The end of melee

[madd0ct0r]

It all depends on the draw-weight. Low draw weights (and thus low armor penetration and range), you can use your hands and back. Higher and you need a belt and claw (puley system attached at the belt), even higher you start needing goats foot levers, then a ratchet system, then a complex winch mechanism. The farther down that list you go, the lower the ratio of Required Strength:Power.

Still, as the amount of draw weight increases massively as you go down that list, pulling the crossbow stays an extremely taxing task, and pull times didn't get any shorter, neither. On top, especially the winch systems were notoriously prone to failure.

Sounds like the pull times were deemed sufficient*, and research was focused on increasing the power of each shot?

*presumably because if you wanted lots of shitty arrows fired off, you train normal archers, not build more expensive crossbows.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It all depends on the draw-weight. Low draw weights (and thus low armor penetration and range), you can use your hands and back. Higher and you need a belt and claw (puley system attached at the belt), even higher you start needing goats foot levers, then a ratchet system, then a complex winch mechanism. The farther down that list you go, the lower the ratio of Required Strength:Power.

Still, as the amount of draw weight increases massively as you go down that list, pulling the crossbow stays an extremely taxing task, and pull times didn't get any shorter, neither. On top, especially the winch systems were notoriously prone to failure.

This is true, but you still drop the Effort:Power ratio. With a belt and claw pulley system you can use the same effort, and you double the draw weight of the crossbow. The same is true for other methods even with a failure rate.

[LaCroix]

Sounds like the pull times were deemed sufficient*, and research was focused on increasing the power of each shot?

*presumably because if you wanted lots of shitty arrows fired off, you train normal archers, not build more expensive crossbows.

There were many more factors that made crossbows a specialist weapon. One was the build time. In Germany, for example, each city was obligated to employ a crossbow maker - and in case of Hamburg, he was supposed to craft 4 crossbows per year, and would receive a bonus if he managed to make more. A bowmaker could make as many bows in a week, easily. This makes massed archery the most logical solution.

Span times with a belt hook and stirrup were almost comparable to a bow, (about 30% off according to trials done by experimental archeologists), but these crossbows were only as strong as a warbow - 100 to 150 lbs. Sadly, crossbows do have serious mechanic efficiency drawbacks due to their short bow and short draw, so these Crossbows were only comparable to bows of hunting draw weight (~50 lbs). They were effective against unarmored foes, but a simple chainmail would make them almost useless. Considering that any man could draw such a bow invalidates the idea to use massed crossbows of that kind, simply due to expense. They would be more precise in untrained hands, at short range. It would definitely have a place in castle defense, where precision aim was more important than volume.

Using it in battle, against an armored target is a whole different thing.

A 130-150lbs warbow would have a reach of almost 300 yards. One figure I know is that a crossbow of 1200lbs draw weight (more than half a ton!) would propel it's bolt 460 yards. You can imagine that pulling that string with a windlass would take some time, more than a minute, as far as I know, and a not trivial, even if you manage a 1:8 or 1:10 leverage. Which is not a factor when you have both sides using crossbows, but if you have archers showering the crossbowmen in arrows, the battle will turn one-sided. (5-6 arrows for each bolt fired - thus the need for paveses.)

So Thanas' point is valid. You can have a relatively weak man fire a crossbow of equal power as a warbow, but he will be much slower, and tire just as fast as the archer.

On the other hand, this crossbow would go straight through a 3/4 inch wood plank at 60 yards.

[Sea Skimmer]

Limitations of ammunition partly undermine the rate of fire advantage of a bow over a crossbow though. Making arrows, and I'd presume bolts, was quite expensive, and so an archer might have a few dozen or so, potentially for an entire campaign season. While many replacements could be obtained on the battlefield, even during combat, you've still got a basic issue that a high rate of fire burst is going to be short lived thing in a battle and might only be possible a few times. That could be decisive if used enmass at a crucial point as the English managed a couple times, but it could also just be a wasted effort in a long engagement. How fast a crossbow user tires will not matter so much if the battle goes on for hours with varying intensity.

