Questions on Crossbowmen (Arsuf Period)

[eques]

1) Were they more like skirmishers or formed missile troops?
2) Did they evade when charged?
3) Were they any good in close combat like longbowmen apparently were?

Thanks

[Duncan Head]

The Itinerarium Regis Ricardi, on Arsuf:

Oh! how useful to us on that day were our arbalesters and bowmen, who closed the extremities of the lines, and did their best to repel the obstinate Turks. The enemy came rushing down, like a torrent, to the attack; and many of our arbalesters, unable to sustain the weight of their terrible and calamitous charge, threw away their arms, and fearing lest they should be shut out, took refuge, in crowds, behind the dense lines of the army; yielding, through fear of death, to sufferings which they could not support. Those whom shame forbade to yield, or the hope of an immortal crown sustained, were animated with greater boldness and courage to persevere in the contest, and fought with indefatigable valour face to face against the Turks, whilst they at the same time receded step by step, and so secured their retreat.

And on the battle of Jaffa:

Our men prepared themselves as they best could, to receive their furious attack, each fixing his right knee in the ground, that so they might the better hold together, and maintain their position; whilst there, the thighs of their left legs were bent, and their left hands held their shields or bucklers; stretched out before them in their right hands they held their lances, of which the lower ends were fixed in the ground, and their iron heads pointed threateningly towards the enemy. Between every two of the men who were thus covered with their shields, the king, versed in arms, placed an arbalester, and another behind him to stretch the arbalest as quickly as possible, so that the man in front might discharge his shot whilst the other was loading.

In other words, what DBM/MM terms "Bows(X)":  non-skirmishing shooters protected by a front rank of shielded spearmen.

[aligern]

Two types or rather two tactics for the crossbowmen . At Arsuf a fair description is that they  are out in front of the spearmen, ( the dense element of the army they. seek to get gehind) let's say as skirmishers because they have to run  back when the oppising cavalry charge. Interesting that they throw away the crossbows and run because this is what the Flemish do at Courtrai where they also cut their bowstrings.

At Jaffa I recall that we are told that Richard devises a new formation, building a front of spearmen with crossbowmen  firing in rotation behind their protection. That does seem like solid, mixed, units.

So if it were Armati, the crossbowmen would be SI at Arsuf and A mixed Spear/ Xbow unit of Foot at Jaffa.

[Patrick Waterson]

While not disagreeing with Roy's Armati classifications, I would point out that Crusader crossbowmen were not exactly skirmishers but rather a semi-solid block of troops which, when morale failed, dissolved and raced for friendly lines sans encumbering weapon.  Under rules with morale systems this would count as a failed morale check and consequent rapid retirement or even rout, with rallying taking place behind friendly lines.  (Anyone got a spare crossbow?)

Skirmishers would deploy in dispersed formation and take their weapons with them when they evaded, so under most systems would count as a different troop classification to solid-ish formations which panicked and ran when they felt threatened, but Roy knows Armati and I do not!

Roy's observation about Richard's Jaffa formation is well made.

[eques]

Thanks.

Apart from when mixed with spearmen did they have any melee capabilities of their own?  (the itinerarium quote above seems to suggest so)

[Nick Harbud]

Of course, under DBM the classification of missile troops is ostensibly based upon their hand-to-hand performance as much as the power or accuracy of their weapon.  Thus, English longbowmen are classed as Bw(S) due to their propensity to pick up mauls and mix it with knights slithering about in the mud, rather than simply because of a lifetime's training at the butts to draw 140 pounds of yew.

Incidentally, under DBM it appears to be utterly impossible for crossbows to be Superior, no matter how powerful their weapon, how stout their hearts or how fierce their melee weapons might be.

Similarly, DBR classifies Streltsi as Sh(S) due to their berdisch axes.  (Of course, this also enables them to use their otherwise indifferent arquebuses to blow away the opposition in numbers resembling the first day of the Somme.)

[Andreas Johansson]

Incidentally, under DBM it appears to be utterly impossible for crossbows to be Superior, no matter how powerful their weapon, how stout their hearts or how fierce their melee weapons might be.

Aren't Spanish crossbowmen Superior in the Toltec-Chichimec list? Or is that a DBMM innovation?

