chinese crossbows vs european crossbow

who had the better crossbows,exluding the chinese repeating crossbow

That depends on the time period. During the Han dynasty, the Chinese crossbow would both outrange the European crossbow<which wasn't used much anyway> and is also quicker to reload<hand cocked>. By the middle ages, the European had the arbalist, which would outrange the typical chinese crossbow. However, this superior range was evened out since the reload time takes unreasonably long.

What period???

Originally posted by Idanthyrus I'm not sure which one is better�by virtue�of their relative technical merits but the Chinese chu ko nu did come�almost a millennium�before the European crossbow.

Yes Europe's best did come late, but just to note
there were crossbows in China and Europe centuries before Christ, they just were not a weapon of choice.


Chu ko nus are not necessarily superior, they can be cocked fast but have low range and penetrating power compared to a good standard crossbow. Probably a very effective weapon in seige defense.
So you can indeed leave them out.

Originally posted by Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner Originally posted by Catt Originally posted by Idanthyrus I'm not sure which one is better by virtue of their relative technical merits but the Chinese chu ko nu did come almost a millennium before the European crossbow. Yes Europe's best did come late, but just to note there were crossbows in China and Europe centuries before Christ, they just were not a weapon of choice. What crossbow existed in Europe that early?  Are you referring to the gastrophetes?

I had forgotten about those.

Chu ko nus are not necessarily superior, they can be cocked fast but have low range and penetrating power compared to a good standard crossbow. Probably a very effective weapon in seige defense. So you can indeed leave them out.

 

 Cho ku nus was the best or the worst  depending on the situation. Defensively, on a wall or a tower  the cho ku nu was an exceptional weapon delivering a large number of projectile on the enemy in a short period of time. The height advantage gave the cho ku nu more penetrating power as well as range. This can be devastating for unit that is not well armoured. 

 On the other hand cho ku nu wouldn't be very effective against well armoured cavalry or infantry moving with shield formation on an open battlefield.

Originally posted by Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner So which crossbow were you referring to then?

Gastrophetes. Also Roman scorpions. Both did come reletively early to Europe but due to their very low rate of fire and their inherent inaccuracy they were really only useful as siege weapons. I would say that untill the late middle-ages Chinese crossbows were more effective than Western ones in general.

Edited by Idanthyrus

probably

There is a thread in China History Forum discussing about it:

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2275