[Thanas]

Limitations of ammunition partly undermine the rate of fire advantage of a bow over a crossbow though. Making arrows, and I'd presume bolts, was quite expensive

Bolts were much more expensive due to the higher quantity of iron or steel necessary.

[LaCroix]

Limitations of ammunition partly undermine the rate of fire advantage of a bow over a crossbow though. Making arrows, and I'd presume bolts, was quite expensive, and so an archer might have a few dozen or so, potentially for an entire campaign season. While many replacements could be obtained on the battlefield, even during combat, you've still got a basic issue that a high rate of fire burst is going to be short lived thing in a battle and might only be possible a few times. That could be decisive if used enmass at a crucial point as the English managed a couple times, but it could also just be a wasted effort in a long engagement. How fast a crossbow user tires will not matter so much if the battle goes on for hours with varying intensity.

We do have some pointers on ammunition availability, price and production times.

In the mid C13 John Malemont, Englands chief quarrel maker made 25,000 bolts a year, and was expected to make 100 bolts a day for which he was paid 7 1/2 d and 3d for fletching them....

100 bolts are worth ten and a half pennies, just a bit under a shilling. (old english money conversion.) (I personally think it is quite interesting that he only worked 250 days a year.) Bolts are more expensive due to the dimensions, but are actually quicker to make than arrows due to their size (which makes forming and straightening much easier), needing no nock, and only having two vanes, usually made of leather.

Having carved and fletched quite a few arrows, myself, I do believe that 100 arrows per day would be quite an achievement, I'd assume that an average fletcher would manage something between 50 and 100 per day.

Bolts were required in huge quantities, in 1277 150,000 crossbows were supplied to South Wales, 1282 Bristol supplied 14,000 crossbows to Rhuddlan, 10,000 to Chester and 10,000 to Camarthen, and 4,000 for the naval fleet, in 1283 English Army in Anglesey equipped with 170,000 bolts...

The Gascons under Edward I in 1283 brought with them 70,000 bolts in 29 barrels and 12 baskets...

Considering that the English are thought to have had an army consisting of around 5000 infantrymen and 1300 heavy cavalry in Anglesey, even if half their troops were crosbowmen, that's about 70 bolts per man. I'd assume a conservative number of 1000 men, meaning they had 170 bolts per man. (Probably having runners resupplying them during combat, I read something about that about archers, somewhere, but can't remember where.)

edit: I just stumbled over a quote that Genuese crossbowmen held 20 bolts in their quiver.

[krakonfour]

One question: How recoverable were these bolts? Did teams go through battlefields, after the battle was over, to pick up all the spend bolts? During training, did they use full-size bolts or a weaker, cheaper variant?

[Thanas]

One question: How recoverable were these bolts? Did teams go through battlefields, after the battle was over, to pick up all the spend bolts?

Yes, anything metal was usually reused. Which is why the victor up until the modern age was not he who caused more casualties, but he who held the field. Not only did it allow you to keep possession of prisoners and recover/kill the wounded, it also was a great financial boost to you as the other side quite often had to replace a lot more gear, if they were even able to. That is also why most wars were decided by a few battles, because after that the other side had run out of sustainability.

[LaCroix]

One question: How recoverable were these bolts? Did teams go through battlefields, after the battle was over, to pick up all the spend bolts? During training, did they use full-size bolts or a weaker, cheaper variant?

The ones that missed, sure... The ones that hit their target, it depends.

If it hit a man not wearing plate, you only need to dig the bolt out and refletch it.

On a plate armor, you might be able to recover the tip from the wound cavity, maybe. A friend of mine recreated a 500lbs crossbow, and even on hits on wooden targets, not unlike paveses would have been, the bolts almost disintegrated on impact - all that left of the wood was an area covered in splinters, and maybe a few bigger fragments, while the tip went through the target, and was last seen heading for Kentucky...

