# Historically, What Was The Rate of Fire For Crossbows?



## Azlan (Apr 27, 2003)

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 Use actual historical references and sources.)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.


----------



## Angcuru (Apr 27, 2003)

Actually, crossbows were VERY inaccurate, and there was no average rate of fire, to tell the truth.  A fully trained crossbowman could only reliable fire a bolt at a target and have a CHANCE at hitting when it was within 30 yards, and THEN you could reload.  However, not crossbowmen would be dead meat if they reloaded after firing their first bolt, since the time delay of a reload leaves them open to all sorts of dangers, and they would DIE A LOT.  Which is why they always carried a broadsword with which they would fight their way to a safe location, where they would reload, and then they would pick a target, fire, and then fight to get to another safe location, etc. etc.

But in terms of mechanics under ideal condititions, the average crossbow could be fired at a rate of about 2-3 bolts a minute, since it takes about 15-20 or so seconds to drop the forward end to the ground, place your foot on the brace, haul the string back into position, put the lock in place, replace the bolt, and get back into firing position.

So in reality, reloading a crossbow is a 2-full round action, assuming that you start reloading after firing a single shot that one round. But they packed a LOT of punch. Full plate folded in like tinfoil. 

I'd say in historically accurate but complicated terms of game stats crossbows should be:

HEAVY: 2d8  19-20 X2, Negates Armor Bonus when within 30 ft.(deal as touch attack), range increment 10 ft. 2 full round actions to reload
Powerful but inaccurate.

LIGHT: 2d6  19-20 X2, Negates 5 points of Armor when within 30 ft., range increment 15 ft. 1 full round action to reload
A bit less powerful but more accurate than the HEAVY types.

HAND: 2d4  19-20 X2, range increment 20 ft. partial action to reload.
More accurate but less powerful than other crossbows, but can be used in a single hand.


----------



## Azlan (Apr 27, 2003)

Angcuru said:
			
		

> *Actually, crossbows were VERY inaccurate*




Inaccurate, in comparison to what? To firearms? Then, yes, crossbows were very inaccurate. But in comparison to a bow, a crossbow is easier to hit with. (At least, at short ranges.)



> *So in reality, reloading a crossbow is a 2-full round action, assuming that you start reloading after firing a single shot that one round.*




But two full-round actions is only 12 seconds. That means a crossbow can fire as often as five times a minute, and none of the historical sources I quoted have rates of fire that fast for a crossbow.

Hmm... Would two full-round actions for a light crossbow, and four full-round actions for a heavy crossbow, be too extreme? What if, with these reload times, you implemented a new feat, called Quick Load, which allowed you to reduce the reload times to half?

That way, a skilled crossbowman could get off five shots a minute with a heavy crossbow; which may not be totally historically accurate, but at least will be a lot closer to reality than what is given for heavy crossbows in 3E D&D (i.e. ten shots a minute, without any special feat).



> *I'd say in historically accurate but complicated terms of game stats crossbows should be:
> 
> HEAVY: 2d8  19-20 X2, Negates Armor Bonus when within 30 ft.(deal as touch attack), range increment 10 ft. 2 full round actions to reload.
> 
> Powerful but inaccurate.*




I don't find this complicated. However, I think your damage may be a little too high, and I definitely don't think a heavy crossbow should _totally_ negate armor bonus, as if it were shooting lightsaber-like bolts. Myself, I think it would reduce the target's armor bonus to half when within, oh, I'd say, 60'. A light crossbow would do the same, but only within 30'. (This would be a simplification of reality, of course... and that's what I'm angling for. I don't want to get totally realistic, here.)


----------



## Angcuru (Apr 27, 2003)

I think we're onto something here.

Yes, crossbows are very accurate at close range, due to the incredible speed and power with which they are fired, but due to the non/inadequately-fletched design of most bolts and how INCREDIBLY difficult it is to aim a crossbow, they are virtually useless at long range.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Apr 27, 2003)

Personal experience:

I was at an SCA event (Pennsic War) and participated in the archery competition.  I was told right away that there was _zero_ chance of me having any hope of using a regular bow with anything resembling accuracy in a couple of days.  So I was given a crossbow.  I was given one lesson: how to load it.  We didn't have a range available, so I wouldn't have any opportunities to practice beforehand.

The contest involved several targets: 60, 50, 40,30, and 20 feet away.  We had a few seconds to aim and shoot at each target.  It was suggested I could fire at the 60 if I felt lucky, but to hold out for the 20.  I ended up firing at the 60 and the 20.  The "regular" archers fired at every target.

