Jean Henri Chandler wrote: |
By the second quarter of the 15th Century some quite small crossbows suitable for use on horseback (which you still see being used into the 18th century for hunting) were nearly as powerful as the larger siege crossbows, I think that is why the big siege weapons didn't necessarily have as much of a niche on the battlefield. |
What's the evidence for this? Given similar materials, a larger bow should deliver more energy than a smaller bow. I don't see how a cavalry crossbow could be nearly as powerful as Payne-Gallway's bow unless it were much more efficient or it was about as massive. (While using a crossbow that weighs 18lbs on horseback seems ridiculous, Sir John Smythe did claim that groups of cavalry using the heavy musket plus breastplate rests existed at least briefly.)
Quote: |
That said, I don't think we have actual evidence that they weren't very widely used - most of the records of armies and battles don't distinguish them or get to that level of detail. What we do know is that crossbows were ubiquitous and were heavily used by the infantry of the late medieval period and we do see the windlass spanners which are most closely associated with the bigger siege crossbows in the artwork quite a bit. |
Yes, and as you point out some big crossbows were also spanned by cranequin. We really have limited information about a lot of the crossbows used in the period. The French employed crossbows in large numbers through the first quarter or so of the 16th century. Fourquevaux advocated for the crossbow as late as 1548. It's specifically Monluc's description of using the crossbow as a makeshift shield in the left hand that makes think French infantry crossbows didn't weigh 18lbs. I'm unsure whether they were composite or steel, or how they were spanned.
Quote: |
We also see plenty of the steel prod weapons. Like in the Wolfegg housebook images, Rhenish 1480's-1490's, here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...uselang=de You can also see handgunners mixed in with the crossbowmen in that image, incidentally. |
That was one of the images I thought of asevidence for composite prods. None of the crossbows in that image strike me as clearly steel. The one the mounted man holds in the far left and the two on the middle right look more like composite. The incomplete color scheme and possibly color-changing paint doesn't help. By contrast, the two crossbows in this 15th-century fresco look decidedly steel.
Quote: |
Composite prod weapons weren't necessarily always lighter either. |
No, only per amount of stored energy.
Quote: |
There is clearly an enormous amount we don't know about how these weapons were used in this period, or in other eras like in China or ancient Greece. |
I certainly agree with this.