Even arrows usually break when they hit a hard target, wood simply cannot withstand the deceleration involved once you get into combat draw weights.

[krakonfour]

One question: How recoverable were these bolts? Did teams go through battlefields, after the battle was over, to pick up all the spend bolts?

Yes, anything metal was usually reused. Which is why the victor up until the modern age was not he who caused more casualties, but he who held the field. Not only did it allow you to keep possession of prisoners and recover/kill the wounded, it also was a great financial boost to you as the other side quite often had to replace a lot more gear, if they were even able to. That is also why most wars were decided by a few battles, because after that the other side had run out of sustainability.

That's interesting, because metal and war gear is not something especially perissable. A country preparing for war could presumably stock up over the years a huge quantity of metal bolts and stuff.

[Borgholio]

That's interesting, because metal and war gear is not something especially perissable. A country preparing for war could presumably stock up over the years a huge quantity of metal bolts and stuff.

Crossbow bolts may have been quick to produce, but things like shields, swords, full suits of armor...some of it took better part of a year to produce in the case of high-end swords or full suits of plate armor. Really if you've only been producing arms for a few years in those times, you don't likely have much of a surplus.

[Thanas]

It is a question of cost as well. A village would produce only enough money for one well-done sword or armor piece per year, so you can't just stock them up at will.

[LaCroix]

Adding to what Thanas said - Hamburg was an extremely rich city, being in the Hanse and all, and their mandatory annual arms contribution was 4 crossbows (and other stuff I don't have numbers on). Projecting that onto the rest of "Germany", you would have a lower limit of about 500-1000 military strenght crossbows per annum.

Keep in mind that when talking arms production, we are talking about trades that are highly specialized and barely industrialized. There are no hydraulic presses stamping out cuirasses or swords in bulk (There are tools to quickly make arrowheads, but these techniques fail once you exceed the size of a small knife) - each piece has to be made by hand by a person trained for years. You can't just add a second man and double output.

Wipe out a single army, and it will take years to rebuild it.

[Imperial Overlord]

(I personally think it is quite interesting that he only worked 250 days a year.)

It's fairly typical of the time. Half of those 100 odd days off are Sundays and the rest are religious celebrations and feast days.

[Elheru Aran]

We do have some pointers on ammunition availability, price and production times.

In the mid C13 John Malemont, Englands chief quarrel maker made 25,000 bolts a year, and was expected to make 100 bolts a day for which he was paid 7 1/2 d and 3d for fletching them....

100 bolts are worth ten and a half pennies, just a bit under a shilling. (old english money conversion.) (I personally think it is quite interesting that he only worked 250 days a year.) Bolts are more expensive due to the dimensions, but are actually quicker to make than arrows due to their size (which makes forming and straightening much easier), needing no nock, and only having two vanes, usually made of leather.

Having carved and fletched quite a few arrows, myself, I do believe that 100 arrows per day would be quite an achievement, I'd assume that an average fletcher would manage something between 50 and 100 per day.

Is that 100 bolts a day for the individual John Malemont, though, or 100 bolts a day for his shop? Because I'd find it highly unlikely that he was making all of them totally on his own. He probably had a number of apprentices and journeymen in his shop at least, and with a certain degree of division of labor, I imagine the bolts could be turned out quite quickly. Someone makes the heads, someone cuts out leather for the vanes, someone else turns off shafts that have been riven out of wood by yet another person, and ultimately a couple of guys just stick everything together...

[LaCroix]

Is that 100 bolts a day for the individual John Malemont, though, or 100 bolts a day for his shop? Because I'd find it highly unlikely that he was making all of them totally on his own. He probably had a number of apprentices and journeymen in his shop at least, and with a certain degree of division of labor, I imagine the bolts could be turned out quite quickly. Someone makes the heads, someone cuts out leather for the vanes, someone else turns off shafts that have been riven out of wood by yet another person, and ultimately a couple of guys just stick everything together...