(I'm not disputing the wider point that DBx's conflation of the shooting and close combat abilities of missile troops have some unfortunate results. Another oddity is that trebuchets are easier to defend from close attack than organ guns.)

[Duncan Head]

(I'm not disputing the wider point that DBx's conflation of the shooting and close combat abilities of missile troops have some unfortunate results. Another oddity is that trebuchets are easier to defend from close attack than organ guns.)

All those rope-pullers are really tough.

[Patrick Waterson]

Apart from when mixed with spearmen did they have any melee capabilities of their own?  (the itinerarium quote above seems to suggest so)

They would tend to carry a sword or other melee weapon, and in extremis the crossbow itself could double as a very expensive club.  These Genoese crossbowmen depicted in an illustration of the storming of Jerusalem are armoured and can carry swords; we can probably regard them as typical.  In essence, they could meaningfully fight anything the Saracens were likely to throw at them, though fighting and winning would not necessarily be the same thing.

[Erpingham]

These Genoese crossbowmen depicted in an illustration of the storming of Jerusalem are armoured and can carry swords; we can probably regard them as typical.

Late crossbowmen normally seem to have more arms and armour than early ones in pictures, so this may be misleading.  It may have depended on the crossbowman.  Professionals at the end of the 12th century/beginning 13th could have armour and horses and probably a sword to go with their status.  A militiaman might have fabric armour and a cheap sidearm like a coterel or basilard for self defence. Neither probably saw it as their job to aggressively seek hand-to-hand combat - there were others in the army to do that.

[Duncan Head]

These Genoese crossbowmen depicted in an illustration of the storming of Jerusalem are armoured and can carry swords; we can probably regard them as typical. ...

... of Renaissance fantasy illustrations?

[Patrick Waterson]

These Genoese crossbowmen depicted in an illustration of the storming of Jerusalem are armoured and can carry swords; we can probably regard them as typical. ...

... of Renaissance fantasy illustrations?

Possibly, although the crossbowmen of retinues and military orders might be expected to be as well equipped or better.  As Anthony mentions, militia types would not be so well endowed, but the Third Crusade army seems to have been skimmed off the top, not the bottom, of available fighting manpower.  Hand-to-hand combat would still presumably be a crossbowman's last resort unless participating in the sacking of a city.

[Chris]

Interesting discussion. Helpful, too.

Reading the relevant pages of the suggested source, I found this in Chapter XVIII:
Oh! how useful to us on that day were our arbalesters and bowmen, who closed the extremities of the lines, and did their best to repel the obstinate Turks.

Looked up the word "arbalesters", so learned something new. Evidently there were crossbow troops and troops armed with bows. Would these be short bows or long bows? Would the bowmen be deployed as skirmishers or massed for  effective volleys?

Later in the narrative, I believe I read something about cavalry picking up bows or crossbows and shooting. These men had lost their mounts due to the volume of enemy fire.

Hail Caesar allows room for mixed units (missile and spear); it also provides for sub-units. L'Art de la Guerre also allows for infantry with missile support as well as mixed units.

Choices, choices . . .

Chris

[Erpingham]

In wargames terms, I'd go for "shortbow" as this is probably your weakest bow class.  Some were probably equipped with composite bows but not significantly powerful ones.  This should allow good distinction between the weapon types.

As to horsemen picking up bows, the chivalric classes certainly knew how to draw a bow or span a crossbow, but I can't see them doing so on horseback.  Perhaps this refers to men who had lost their horses (of which I recall there were many at Arsuf)?

[eques]

"Our men prepared themselves as they best could, to receive their furious attack, each fixing his right knee in the ground, that so they might the better hold together, and maintain their position; whilst there, the thighs of their left legs were bent, and their left hands held their shields or bucklers; stretched out before them in their right hands they held their lances, of which the lower ends were fixed in the ground, and their iron heads pointed threateningly towards the enemy. Between every two of the men who were thus covered with their shields, the King, versed in arms, placed an arbalester, and another behind him to stretch the arbalest as quickly as possible, so that the man in front might discharge his shot whilst the other was loading"

The above possibly implies that mixing in Crossbowmen with Spearmen was not standard practice at that point (otherwise why go into such detail?)

"the King, versed in arms," could either mean "the King followed standard practice...." or "The King knew all the unusual tactics"