The result?  I missed the 60 by a mile, but I hit the 20 target!  This earned one point for the Midrealm and since the average for the midrealm was 0.95 or so, I did better than most of those longbow people.

That being said, there was one woman who chain smoked cigarettes and was a FEARSOME shot!  She hit every target with time to spare.


----------



## Azlan (Apr 27, 2003)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> *That being said, there was one woman who chain smoked cigarettes and was a FEARSOME shot! She hit every target with time to spare. *




So, is the logical conclusion that, chain-smoking cigarettes makes one a fearsome shot? Hmm... I may need to ithrow that into the mix...



Seriously, though... Myself, I've fired both bows and crossbows. The fact that you can place a crossbow butt against your shoulder and line up the quarrel-tip with your target in a straight-forward manner, and especially that you're not struggling to hold the bow drawn while aiming, make firing a crossbow much easier than firing a bow.


----------



## Angcuru (Apr 27, 2003)

[Turn on Meatwad Voice]

_Hell yeah!, I wanna go shoot longbows!  You give me a longbow and a target, I'll give that shooting range a workout!_

[Turn off Meatwad Voice]
 

Seriously though, any dip can use a crossbow, but it takes practice to use a longbow to effect.  It took me about a week to be able to actually hit a 2'X2' target at 50 feet away, and mind you I was using a worn-out old 50# pull fiberglass recurve and beat-up, badly-fletched aluminum arrows.  Now if I were to get my hands on a quality yew bow and some decent ash arrows....


----------



## niteshade6 (Apr 27, 2003)

It's worth noting that if it takes two full rounds to load a crossbow, this does not allow you to fire 5 times a minute, because it would also require an action to fire the crossbow. As a result you would fire something more like 3 times a minute. 

It's probably true that a crossbow shouldn't ignore all armor. First off shields would probably still be somewhat effective, and even if it punched quite well through full plate, that doesn't mean it didn't still provide a little protection or have a chance of deflecting the shot if it hit at the wrong angle. And also just because you can punch through full plate doesn't mean you can punch through the scales of a great wyrm red dragon.

Personaly though I'm happy with crossbows the way they are. But then I don't require alot of historical accuracy in my fantasy games, given that my game worlds usualy have nothing to do with real life history.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 27, 2003)

Azlan said:
			
		

> *Inaccurate, in comparison to what? To firearms? Then, yes, crossbows were very inaccurate. But in comparison to a bow, a crossbow is easier to hit with. (At least, at short ranges.)*




A crossbow is easier to hit with, insofar as the weapon is simpler to use.  An untrained crossbowman will outshoot an untrained longbowman.

However, the crossbow weapon itself is less accurate.  A trained crossbowman will be outshot by a trained longbowman.  Mind you, it takes years to become a trained longbowman.


----------



## Agback (Apr 27, 2003)

"To train a longbowman, start when his father is eleven...."


----------



## S'mon (Apr 27, 2003)

I did up my own crossbow stats for the reasons given above.  The 'siege crossbow' listed is more of a small ballista.

Crossbows (ST is the Strength required to use it without a mount)
Crossbow Type	Damage	Range Inc	Target Armour Reduction	Reload Time
Light X-bow, 35gp, 6lb, ST 5	1d8	80’	0	Move action
Heavy X-bow, 50gp, 9lb, ST 9	1d10	120’	-2	1 round
Battle X-bow, 65gp, 12lb, ST 13	2d8	160’	-4	2 rounds
Arbalest,  80gp, 24 lb, ST 17	2d12	200’	-6	4 rounds
Siege X-bow, 160gp, 48lb, ST 21	2d20	200’	-10	8 rounds (1 man), 6 rounds (2 men)

Edit: Maybe I should reduce the ranges.  I was a bit hamstrung by choosing to work off the PHB stats as far as possible, which give crossbows very good range but very poor (historically) damage.  D&D always seems to have had a thing about underrating mechanical missile weapons - the ballista did 2d6 in 1e-2e, it does 3d6 now.  After experiencing realistic rules systems (eg Twilight 2000 & all) that base damage off actual kinetic energy (eg 9mm round does 1d6, 110mm tank shell does circa 120d6), I can't stand the way D&D rates ballistas - that can easily kill 6 men with 1 bolt - as less damaging than a typical PC's greatsword.