You are correct. In these days, the Master and his shop were a synonym, so it it very much possible that there were a couple of people working for him.

Anyway, the heads were almost certainly bought in bulk from a blacksmith, and the shop crew would handle the wood and leatherwork to create the parts the master needs. The master would usually only work in the last step of the process, assembly and quality control.

100 bolts a day is certainly in the range of what one good man (eventually with one helper) can assemble in a day, if finished parts were available.

[Elheru Aran]

Right, and with that in mind the 100 bolts a day is less incredible, especially if he's only putting them together. In itself that's involved enough, I grant you, but once he had it down he could probably assemble, say, a dozen bolts a hour. Eight hours' work, that's 96 bolts. Not much short of a hundred even if he assembled them all himself from parts made in the shop or outsourced.

In its way the apprentice-journeyman-master system could be surprisingly efficient, I've found...

[Sea Skimmer]

That's interesting, because metal and war gear is not something especially perissable. A country preparing for war could presumably stock up over the years a huge quantity of metal bolts and stuff.

That only helps so much when the medieval wars often lasted last years and years on end, in no small part because armies were so expensive nobody wanted to risk them in a field engagement, and they were also incredibly clumsy to move around anyway. Meanwhile you had to equip all your fortresses and cities out of that stockpile, because nobody really had enough troops to maintain continuous lines of defenses with any reliability. End result is long periods of attritional fighting on a small scale, consuming resources but gaining little for either side. Limited production and high costs prevented anything like mobilization from being feasible. Gunpowder weapons were ultimately able to change all of this, when compounded by increased wealth.

[krakonfour]

That's interesting, because metal and war gear is not something especially perissable. A country preparing for war could presumably stock up over the years a huge quantity of metal bolts and stuff.

That only helps so much when the medieval wars often lasted last years and years on end, in no small part because armies were so expensive nobody wanted to risk them in a field engagement, and they were also incredibly clumsy to move around anyway. Meanwhile you had to equip all your fortresses and cities out of that stockpile, because nobody really had enough troops to maintain continuous lines of defenses with any reliability. End result is long periods of attritional fighting on a small scale, consuming resources but gaining little for either side. Limited production and high costs prevented anything like mobilization from being feasible. Gunpowder weapons were ultimately able to change all of this, when compounded by increased wealth.

So it was acceptably cheap to maintain a huge army, but unacceptably costly to send out that army to fight, so they just maintained their positions?

[Thanas]

No, it was not cheap to maintain or equip a large army.

[NeoGoomba]

I take then that standing armies during relative peacetime were a rarity, due to the costs of feeding/equipping/maintaining/paying troops?

[Alyrium Denryle]

One question: How recoverable were these bolts? Did teams go through battlefields, after the battle was over, to pick up all the spend bolts?

Yes, anything metal was usually reused. Which is why the victor up until the modern age was not he who caused more casualties, but he who held the field. Not only did it allow you to keep possession of prisoners and recover/kill the wounded, it also was a great financial boost to you as the other side quite often had to replace a lot more gear, if they were even able to. That is also why most wars were decided by a few battles, because after that the other side had run out of sustainability.

That's interesting, because metal and war gear is not something especially perissable. A country preparing for war could presumably stock up over the years a huge quantity of metal bolts and stuff.

Think about the process of making maile for a second. Setting aside the difficulty of making wire itself without industrial equipment, you then have to take said wire, wrap it around a wooden pole, cut the ends, crimp flat the ends of 4/5ths of the resulting rings and punch them for rivets, then knit together that whole thing into a shirt or other garment (like a set of trousers). That takes a long time. A dedicated armorer is going to take a couple weeks to make one man's full set. A village blacksmith who has other shit to do is going to take longer.

