[Christopher VaughnStrever]

A crossbow from horse back... I tend to think of things as such;

I am armored and while my armor will protect me it is not full proof, The last thing I would do on horse back is to sit there and reload while the enemy is coming towards me.

I have Maces, Flails, Swords, Spears/lances, and if need be I'll have my esquires toss me a spear I could toss at the enemy.

Lastly, If I had a crossbow... I would use a single shot and throw it to the ground to draw a more so appropriate weapon to bash in the enemy. And Even though I am filthy rich (I am not, I meant as knight), I wouldn't want to throw a costly weapon such as a crossbow to the ground.


But seriously, I was wondering if there are any accounts of Dukes or Earls going through the Knighting process of starting out as a page or what/not. I would love to share something of that sort with my audience. I had always thought that being a Duke or Earl would automatically make them a knight, just on a higher level, but I was once again wrong><

Also I was wondering this, Since using the term Fuedal system" is incorrect because every country had different ways of governing their people, by using the term vassalage to the appropriate places that did incorporate vassalage into their society; would that be correct to do? (Of course dependent on year and place)

[Gary Teuscher]

[Kurt Scholz]

@ Gary and all others concerning crossbows

Quite simple, make the draw length longer by using a crossbow with a longer draw length on horseback and one of the rare hook and tackle systems that doubles the draw length. So you can use quite a powerful weapon from horseback with as much difficulty as a horse archer. An intermediate between bow and crossbow (also used as such in the Levantine navies) is the arrow guide that was explicitly used by horse archers against other horse archers.
I also mentioned Nicole and his mentioning of a special Spanish belt and hook on the shoulder for mounted crossbowmen (it probably belongs to a crossbow with a longer draw length and a weaker draw weight), but it's clearly designed for mounted use and could be used even when the horse moves at a fast pace.

We can keep that an endless discussion. There is no evidence whatsoever that mounted crossbowmen in Europe dismounted to shoot, although that would be a perfectly reasonable move, also done by Asian horse archers. Why? Well it gave you a secure platform for long distance shooting, more precise shooting, faster shooting and it rested your horse. So we should also look at the misconceptions of horse archers. We do have evidence that crossbows were used on horseback to shoot by light and heavy armed men. We have no idea from the depictions whether or not they were able to reload. Any claim on that is wishful thinking. We can see that it was possible to shoot backwards and forwards with a crossbow while on horseback and the most important part of the crossbow, hold your fire and threaten the enemy until you have a good opportunity to strike.Perhaps it would be a good idea to ask the guy who wrote about the Stradiots in the Italian army featured article because they are mentioned as also using crossbows and being mounted.

Concerning mounted longbowmen, there's one report of archers crossing a ford and fighting crossbowmen during the crossing. It's possible that this was done from horseback. Another convenient use of longbows from horseback would be raiding, that was usually done in lighter armour and that also offers itself to using light crossbows from horseback that can help very much to threaten people into giving you their belongings plus penetrating light counter-raiders armour. But if there was use of longbows from horseback is speculation. My claim is just, that it's feasible (and if you can shoot forwards, you can also do a Parthian shot in a similar position.

[Gary Teuscher]

[Gary Teuscher]

[William P]

[Mikael Ranelius]

[Gary Teuscher]

I was thinking the same thing, Mikael.

I thought though perhaps the term Leidang could have been used by the Rus?

[Kurt Scholz]

[Gary Teuscher]

[Mikael Ranelius]

[Gary Teuscher]

[Kurt Scholz]

[Gary Teuscher]

[Kurt Scholz]

[Gary Teuscher]

[Jean Thibodeau]

Not based on historical proof but just speculation about the different ways a mounted crossbowman could be used compared to a true horse archer.

Lets first assume that the true horse archer would normally shoot on the move and often closing to just out of reach of infantry before loosing their arrows.

Long range volleys are also possible but then no true advantage compared to infantry archers except as to getting more quickly from shooting position to shooting position.