----------



## Mytholder (Apr 27, 2003)

Agback said:
			
		

> *"To train a longbowman, start when his father is eleven...." *




Wibble. I misread that as:
"To train a longbowman, start when his father is _elven_..."


----------



## Felon (Apr 27, 2003)

Ah, the great longbow/crossbow debate reareth its head again.

Truly, there were all kinds of longbows, many types of crossbows, and armor plates of varying thickness and temper. Talking about the Middle Ages is not like talking about the wild west. What we consider the Middle Ages was, after all, a really long frickin' period of time--we're talking a few centuries here--and it encompassed the better part of a whole darn continent. When you hear some fellow arguing insistently that there is one "official" statistic with regards to how fast a crossbow could be loaded or at what range a bolt could penetrate plate armor, it's safe to assume the person you're listening to hasn't lent a great deal of thought to the matter regardless of how many books he's read or websites he's visited.

For instance, a crossbow with a low amount of pull is obviously going to require less effort to recock than one with a heavier draw, and there's quite a bit of difference between the lightest crossbow that ever was and the heaviest one. This is a weapon that went through a long evolution, so why would anyone be surprised to find that documents from the time of the War of the Roses provides different information than was scribed during the Hundred Years War? The latter started a century earlier.  

For game purposes you have to figure out where you are within the crossbow's evolution. Is it like D&D, where you still have "plain" wood bows existing alongside the patently-superior composites? Are there tempered-steel prods that likewise outshine composites? If you want a crossbow to be more powerful than a bow, then you ought to go with steel. After all, a longbow’s prod has a much broader width than that of a crossbow, so the only thing that could ever endow a crossbow with a better draw is having a prod that’s impossible to pull back by hand. Which begs the question of what reloading devices are available? Can’t decide how fast a crossbow reloads if you don’t have that established. If there are just wooden crossbows, then perhaps marksmen are still reloading by hand or belt claw. If you're up to steel bows, then you're going to need a goot's hoof or, more likely, a crannequin [sic?].

This was all likely discussed when 3e went into design, and they ultimately went for the abstracted, highly-unrealistic set of statistics. They threw out STR minimums too, which really would have played a more meaningful part with bows than with melee weapons. Meanwhile, they retained the notions of “mighty” crossbows, which is kind of nonsensical. When you have a +4 mighty light crossbow and a +1 mighty heavy crossbow, why exactly is the former still considered “light” and thus faster to reload than the latter? Light crossbows should not be allowed to be mighty.


----------



## Fade (Apr 27, 2003)

Remember that in battlefield use bows were not really aimed as such. You simply launched volley after volley of arrows in an arcing trajectory (for range) in the direction of the enemy regiments. Quite literally a 'rain of arrows' (or bolts), with which particular enemy they landed on more or less a matter of chance.

You still needed a lot of practice, just to _pull_ those plate-armour piercing longbows. I heard it quoted as starting with the grandfather, but father seems reasonable as well.


----------



## Angcuru (Apr 27, 2003)

I dunno, man.  A couple of times I was practicing with my LOW-quality bow my shots went wide and went right through the sheet of 1/4 inch plate steel I use as a backrest for the target.  What to make of that....?


----------



## med stud (Apr 27, 2003)

Early 16th century crossbows used by skilled users (ie German mercenaries in my source) could fire at a maximum of 300 meters and accuratly up to 90 meters.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 28, 2003)

> *This was all likely discussed when 3e went into design, and they ultimately went for the abstracted, highly-unrealistic set of statistics. Meanwhile, they retained the notions of “mighty” crossbows...*




No, they didn't.

The only Mighty weapons in the Core Rules are bows, not crossbows.

Sword and Fist introduced Mighty Whips.

But no mighty crossbows in the Core Rules.

-Hyp.


----------



## El Ravager (Apr 28, 2003)

From what I am gathering, it seems that while the core rules may not have necessarily captured the true effectiveness of the crossbow, they did end up making the rules reflect who would use one.  It seems that historically, the crossbow's main advantage is that it can be used with little to no training and the same holds true in DnD3e.  The crossbow isn't the best option for a well trained fighter - its the wizard who lacks combat training that will probably pick up the crossbow and fire a few bolts.


----------



## Ulrick (Apr 28, 2003)

I suggest you send this question to Mail Call or Conquest on the History Channel. 

See, not only will we get an answer, but will also get to see crossbows fired in cool medieval battle reanactments. 

YEAH!


----------



## MerakSpielman (Apr 28, 2003)

Perhaps longbows should be made an exotic weapon to reflect the years of training needed...

