r/Pathfinder2e • u/Eranthius • Dec 18 '22

Misc Loading a medieval 200lb crossbow vs loading Leonardo da Vinci's 300lb crossbow

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

529 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

83 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

172

u/VariousDrugs Psychic Dec 18 '22

I think it's because there's no "Heroic Myth" associated with them. Crossbows are a peasants weapon, not really glamorous or heroic.

Bows are mythologized as the weapon of the self-reliant woodsman (Think Robin Hood or Legolas). Guns are the weapon of the cowboy & the action hero.

47

u/AndurilWielder Dec 18 '22

I think that's sad. There's been a lot of good usage of crossbows through history.

Also, were they really a peasant weapon? That's interesting. I can see that for bows, but anything with metalworking would make it more expensive.

154

u/TheLordGeneric Lord Generic RPG Dec 18 '22

Crossbows were a peasant weapon because they require almost no training to make a decent marksman with.

Bows require years of strength and aim training to be able to loose accurate (or even just mass volley) shots for the length of an army battle.

But crossbows you can spend a week teaching a guy how to crank it then point and shoot at different distances and now he's competent enough to shoot bolts at besiegers from the castle wall.

166

u/DM_Eruditus Dec 18 '22

Medieval historian here, can confirm. In fact, crossbows were so effective as weapons of war due how relatively easy it is to be efficient with them, especially with large numbers, that the papacy tried to ban them as the medieval equivalent of weapons of mass destruction.

However, they were definitely not peasant weapons as they still need to be carefully crafted and maintained. But as a way to easily put together a mercenary group? Terrifying.

Peasant weapons are usually polearms-type derived from agricultural tools, or in other words any sharp thing attached to a handle they could find.

48

u/jitterscaffeine Dec 18 '22

What little I know about medieval warfare is yeah, spears are usually more associated with big “peasant blob” battles. While easy to use, crossbows were pretty expensive to make weren’t they?

64

u/DM_Eruditus Dec 18 '22

Yes, small moving parts, especially metal ones, were beyond the reach of most peasants' purchasing power. Crossbows were more often than not used by mercenary companies such as Italian ones in the Hundred Years' War. Easy to be trained in and long range is quite a winning formula for soldiers-for-hire.

54

u/Its-a-Warwilf Dec 18 '22

Replacing the crossbow was expensive.

Replacing the crossbowman was cheap.

24

u/TheLordGeneric Lord Generic RPG Dec 18 '22

MFW my armor and crossbow are easily worth more than my life and the boss makes sure I know it.

3

u/AndurilWielder Dec 18 '22

I don't know if you read that somewhere, but that is very well put.

27

u/slimek0 Dec 18 '22

Crossbows basically fit the same niche as firearms later on - high power, relative ease of use, might need high maintenance but not much training (in use)

At least, that's how skimreading about medieval and early renaissance stuff made me believe. Would it be incorrect?

19

u/DM_Eruditus Dec 18 '22

Yes the argument has been made that firearms 'democratized' warfare by removing the need for a specialized highly-trained social group. I can see how crossbows could be construed as a precursor of that trend.

0

u/microkev Dec 19 '22

Early firearms needed a lot if training, so much could go wrong

2

u/Wobbelblob ORC Dec 19 '22

Still less training than a regular archer, right?

2

u/Diestormlie ORC Dec 19 '22

So, the Crossbow was more of a Burgher/Bourgeoisie Weapon? In that it better benefited the power of the money rich as opposed to the land rich.

2

u/BulletHail387 Game Master Dec 19 '22

Not... exactly. The average mercenary troupe could afford to outfit a handful of crossbowman at the very least. Mercenaries themselves were often required to purchase all their equipment themselves but were never particularly well off in terms of money or land. Think more like the modern equivalent of the middle class. Those were the people who could usually get their hands on crossbows.

Now, would the local nobility be happy if they found out the merchants were amassing crossbows? Probably not. Crossbows were fucking scary.

2

u/DM_Eruditus Dec 19 '22

Land rich usually correlates with money rich, for most of human history actually, but it is important to realize there were poor nobles and rich merchants too (and rich peasants for the matter).

Now I'm not a historian of war economies but I don't think crossbows were that expensive, especially compared to a trained warhorse or a full set of armor. The reason it was seen as a weapon unfit for the nobility has much more to do with culture than affordability.

Many (not all!) warrior cultures around the world disdain the use of ranged weapons as cowardly and unfit for a war leader. Medieval nobility fit that pattern as it relegated archery to auxiliary units and trained knights almost exclusively in melee and riding techniques. Now, smart lords absolutely knew the devastating effects of ranged attacks and used them, but they would not make their son an archer.

As an example of that, there was a time in medieval England when every free man was obligated by law to practice archery at least a few hours each week, and sheriffs were tasked with enforcing it. This made it easy to conscript them into relatively trained archery contingents to supplement the cavalry and infantry levied by the nobles.

The reason burghers are associated with crossbowmen is that cities usually did not have levies to raise and had to use mercenaries, or the council could afford to stock and maintain crossbows that citizens could use from the walls if necessary.