You don’t NEED them. Especially when you can also get vision in other ways. But they are very wide spread over europe and the mediterranean. Liked by users of all religious backgrounds around there : P
You also need to understand that those castles you show got used in later periods as well and battlements were often destroyed, reworked and extended (e.g. for the use of handheld firearms and cannons). Some were also restored by people who had no clue in how the original looked or didn’t bother or wanted to use it differently or make it look cool (thats when you find stuff like very wide arrow slits or straight up windows as a replacement).
The Agra fort for example (second pic) is from the 16th century…so yeah, firearms and cannons definitely had to be considered when they built that thing.
Just looking at modern pics of tourist attractions does not tell you the full story.
Wow thats all so wrong and worth a whole other thread…
Since this is a BS thread anyway, let me throw in a general book recommendation like an effin nerd:
The Medieval Fortress: Castles, Forts, And Walled Cities Of The Middle Ages by J.E. Kaufmann
→ It has a lot of drawings and a nice overview of all kinds of (mainly europe + middle east) fortification techniques (middle ages and into the renaissance).
I know that the little holes (like an arrow slit) on the castle are the modern ones, perfect for gun powder guns.
The other vertical one is for older castles that are actually reworked according to their own historians. Due to geographical advantage, the region was peaceful compared to Eastern Asia or Europe. Mainly internal conflicts. And many of its castles and walls were in good shape.
This is another example of being misled by modern media (mostly video games).
The first Chinese crossbow appeared in 6th century BC, much earlier than the general concept of “medieval European crossbow” (which maybe evolved independently later), and continued to develop until the Ming Dynasty before being replaced by firearms.
(I know Greek gastrophetes exist but it is very different from the medieval European crossbow)
The repeating crossbow, however, despite being overly-overrepresented by video games, is never an effective weapon, nor a widely-used one.
The firepower is so weak that it is only effective when poisoned. The only advantage is that it is portable and does not require much strength to operate, thus kinda effective in hunting or defending households.
The “MOST” part is utterly wrong.
Chinese had (1) normal crossbows that were no weaker than European ones AND (2) very weak and underused repeating crossbows.
You’re saying because the second kind exists, it is the majority.
It is. The Europeans used heavier crossbows and had the ability to draw them with the equipment. It needs a lot of physical strength to pull the string with the puller (The equipment, don’t remember the name). The Chinese military always relied on their high numbers instead of strength or skill. This is why they used lighter crossbows which will not outperform the European crossbows but did deal good damage. Another reason is that it was simple to use compared to bows. In order to use a bow and master it, the soldiers (mainly farmers) will need to train for many months, years. As I said, the Chinese army highly relied on their numbers, they didn’t have enough trainers and time to recruit units when the Mongols suddenly attack them. So the lighter crossbows were its main choice. So calling it “MOST” is the appropriate way!
This is only true for very late steel crossbows that need cranequins.
Even if that is the case, MOST Chinese crossbows that were used in real warfare were not using magazines to shoot more arrows but were typical single-shot crossbows instead, regardless of whether they are really weak or not.
Not to mention it is not true at all.
Again, I’m being specific! I didn’t say “Repeater Crossbow”, I said “Crossbow” I try to be specific when I comment. You are mixing a lot of things when I read your comment.
The repeater crossbow is the one that shoots lighter and less powerful bolts and got a magazine.
Modern and Medieval history. You see, after the Mongol decline in power, the Chinese would send armies after armies. The Mongols would be victorious in the 1st 6 waves of battle. Then they would run out of men. On the other hand, the Chinese would send more soldiers, again and again. They would always take more casualties than their enemies. Later in the 20th century, the Mongolian Communist party attacked China to free Inner Mongolia with 30k and actually defeated its 100k units with ease. Almost freed them but due to politics, the Soviets called the Mongols back. Historically, they highly rely on unskilled, or poorly trained units with simple weaponry. It was very difficult to train units during the Mongol Empire because the Mongols would mostly surprise them and the Chinese most of the time didn’t expect such things would happen.
This really reads like “Most of the Chinese crossbows were not powerful as the European ones. But it (which means “most of these Chinese crossbows”) had a magazine to shoot more arrows in a very short period of time.”
Okay let’s leave it aside as you clarified that. BUT even the “weaker” part is not true either:
If this is what you are talking about, that just looks like a series of victory of the Chinese to me:
If you look at the crossbow wikipedia page again you can see a series of intricate and advanced mechanic weapons in the Song Dynasty (which was even one of the Chinese dynasties that were weaker militarily). Chinese military technology only began falling behind the west since Ming.
And speaking of the majority being poorly equipped peasant levies…could you find a non-modern army that was not like this?
Man you are now picking a time where China was particularly weak and even in the midst of a civil war, not to mention it is totally beyond the timescope we are talking about.
Again, you cut my comments without reading them in full. I don’t know man. You are editing everything to your side. Nice try! Next time try reading it in full and pay attention to detail.