on a horse.

The smaller crossbows should work fine, and apparently some troops had a weigh to cock them while remaining on the horses.

Opinions seem to differ as to whether most dismounted to fire (seems to be more prevalent), or were actually used from horseback (less prevalent opinion), during battles.

Certainly, in skirmishes, they might have been used from horseback.

Well, as long as the rules don't say that they have to dismount to fire, I think it is possible.
They are certainly nice to skirmish against other heavier cavalry, who might get tempted to charge them. Hopefully they'll evade (I believe they must according to the WRG rules) and then my heavies can charge the pursuers who are in disorder.

From a historical perspective, depending on the time period, a mounted crossbowman may have had a more powerful weapon. The term arbalest, although refering to a late medieval powerful crossbow, is really in essense a Western crossbow spanned by the windlass, which was common in places such as Spain and France. Towards the 16th. century the cranequin mounted bowman had a though more compact carbine sort of bow, also had just as powerful if not more so powerful weapon than the arbalester. The mounted bowman (crossbow that is) was commmon to Central Europe, and those who served in Western armies were likely Eastern mercenaries (think swiss and german here.) In short, the distinction between the two refers really only to place of origin and manner in which they were spanned. The arbalest had to be larger b/c it was spanned using a stirrp and held vertically and could not be used on horseback. The cranqequin bow was often times more powerful, but was not as common as cranequins were very (and still are, I have one) much more expensive to make.

This is probably more then you wanted or needed to know Erwin, but I thought I would just pass it along.

ilodic.