Art De La Guerre
Bienvenue sur le forum de discussion de la règle de jeu l'Art De La Guerre
 
FAQFAQ RechercherRechercher Liste des MembresListe des Membres Groupes d'utilisateursGroupes d'utilisateurs S'enregistrerS'enregistrer
ProfilProfil Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privésSe connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés ConnexionConnexion
The Chinese Crossbow Problem
Page 1 sur 1
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet
 Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Army lists
Auteur Message
KevinD
Centurion


Inscrit le: 23 Aoû 2021
Messages: 499
Localisation: Texas
MessagePosté le: Jeu Jan 12, 2023 7:47 pm    Sujet du message: The Chinese Crossbow Problem Répondre en citant
Over time crossbow has the longest and heaviest usage in China. However the weapon’s stats in ADLG (and other games like WRG 6 &7th) do not actually match when the Chinese chose to use it or not use it. These factors come from the view of the crossbow being a slower firing weapon with better armor penetration as compared to the bow. I would suggest the factors assigned to (most) crossbows are in fact wrong.

It should be noted that Chinese primary sources do not really discuss macro-economic factors such as ease of production or training massive numbers of troops when discussing the merits of the crossbow over the bow. They do however frequently dwell on the perceived superior tactical performance of the crossbow over the bow. Of particular interest are the Eastern Han Dynasty sources describing the crossbow as being superior to the bow for fighting the Xiongnu and related steppe opponents, nomads with light or nonexistent armor. In ADLG terms, they are choosing the crossbow over the bow for use against Light, Medium and Heavy Cavalry. (Xiongnu and others use of cataphracts and similar heavily armored horsemen post date the Han Dynasty.) This choice the Han made is not really a choice anyone would make facing this matchup in ADLG. Further the reason the Han sources give for the Xiongnu not using crossbows against Han forces (again of Ligt, Medium and Heavy cavalry and unarmored infantry) were the embargoes the Han placed on crossbow technology to prevent the secret of manufacturing them from reaching the Xiongnu. (It’s not really important that this was the actual motivation of the Xiongnu to favor the bow, but merely that the Han thought so and went to some effort and expense to limit the diffusion of crossbow technology Xiongnu.)

In fact if you look at the waxing and waning of the popularity of the crossbow throughout history in China it does not correlate with the utility of the crossbow against their foes. Essentially the only matchup faced by Chinese armies where the crossbow is superior to the bow is versus cataphracts, while they are inferior to the bow versus separately deployed archers and medium cavalry. Cataphracts were a prominent force among the domestic and foreign foes of the Northern and Southern Dynasties (who faced Cataphracts among the nomads and each other but when crossbow use fell from the Han era), the Sui and Tang (who faced cataphracts among domestic opponents when consolidating their dynasties and the Koreans when expanding and later the Tibetans but when the fubing and later mercenary replacements were largely equipped with bows). As noted above the Han who did not face Cataphracts (or armored infantry) relied on crossbows. So did the Song, whose most dangerous opponents either did not use (Khitan Liao or Mongols) or rarely used (Jurchen Jin for only a dozen years) Cataphracts or armored infantry. Interestingly the Song did have one somewhat lesser opponent who (probably) used Cataphracts, the Xi Xia or Tanguts. However, initially the Xi Xia armor was said to be resistant to the Song crossbows, only after the Song introduced the new more powerful Divine Arm Bow (a type if crossbow introduced after 1040 AD or so) were the Song crossbows capable of penetrating Xi Xia armor.

Thus, overall I don’t think the narrative that crossbows were optimized against heavy armor really holds up for much of Chinese history. Perhaps all East Asian crossbows(or at least those prior to about 1040 AD) should be classed as bows.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Mark G Fry
Signifer


Inscrit le: 15 Juin 2017
Messages: 319
Localisation: Bristol, UK
MessagePosté le: Lun Jan 16, 2023 7:19 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
What wargamers often forget about crossbows is their practical 'utility' over ordinary bows.

It takes a lot of time to train a bowman, even adequately. Whereas a crossbow, especially a simple ratchet or stirrup type weapon (or even a repeating Chinese crossbow), can be mastered (or at worst effectively used) with only the very basics of training.

When we look at Chinese armies, I suspect that the crossbow was used not because of its armour piercing qualities (as in the West) but primarily as a mass volley-fire weapon for relatively poorly trained troops. If you shot enough bolts at passing horse archers, you were bound to hit somebody (rider or mount) is probably the theory.

