Moving the wagons seems to be key to defeating one of the principle countermeasures to it, i.e. cannon being set up to blast the tabor to pieces. It's interesting to me that moving columns of these also seemed to be so decisive against the Turks on a couple of occasions.

I agree loading crossbows (and guns) on the move seems like it would cause a lot of problems, but they apparently did it. Not only on the wagons, but with mounted forces. Mounted crossbowmen were apparently as common in Central Europe in the 15th Century as mounted carbiners were in the 16th and pistoliers in the 17th.

J

Nicolle has a note that in Spain, where the crossbow replaced the javelin, mounted use did have a shoulder-fasted and not a tail-belt system with a hook for loading. As the mounted crossbows seem to have generally been of the light type it was not that difficult.

Eastern Europe is quite different from Western and Central Europe, they did also mount their artillery in large waggons that had some armouring effect and could be moved. Sounds pretty much like the invention of tank warfare and I'd like to see a research that goes deeper into that topic.

So we figured out some more things about crossbow tactics that got lost among a plethora of energy and penetrative power comparison with longbows and Turkish bows.

Crossbows were good for stationary defence in permanent or temporary defensive structures, including fortifications, wagons and ships. There was enough cover to reload under protection and use the great precision and higher released kinetic energy of the projectile for shots that count.

Use of crossbows does include mounted use in Europe, especially in areas with a tradition of very mobile warfare such as the Iberian peninsula and Central and Eastern Central Europe. In the Iberian peninsula it replaced the javelin (nicolle mentions that next to the crossbow one javelin was kept ready). In Central Europe is a strong javelin tradition and I guess the crossbow fulfilled a similar role by creating a munition that was fast, inexpensive, precise and plentiful in comparison. We had the mention of mounted archers shooting at the distance of a lance that would make a javelin or crossbow a suitable weapon to counter this approach with a weapon that can reach the enemy. Thalhofer depicts lance and crossbow fighting each other on horseback under very equal conditions, so the choice for one or the other type might have been tactical within one group of combatants. This group is at least during Landsknecht warfare known as "Ringerpferd" from "geringere Pferde" meaning with cheaper mounts than traditional lance armed feudal heavy cavalry. There can be little doubt that with gunpowder replacing lance and crossbow, these became the notorious reiters.

The image shown above is about combining close combat troops in close combat with ranged combat troops who have to shoot from a very close distance because of the inherent accuracy problems of early smoothbore gunpowder armament. We lack depictions other than the Hussites about a similar interaction between so-called spearmen and crossbowmen, but I guess this was a general pattern of cooperation between spear and crossbow on foot as well as lance and crossbow mounted. To what degree the ranged or the close combat equipped variant prevailed, might have a lot to do with an adaption for the expected enemy.

Scandinavia is interesting because they are shown using crossbows to shower an enemy and the whole formation has crossbows. It just looks like the same tactics as often tested with English longbow yeomen, just with another tool. This does not make much sense if you take them to employ the usual short draw length high draw weight versions popular throughout Europe in contrast to for example the longer draw length Chinese concept that made the crossbow a bow on a stock that was easier to handle (but as well developed into more powerful draw weights using the feet and releasing multiple bolts for continuous showering of usually mounted archer enemies with a missile barrage). That's the issue where I'm not sure crossbow is crossbow. It's my guess that Scandinavia and possibly the Baltics did use lighter crossbows with an as long as possible draw length in their massed formations. Such a version would be similar to the Chinese idea and allow to use leg muscles, normally well trained for lifting, to release a constant missile barrage at lower economic (less necessary training time, lower missile production costs, weapon with civilian use for hunting) and political costs than the famed longbowmen of England.
At least Gustav Aolph had to convince his drafted soldiers to replace their crossbows with gunpowder weapons and pikes and had it written down. Scandinavia, other than Italy, was one of the "crossbow-countries".

That's the point we had before about crossbowmen appearing as high paid professionals, same as the longbowmen and both had a connection to a medium social standing and wealth with strong connection to craftsmanship.
We were unable to solve the question whether the numbers of crossbowmen could be inflated by cheap help loading the weapons and carrying a large pavise in order to allow the expensive professional to focus on his core task of marksmanship.
It has often been mentioned that the crossbow is several times slower in a rate of shot test than the bow. I'm still sceptic, and think that someone trained as a craftsman in piecework earnings since early childhood will achieve a different comparison in rate of shot. Add to this a difference in munition expended efficiency by the improved aiming characteristics of the crossbow and the lower missile price. This can be factors in my opinion that validate the Medieval perspectives on weapon choices and payments for their handlers.

Forgive me if i already posted this in this thread, but this depiction from the Hausbuch von Schloss Wolfegg of an army on the move gives you an interesting idea of crossbows in use in 1490

you see the crossbows mixed both with lancers (on the left and right, what look like scouts in both cases) and with gunners among the infantry, though in this case the gunners and crossbowmen are separate from the spear / halberd men.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...eerzug.jpg

The gunwagons in the middle are not the Hussite style but are basically artillery mantlets for small field pieces, supported by gunners. The pattern of having the 'harder' wagons on the outside and the 'softer' (supply) wagons on the inside of the column does match what records report that the Hussites did.

They do also show another more formidable type of war wagon on another plate in the same ms with the horses behind it and what looks like a battering ram (?) on the front

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...fwagen.jpg

interestingly the detail layout of the axles on top matches the one in Talhoffer which I thought was copied from Belefortis.

The crossbows appear to be the heavier, short-span type. From what I've read though they definitely did use several types of crossbows, and also several types of ammunition. Long range shots most often used the 'bremsen' harassing / whistling bolts. They scared horses, allegedly.

J

Carpini mentions that the Mongols were supposed to muster with at least 3 bows, and later sources described use of a lighter, fast-shooting bow and a heavier bow - the latter either for long range or for close range / armor-piercing shots.

There seems to be a theme here that bows could either be used for flight arrows / area-shots, or for close-in shots, but my best information is that both tactics were used together. The Steppe nomads had the advantage in maximum range over many of their foes (notably in Europe) which was complimentary to the mobility of their armies, so they used both to their advantage (they could keep shooting at their enemy and keep moving out of range if their enemy tried to close with them), and they also used their more powerful bows as killing weapons at point-blank range.

Quote:

One might be tempted to compare Manchu cavalry tactics with that of late medieval European mounted crossbowmen except for the fact that the Manchu horse archers weren't supporting their men-at-arms--they were the men-at-arms.

European heavy cavalry in the Baltic, including both Teutonic Knights and Poles, also used to use crossbows while charging or pursuing, and / or when disengaging. They were kept on the saddle like the pistols were later.

J