Now you have a few hundred or thousand dead men clad in the stuff scattered across a battlefield. If you are the winner, that is a windfall. With some refitting--not to difficult with maile-- your knights have spares and raw materials for repair. Your peasant infantry has they have scavenged and is better protected thereby. You may have been able to snag the enemy baggage train. You now have all their spent bolts and arrows in addition to your own that hit the ground, and maybe even those in the baggage. Food from the kits of fallen soldiers or the baggage train (assuming they were using a baggage train and not living off the land. Often your land. Those assholes). All that stuff is expensive, and you have just made your enemy pay for it.

So it was acceptably cheap to maintain a huge army, but unacceptably costly to send out that army to fight, so they just maintained their positions?

Oh Hell No. But until the late middle ages, the cost was mostly in equipment, the manpower was feudal obligation. You dont have many professional soldiers. A really powerful duke might have a few dozen men on permanent retainer in each large town but most of his soldiers are going to take the form of either his feudal underling landowners who themselves have to mobilize their feudal underlings, or peasant levies. All these men have other shit to do. They have to administer their holdings, bring in the harvest or support their families in whatever tradecraft they happen to engage in. Equipping your army costs a lot of money in material, and if you go over the feudal service period dudes can charge a massive premium, and if you lose your men you get fucked because those men are now dead and cant bring in the harvest. You also have to feed these men while they are on campaign. So it is a HUGE mess. Warfare as a result tended to be small-scale, and there was a LOT of siege warfare.

[LaCroix]

The lack of standing armies was one of the reasons why Viking raids, and mounted steppe hordes were so successful - by the time you had assembled some men to pick up arms, the whole thing was already over. The most you could achieve by sending help was trying to catch the evildoers while they were carrying off the plunder. Once standing armies became a common thing, those raids disappeared quickly.

Also these raids were on of the reasons the medieval warfare turned out to be mostly about sieging. The Magyars, for example, are one of the factors that lead to the abundance of castles and city walls in the Eastern Austrian/South German region (Hungarians sucked at sieging, but were almost impossible to counter on open field at the time). So people hid in the nearest castle, and every castle the raiders passed was one group of enemies that could harrass them when they went home, laden with baggage trains, and thus vulnerable. That concept proved to be successful and spread quickly, to the point that some of the border regions had castles almost in shouting range of each other, which later caused warfare to center mostly around sieging.

[Thanas]

I take then that standing armies during relative peacetime were a rarity, due to the costs of feeding/equipping/maintaining/paying troops?

Yes. The only nation which managed to do that for most of the dark and middle ages was the Byzantine Empire. Which was one of the reasons why, even though they had a massive manpower disadvantage, they were mostly succesful in their wars.

That concept proved to be successful and spread quickly, to the point that some of the border regions had castles almost in shouting range of each other

Or just a matter of a few meters if it was really valuable and disputed land.

[Simon_Jester]

Now you have a few hundred or thousand dead men clad in the stuff scattered across a battlefield. If you are the winner, that is a windfall. With some refitting--not to difficult with maile-- your knights have spares and raw materials for repair. Your peasant infantry has they have scavenged and is better protected thereby. You may have been able to snag the enemy baggage train. You now have all their spent bolts and arrows in addition to your own that hit the ground, and maybe even those in the baggage. Food from the kits of fallen soldiers or the baggage train (assuming they were using a baggage train and not living off the land. Often your land. Those assholes). All that stuff is expensive, and you have just made your enemy pay for it.

To add a bit, this also explains why whole armies might fly into a panic when there was a threat to their baggage claims. Picture a thousand armed men, or several thousand, all shouting as one:

"OH SHIT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT!"

At the same time, it also explains why your army is likely to disintegrate in a wave of heedless looting when they reach the enemy's camp and baggage train: the baggage is literally treasure, piles of valuable expensive stuff that can be looted, and each individual man in your army is at least partly out for himself because of feudalism.

It takes excellent organization and discipline to resist this. You have to be able to order your men to not pick up literal piles of wealth equal to a year's wages for a commoner and have them actually obey that order.

Or to say "you guys stay on guard, we'll divide up the loot after the battle!" and have them actually believe that. It is not simple.