Where we see the large-scale adoption of self or composite bow technology for foot archers, such as with Sui/T'ang and Song period armies (for example), you have lengthy periods of continuous warfare and a culture of indigenous mounted horse bow use. Therefore Chinese armories were set up to mass produce composite bows and you had troops on campaign for lengthy periods of time, and so they were better trained and more professional. Hence we see the bow supplanting the crossbow as the primary missile weapon.

So, from an ADLG perspective, the fact that crossbows underperforms in the rules against Light or Medium Cavalry, is actually realistic.
In fact, you could argue that a lot of the Chinese crossbow units in the lists (other than regular or guard troops) should even be classified as 'Mediocre' to reflect this lack of regular training.

Just a thought
Mark
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Jhykronos
Auxiliaire


Inscrit le: 02 Aoû 2015
Messages: 95
MessagePosté le: Mer Jan 25, 2023 8:32 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
KevinD a écrit:
It should be noted that Chinese primary sources do not really discuss macro-economic factors such as ease of production or training massive numbers of troops when discussing the merits of the crossbow over the bow.


Funny that. European primary sources also never discuss the "ease of training" thing either. That's pretty much entirely a rationalization by modern authors.
_________________
- Let the Die be Cast
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé Adresse AIM
Jhykronos
Auxiliaire


Inscrit le: 02 Aoû 2015
Messages: 95
MessagePosté le: Mer Jan 25, 2023 8:44 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
KevinD a écrit:
Thus, overall I don’t think the narrative that crossbows were optimized against heavy armor really holds up for much of Chinese history. Perhaps all East Asian crossbows(or at least those prior to about 1040 AD) should be classed as bows.


Interesting. My understanding is that whether they were optimized against heavy armor or not, the Chinese crossbows were always regarded as being more powerful in general than their bows. And they usually tend to have a considerably longer power stroke than Medieval European crossbows (15-20 inches, as opposed to 4-7 inches, until you get into the Ming dynasty), meaning that for the same draw weight they are going to be considerably more powerful than the European equivalents.

I've always had a sneaky suspicion that we overrate the effects of theoretical rate of fire in these discussions anyway. Just because one -can- speed-shoot off all of one's ammunition in the first 3 minutes of a battle doesn't make it a good idea, or something that was routinely done.
_________________
- Let the Die be Cast
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé Adresse AIM
KevinD
Centurion


Inscrit le: 23 Aoû 2021
Messages: 499
Localisation: Texas
MessagePosté le: Mer Jan 25, 2023 7:33 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Yeah, the power-stroke thing shows the weakness of using draw weight as a measure of penetrating power for crossbows (and also bows). We really should have a metric focused on kinetic energy imparted to the projectile, but of course that’s much harder to measure especially using primitive technology. However, this would account for draw-length and power-stroke, as well as the vastly different mechanical efficiency of different bows and crossbows. (Super high draw weight crossbows are notorious for being very inefficient as are longbows compared to shorter composite bows).

Of course, another issue is that the distinction between armored and unarmored in ADLG is very binary. In fact many nomadic cavalry types had protection somewhere between these values, using various shields and lighter forms of armor which were often quite effective at deflecting arrows but perhaps not as effective versus crossbows, at least according to some Chinese sources.

From a game design perspective I can se that an endless proliferation of finer gradations in armor effectiveness and armor penetrating weapons would quickly degenerate into an unwieldy mess, so oddly enough the weird compromise of making 1/2 the units HC or Armored Infantry and 1/2 MC or Unarmored Infantry might well depict such lesser but still effective types of protection pretty well by not reflecting some units having better armor than others but that the overall armor employed provided some intermediate level of protection.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
wuzhuiqiu8888
Javelinier


Inscrit le: 05 Mai 2022
Messages: 11
MessagePosté le: Dim Fév 19, 2023 2:15 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Not only would a powerful crossbow be able to penetrate armour, but it would likely also be able to inflict more damage to the flesh and bone behind that armour, and that at a greater effective range than a skirmishing horse archer.

Also, I wonder if stored potential energy and endurance might have been another factor? Once loaded, a crossbow would be ready to be discharged at the right moment, without the shooter needing to maintain a physical draw with his muscles. For the same number of loading "repetitions," the crossbowman would be spared the need to hold a draw after each repetition.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
  
 Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Army lists
Page 1 sur 1
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet Toutes les heures sont au format GMT

 
Sauter vers:  
Vous ne pouvez pas poster de nouveaux sujets dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas éditer vos messages dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas supprimer vos messages dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas voter dans les sondages de ce forum