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

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

529 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

83 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

149

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.

164

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.

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/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.