The Parthian shot is useful in harassing a pursuing enemy that one has motivated to chase the horse archers, and often a tactic meant to exhaust an enemy by doing it repeatedly or leading them into ambush.

General scouting, skirmishing and harassing tactics for horse archers.

For mounted crossbowmen all of the tactical usage mentioned in the last few posts seem possible or probable and a lot depends on how easily they could shoot and maybe reload from horseback, but I would suggest another tactic being to move to position but only shoot from the saddle with the horse not moving.

Move, take a position and do some precision shooting from the horse's back or dismount for maximum accuracy or to shoot multiple times.

The power and ease of reloading of the type of crossbow used would determine if shooting on the move, shooting for the saddle but not moving or having to dismount if more than one shot was intended.

In other words the mounted crossbowman is like a mounted sniper with the option of fighting as infantry ( Dragoons ) while the horse archer is more of a mounted skirmisher and a true form of cavalry.

Anyway, in " My Fantasy World " this is how I would use mounted crossbowmen using light or medium power crossbows that can be reloaded from horseback at least in a slow " caracole " style rather than shooting at the gallop at a fast rate of fire like the horse archer.

[Kurt Scholz]

Let's be clear. We don't have evidence for crossbowmen with horses fighting mounted or dismounted before the Late Middle Ages. No sources, no evidence. We can say it was possible and we can say doing so wouldn't be dissimilar to the one way use of lances if loading on horseback was a problem (there are enough servants in the records for this task). Note that in the Late Medieval illustrations mounted crossbowmen and lancers are shown as two options of mounted combat fighting each other. What we have for earlier dates for example are administrative records combining horse, heavy armour and crossbow among other things, but they give us no clue on their tactical use.
I suggest you delete dragoon from the vocabulary of the discussion, because how much mounted infantry they were is another complex topic and they have different weapons as well as no history making them clear descendants of mounted crossbowmen. For what you want to say zumbooruck would be more appropriate because they have a link to earlier use of crossbows and later records of dismounting to use firearms. But let's just call them mounted crossbowmen and say they could act as mounted infantry, but they could also ride around and threaten people with their loaded crossbows.
I have to look at some administrative records again, but I think, we have the numbers in High Medieval Armies of close combat fighters on foot and archers on foot, as well as mounted close combat fighters and crossbowmen. The proportions between the close combat and ranged combat specialist on foot and on horseback are very similar. So I wouldn't rule out that the mounted crossbowmen could play a similar support role for the mounted close combat troops as the archers(including crossbowmen) did on foot. Of course, that's highly speculative. However, I hope I have clearly established, that whatever the loading difficulties of a crossbow on horseback, you could use it like a lance (or throwing spear such as the Norman cavalry at Hastings). That makes it possible to integrate mounted crossbowmen into the tactical system of charges by lancers. Theoretically, I see two options, making holes into an enemy formation before the clash with lances and covering the retreat against enemies trying to follow not in thight formation. Another use within such a system could be riding around and shooting people as part of fake charges and keeping the enemy ranged combat troops at bay if they try to skirmish.
I hope we can all agree on Jean's statement that the tactical role of mounted crossbowmen depended very much on the loading difficulties. To really make progress in this field, we need reliable sources of field testing methods to achieve that end. Otherwise it's too speculative in my opinion.
Most certainly I wouldn't disagree that it was a good idea to ride somewhere with your crossbow, dismount and shoot people and ride away when a superior force tried to clear you. In a way, his horse could make a crossbowman more "cocky" and thus deadlier. So yes, they definetly could act as mounted infantry, but the horse archers also did just that (Islamic sources from the crusades metion that tactic). It's quite simple to understand, the horse can't stand as still as the ground.

I suggest we end this mounted crossbowmen discussion (because we have only nuances of differing opinions and it seems unlikely we convince each other of anything) and refocus on knights. While we're at mounted and dismounted combat, we can also discuss why knights and other memebers of the heavy cavalry also decided to fight dismounted.

[William P]

[Jean Thibodeau]