I also think the damage from crossbows should be increased by one die size.

The "punching through armor" aspect of crossbows would be more easily reflected if the D&D design team had decided to use an "armor provides DR" type system. But they didn't, and it would take an entire rules-rewrite to implement such a system and make sure it was balanced everywhere.


----------



## Zad (Apr 28, 2003)

I am no expert on research. However I can see that there are some problems with the question. First off, there is likely no average rate of fire for a crossbow, since "crossbow" can mean a wide variety of devices. If you look at a source saying that a man fired X per minute, you really need them to be specific about what kind they were firing.

Also, the sources you cited above may or may not be great sources. But the question becomes "Where did _they_ get their information from?" When doing research, it's best to chase back to the primary source. If you can't find a bibliography, then you may be better off not considering something as a credible source, unless of course it is the original work of someone who knew (i.e. was there or something).


Rather than research, you can use practical example. The SCA offers some interesting examples, as you have people using period equipment. A skilled person with a crossbow (that they can draw manually) can probably get a shot off every 6-7 seconds from what I've seen. Anything that requires a winch - your guess is as good as mine.


----------



## ErichDragon (Apr 28, 2003)

Something else to consider when drawing Rates of Fire from historical sources is that these are written in terms of a battle.  The ROF would not accurately reflect the ROF of a single person shooting by himself, but for a tightly packed formation of people, all working together to shoot at the same time.

Since this usually doesn't happen in DnD you can pretty much take the ROF of historical texts with a grain of salt.

Also, when your source on the War of the Roses referred to fighting on foot as 'the French technique' they were probably not referring to the technique of French Knights but of the way the English Knights,  _in France_ , often fought during the 100 Years War.


----------



## daTim (Apr 28, 2003)

I think their stats reflect the weapons well enough for the abstract system of D&D.

A Crossbow is simple, which means even a peasant can use one, and the rate of fire for a large crossbow comes out to about  6 every minute (I think) which is generous, but keeps it from being useless. If it fired too slowly it would be more advantageous to just use a bow with the -4 penalty. Lastly, it has a 19-20 x2 critical range, meaning it can do some mean damage fairly easily. A group of peasant conscripts with these can really rack up damage. 

A crossbow is martial, so only trained soliders can even use one effectively, they fire faster up to 10 shots per minute, and do enough damage to kill any commoner. If you get a critical hit it does devestating damage on its x3 critical, especially a mighty composite one (which I think represents a true longbow).

A longbow historically begins to break down when you get multiple attacks per round. At lvl 6 with rapid shot, you are able to fire one arrow every two seconds with rapid shot. Whereas a Crossbow stays mainly the same, and becomes marginaly more useful with "rapid reload" though I dont see why you would take Rapid Reload instead of a martial proficiency in bows... besides some sort of hardcore character concept.


----------



## Bob Aberton (Apr 28, 2003)

I've never actually used a crossbow myself, but I have some experience with longbows (recurves, actually)...

I would imagine a crossbow would be much more easy to use, because you don't get the whole arm-wobbling from holding the string back; the crossbow holds the string, you just point and shoot.

With a longbow, as others have said, they might have better range and certainly shoot faster, but it takes a lot of training - hence their rating as martial weapons rather than simple weapons.  I'm a casual archer, I shoot at a range every few weeks for an hour or so; I can hit the target at 20 yards maybe 45-50% on a good day.

However, that said, longbows have a fair amount of power, too.  I once shot a few in my basement with a crappy 35# bow; since it was left handed (I'm right handed, heh), I put most of the shots into the concrete wall.

And I mean _in_ to the concrete wall.  There were some pretty good dents in it when I went to collect my arrows.

Does this mean that longbows, too, should get some kind of bonus vs. armor?  I much prefer the rules the way they are...anyways, in a fantasy world, perhaps crossbows are so well made that a peasant can fire 10 rounds a minute or whatever the RoF is in the PHB...


----------



## Angcuru (Apr 28, 2003)

Ulrick said:
			
		

> *I suggest you send this question to Mail Call or Conquest on the History Channel. *



\

Some shmuck from Indiana beat ya to it.

BTW, R.Lee is NOT proficient with a crossbow.


----------



## Ulrick (Apr 28, 2003)

Angcuru said:
			
		

> *\
> 
> Some shmuck from Indiana beat ya to it.
> 
> BTW, R.Lee is NOT proficient with a crossbow. *




So. It'd be pretty cool to watch him swear and curse while trying to operate the thing.


----------

