FinalExcalibur Posted May 11, 2012 Not really a game question, but more of a meta/historical thing. When armies were moving out of the medieval era, what caused them to adopt the musket over the crossbow? I get that bow users had to be trained a long time, but I assumed crossbows were more accurate and had greater range than muskets (i hear a lot about bolts punching through plate easily). They also seemed relatively easy to use compared to the gazillion steps needed to fire a matchlock. Didn't they have certain mechanisms for pulling back the drawstring so the user's strength wasn't an issue? Plus they seemed to load around the same speed or faster. It could also fire when wet, although perhaps not as effectively. Could it be cost? I always assumed wooden bolts were cheaper than metal bullets + gunpowder. Was a crossbow cheaper to make and maintain than a musket? Just a nagging question. I'm no expert, so my assumptions may be off. Anyone know? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nachimir Posted May 11, 2012 There is a humongous list of reasons here. Basically: Compact and easy to mass produce ammunition, more powerful, less training required, users less affected by fatigue, frightened horses, better defensive weapon for sieges. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Destrin Posted May 11, 2012 They also seemed relatively easy to use compared to the gazillion steps needed to fire a matchlock. Didn't they have certain mechanisms for pulling back the drawstring so the user's strength wasn't an issue? Even with the compound winch fired crossbows, loading and firing a matchlock is considerably easier and requires less strength. I suspect minimal training was key amongst the many reasons given in the previous posts. Fun fact: Muskets are legally classes as shotguns under UK law nowadays. If you see a re-enactment battle where people are firing muskets, they will almost certainly all be licensed to own a shotgun. Also you need an explosives license to acquire the black powder. It still astounds me that the UK police force considered me responsible enough to grant me both of these licenses for the 8 years I was a re-enactor. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scrobbs Posted May 11, 2012 Innocent until proven guilty with the latter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FinalExcalibur Posted May 11, 2012 Interesting stuff. Thanks for the replies, folks. All of those reasons make sense, but was it really more powerful though? Both seemed to defeat armor handily. Was being hit by a bolt preferable to being hit by a musket ball? Honest question. By the way, I've heard that the term 'bulletproof' originated from smiths shooting their own plate armor to show it wouldn't penetrate. Is there any truth to this, or is it just another story on the intertubes? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OssK Posted May 11, 2012 Also, linked but not directly : they way the introduction of Black Powder in Europe affected architecture and urbanism is an astounding thing to study. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RoutineMachine Posted May 12, 2012 Can't discount the satisfying POP that 40 muskets make when fired in chorus. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gormongous Posted May 14, 2012 Can't discount the satisfying POP that 40 muskets make when fired in chorus. This, pretty much. Crossbows snap and quarrels whistle, but nothing can match the smoke and thunder of a massed gunpowder barrage. It confuses men, terrifies horses, and covers the battlefield in a dense miasma. Sure, that may not seem like much compared to the practical effects of traditional ranged units in equal number, but when you consider that it could all be accomplished by a handful of peasants with a couple weeks of training, it's not hard to see why the changeover took place in the span of barely a generation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scrobbs Posted May 14, 2012 As gunpowder progressed as well, it's fun to look at how battlefield camouflage progressed. Back when arrows etc. were used, there was the regimental uniforms, then as gunpowder took over, and clouds of smoke covered everywhere, the uniforms got brighter (or stayed as bright) so that units could have a chance of being identified through the smoke. Then of course, they got duller and more like the modern camouflage that we know now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites