Muskets vs. Crossbows - Why do firearms exist?

[DBTrek]

Crossbow

• Created: 400BC (Asia)
  Requires training: No
  Penetrates armor: yes

Musket

• Created: 1475AD (Europe)
  Requires training: No
  Penetrates armor: yes

I was having a reflective moment while buzzing on Voodoo Ranger Imperial IPA last night and thinking about the evolution of firearms. In fact, I got a little hung up on the *WHY* portion of how firearms evolved.

At what point did arming troops with an arquebus make more sense than arming them with crossbows? What advantage(s) did old, unreliable, poorly-sighted, difficult-to-operate (keeping powder dry, tamping down gunpowder, lighting fuses, etc), early firearms offer that crossbows did not?

Obviously modern day firearms offer a huge advantage over the crossbow, but I'm not sure when (if ever) early firearms were an upgrade. Warfare is hardly one of those arenas where you field inferior equipment when a superior alternative is available, so what am I missing?

[Xenophon]

Crossbow

• Created: 400BC (Asia)
  Requires training: No
  Penetrates armor: yes

Musket

• Created: 1475AD (Europe)
  Requires training: No
  Penetrates armor: yes

I was having a reflective moment while buzzing on Voodoo Ranger Imperial IPA last night and thinking about the evolution of firearms. In fact, I got a little hung up on the *WHY* portion of how firearms evolved.

At what point did arming troops with an arquebus make more sense than arming them with crossbows? What advantage(s) did old, unreliable, poorly-sighted, difficult-to-operate (keeping powder dry, tamping down gunpowder, lighting fuses, etc), early firearms offer that crossbows did not?

Obviously modern day firearms offer a huge advantage over the crossbow, but I'm not sure when (if ever) early firearms were an upgrade. Warfare is hardly one of those arenas where you field inferior equipment when a superior alternative is available, so what am I missing?

Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman went over this in his book On Combat. Even though early firearms were less accurate, there was a psychological effect on a person who is the receiving end of a volley of musket fire that couldn't be matched by the silent thwip of a group of bowmen. I figure the same argument would hold true for the crossbow.

[Speaker to Animals]

Why wouldn't they just engineer bolts to make sounds?

I know in the classical times, the Romans used to drill holes in stones to make screeching sounds. Imagine a volley of hundreds of stones making high-pitched whistling as they carved their way through people's skulls.

[DBTrek]

My thoughts exactly. There have been ancient weapons that made scary sounds, and it's a feature that didn't largely translate to other or all weaponry.

I don't know . . . I guess it's possible that "firearms were scary", but you give me 200 medieval crossbowmen taking aim at your 200 medieval arquebusers, and tell me how scary they are when the smoke clears, right?

Unless firing an arquebus resulted in several enemies dropping their weapons and fleeing the field on every shot, I'm not seeing that advantage as being significant enough to field inferior weaponry in a war.

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

Every sentient being fears fire.
Loud noises draw attention.
Smoke conceals musketry.

[Smitty-48]

Crossbow

• Created: 400BC (Asia)
  Requires training: No
  Penetrates armor: yes

Musket

• Created: 1475AD (Europe)
  Requires training: No
  Penetrates armor: yes

I was having a reflective moment while buzzing on Voodoo Ranger Imperial IPA last night and thinking about the evolution of firearms. In fact, I got a little hung up on the *WHY* portion of how firearms evolved.

At what point did arming troops with an arquebus make more sense than arming them with crossbows? What advantage(s) did old, unreliable, poorly-sighted, difficult-to-operate (keeping powder dry, tamping down gunpowder, lighting fuses, etc), early firearms offer that crossbows did not?

Obviously modern day firearms offer a huge advantage over the crossbow, but I'm not sure when (if ever) early firearms were an upgrade. Warfare is hardly one of those arenas where you field inferior equipment when a superior alternative is available, so what am I missing?

Weapons development is about getting an edge on your opponents, the status quo doesn't give you an edge since your opponents have the status quo as well, and often the edge is as much about deterence as it is combat, there's more cold war than there is hot war.

It was the same with jets, helicopters and drones as it was with firearms in Europe in the 13th century, it was prospective development, they were pursuing a wunderwaffen and they were in competitition with each other as to who would get there first, so everybody was throwing a lot of money at it in the hopes that it would payoff, and at the same time they were showing their wunderwaffen's off in a competition to demonstrate and intimidate.

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

My thoughts exactly. There have been ancient weapons that made scary sounds, and it's a feature that didn't largely translate to other or all weaponry.

I don't know . . . I guess it's possible that "firearms were scary", but you give me 200 medieval crossbowmen taking aim at your 200 medieval arquebusers, and tell me how scary they are when the smoke clears, right?

Unless firing an arquebus resulted in several enemies dropping their weapons and fleeing the field on every shot, I'm not seeing that advantage as being significant enough to field inferior weaponry in a war.

Let's ask Mr. Horse.

[DBTrek]

It was the same with jets, helicopters and drones as it was with firearms in Europe in the 13th century, it was prospective development, they were pursuing a wunderwaffen and they were in competitition with each other as to who would get there first, so everybody was throwing a lot of money at it in the hopes that it would payoff, and at the same time they were showing their wunderwaffen's off in a competition to demonstrate and intimidate.

Kind of risky, no?

When King DB marches his plain ol' army with crossbowmen against King Smitty's new army with arquebusers, King Smitty better win or all the weapon-blinging in the world isn't going to matter.

With modern weapon development you can R&D something like a jet fighter for twenty-odd years before ever putting it on the battlefield. But in medieval times it was fairly important that you won your battles. I guess, barring an R&D program, aristocrats simply had to R&D their new tech on the battlefield, in real time.

I'm just surprised that they kept fielding really crappy firearms for CENTURIES before they finally became a net plus. It defies logic - which makes me think there's some large piece of the puzzle I'm missing.

[Smitty-48]

It was the same with jets, helicopters and drones as it was with firearms in Europe in the 13th century, it was prospective development, they were pursuing a wunderwaffen and they were in competitition with each other as to who would get there first, so everybody was throwing a lot of money at it in the hopes that it would payoff, and at the same time they were showing their wunderwaffen's off in a competition to demonstrate and intimidate.

Kind of risky, no?

When King DB marches his plain ol' army with crossbowmen against King Smitty's new army with arquebusers, King Smitty better win or all the weapon-blinging in the world isn't going to matter.

With modern weapon development you can R&D something like a jet fighter for twenty-odd years before ever putting it on the battlefield. But in medieval times it was fairly important that you won your battles. I guess, barring an R&D program, aristocrats simply had to R&D their new tech on the battlefield, in real time.

I'm just surprised that they kept fielding really crappy firearms for CENTURIES before they finally became a net plus. It defies logic - which makes me think there's some large piece of the puzzle I'm missing.

But firearms development in 13th century was as much about showing off your technical prowess as it was winning battles, winning battles is really more of a pyschological issue, will your troops stand and deliver, will they fight or will they run, but in terms of weapons, you throw the kitchen sink at it, so you have your bowmen, but at the same time you throw some gunmen into the mix too, see what they can do.

It wasn't really different than it is now, they had their own versions of the military industiral complex in the 13th century too.

[DBTrek]

Let's ask Mr. Horse.

How close does a horse have to be to a musket for the shot to spook it?
And did people field their early musketmen against cavalry, or were they deployed more often against infantry and other ranged units?

As far as I know (which isn't far), musketmen were deployed much like archers, which is to say, not used to directly counter armored cavalry. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm trying to think of some big battles I might be able to review where medieval (or early renaissance) lords detailed how they used their musketmen in battle.