Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Azlan" data-source="post: 861042" data-attributes="member: 2340">Being strictly historical, what was the average rate of fire per minute for crossbows?(When posting replies with numbers here, please don't draw from your head. Use actual historical references and sources.)The Compendium of Weapons and Armor by Palladium Books says, "An average military crossbow with windlass attachment could fire one shot per minute; the average longbow could fire six shots per minute." I assume this book is talking about heavy crossbows here. Elsewhere in the book, it shows medium crossbows, with either a goat's foot or claw & belt, capable of firing two shots per minute, on average.Another book I have, The Wars of the Roses, says, "If their arrows lacked the penetration of those of the crossbowmen employed by the French, the English archers could shoot ten to twelve arrows a minute against the crossbowmen's two."Yet another book I have, The Hundred Years War, says this about longbows: "The long-bowmen could shoot ten or even twelve arrows a minute, literally darkening the sky, and had a fighting range of over 150 yards, with plate-armor-piercing range at about 60 yards." Of the crossbow, in comparison to the longbow, this books says: "Its advantages were its greater accuracy and velocity, it disadvantages being its weight (up to 20 lbs) and slow rate of fire - only four quarrels per minute, at best."The "longbow" this book refers to is 5'8" to 6'4" in length, with draw-weights of 80-100 lbs; using arrows 30" in length, with bodkin heads of case-hardened steel. The "crossbow" this book refers to is the kind fitted with an iron stirrup at its fore end, in which a foot is place to span the bow, while using a belt & claw.It's interesting that The Hundred Years War says the longbow could pierce plate armor at 60 yards, while The Wars of the Roses says this about the matter: "...the French switched from the chainmail of earlier times (which could be penetrated by arrows) to elaborate and very expensive plate armor, and began experimenting with armoring their horses."Elsewhere in The Wars of the Roses it says this: "The presence of archers on both sides... often compelled commanders to adopt the French technique of making their calvary dismount. Instead, they fought on foot as heavy infantry, armed with swords and battleaxes, or with maces and flails. These latter weapons were the answer to the increasingly sophisticated fluted (plate) armor, much of it imported from Italy, which was developed during the 15th century. Armor of this kind could often deflect arrow, sword, or spear; the mace or flail could crush both armor and the man within it by sheer impact." Incidentally, the Hundred Years War took place from the mid 14th century to the mid 15th century, while the Wars of the Roses took place during the late 15th century.Anyway... I'm wondering about all this because of the house rules I'm putting together for bows and crossbows. With my house rules, I've made crossbows more accurate and better able to penetrate heavy armor, but I'm wanting to make their rates-of-fire slower than the highly unrealistic ones given in 3E D&D. The question is, just how slow to make them? (The rate of fire for bows in 3E D&D already seems to be historically accurate.)BTW: I didn't post this in the "House Rules" section, because I don't want to discuss house rules so much as I do want to discuss the historical capabilities (and limitations) of bows and crossbows. But if this discussion veers too far into the area of house rules, then I'll understand if a moderater moves it to that section.</blockquote>

Verification