Does anybody how many bolts a crossbowman have on him during actual combat?

If napoleanic musket infantry carry about 60-100 bullets, I believe the Han crossbow would carry somewhere around 20-30 bolts. My reason for this is typically due to the weight (assuming 0.5-1lb per bolt) and bulkiness (1 foot long). At that rate, assuming a sustained firing rate of 2 rounds per minute, the total combat effectiveness of the crossbowmen is somewhere around 15 minutes.

That leads me to the next question. How well is the Han logistics in handling thousands of rounds of Bolts and Arrows? A long logistics train would have an effect on an army's mobility and cost. The Parthians (Battle of Carrhae) had camel trains that provided reload for their horse archers. Does anybody know the Han equivalent.

For comparative purposes late republican "post marius reform" Roman army typically carry almost all their belongings on their person ("Marius Mules"). A mule is given to a squad of ten to carry their supplies (tents, etc). At this rate, they can still march about 30 miles a day.

I recall that in the 中國軍事史 published by the PLA said that Han crossbowmen only had a reload of 10 or 20 (can't remember which) crossbow bolts. But then again, those were mounted crossbowmen.

The reason why I've ask is that I have come to believe that the Han use the crossbow the same way infantry was used in Napoleanic warfare, minus the guns.

So 120 soldiers arrayed in 2 ranks, firing from left to right on both ranks, can fire 2 rounds per second of continious fire. That is assuming a 30 second reload.

Crossbows were used both on horsebacks and on foot. Those foot soldiers, if going by Qin is correct, normally had three rows. Draw - Load -Shoot. So the rate of fire could actually be higher. There wer also 'snipers' trained to take out enemy jiangs so that the unit under their command would become disoriganized in the midst of battle.

Theories on the tactics on how to employ crossbows on the battle field are quite varied. Some believe that they were the initual shock power as exemplified by the Qin's formation that were used to take out the first line of enemy charging cavalry. Others like Sun Bin stated that they were used only to wear down the numbers of the enemy as the fight dragged on so their effects are actually less dramatic but the psychological impact of someone on the battlefield who is already dodging his way through swords and spears yet still needed to have in mind there are people gunning for you can be a real demoralizer on the field and thus reducing the overall combat effectiveness of an army. This together with the actual numbers that gets taken down in mid-fight, and the pressence of crossbows used in conjunction with other engaging troops probably had a much greater though more subtle effect on the outcome of a battle.

The ones used on horseback, did they dismount to reload or maybe fire (so a sort of dragoon), or did they fire/reload on horseback?

Were they the same sort that infantry in the same army would use, or was crossbow design altered for horseback use?

There are indications that it was shot from horseback but no info is aviliable as to whether they reloaded on them. I would however, guesstimate that the need to dismount to reload considering they need their foot to do so.

It would be very effective for charging cavalry

Indeed.
But the quesiton often evolves around how can crossbows be effectively deployed on horseback. To dismount and reload after ever shot makes them pretty inefficient. If anything, a simple bow seem to be a better choice in such circumstances. Easier to reload which means a greater rate of fire. Also, when on horseback, range which is one of the crossbow's primary advntages becomes not that great a concern as the horse is going to close in anyway so a normal bow is best applied here.

Osprey shows Saracen crossbow cavalry drawing their crossbows by using only one foot instead of both while they are on the horse. However, this may not apply for the Han since the weakest is 120 pounds. That seems pretty difficult to draw, not to mention stirrups weren't evented back then.

CJ Peers claims a belt & stirrup for loading from horseback was used during the Han, similar to the Song pictures we have of belt loading by hooking the string. He gives no sources though so I don't treat it as certain.
The lower strength crossbows of the Han period were more like 60 pounds, or 1 dan in the Han unit. This is reasonable for a war bow and could be cocked by the hands while mounted with ease. There were many types of crossbow and sizes of mechanism & I assume the earliest version of crossbow cavalry would be the arm loaded type. Yang Hong even suggests these arm loaded (as opposed to leg loaded) types were more common in foot infantry in the East Zhou also.
Leg loaded crossbows are depicted in Han art and the arrow is in the teeth and the crossbow loaded with the legs even in a sitting or crouch position. By the time the crossbows reach 6 dan I just dont believe they would be used from horseback. They would be cumbersome comapred to a horsemans bow (they are actually quite large in the 1m arch in museum reconstructions) and very fatiguing to load either with one leg or a belt, if it could be done.
Even in the Han period there were dozens of images I have seen of stone lintels of horsemen archers & hunters, both in museums and text examples too. I have never seen anything but bowmen on horseback firing arrows in the rear shot of the Xiongnu and I have only seen crossbowmen depicted on foot either firing or loading in the period art.
This tends to suggest the influence of lighter crossbows or slower firing from horseback meant cavalry employed bows more often and the advantages and disadvantages of each would tend to make bows superior on horseback.
The idea that the Qin cavalry were crossbowmen is one I have only heard on CHF, and I believe it came from a DVD when I questioned sources. I would take that equally cautiously as a 'fact'. Considering even deciding with Qin infantry whether a terracota soldier is a bowman or a crossbowman is sometimes debated I am a little dubious over this idea of crossbow cavalry untill I see a source saying a mechanism & quiver was excavated in-situ in the context of cavalry.
Regardless of whether they existed at the time, and CJ Peers says they did not, I would think their role would have been far less visible than the well known and depicted Chinese version of steppes mounted bowmen.

About infantry quivers, the Qin examples IIRC were something like 30 or a little more in a quiver. Han infantry examples would be comparible. I have pictures of a few remains of Han quivers so a rough calculation could be made, still compared to musketry the ammunition carried individually even at this figure is much less. In excess of 100 rounds and powder were carried by British troops in the 1860's.
Crossbowmen would need resupply from wagon trains or quiver bearers even after 10-15 minutes of firing at a moderate pace.

I wouldn't entirely rule out the mounted crossbowmen acting primaraly as mounted infantry, ie move around on horseback but dismount for actual fighting. Both Chinese and Western historians often have too much faith in the 'superiority' of cavalry over infantry. Even the very best cavalry often dismounted to fight when the circumstances, terrain etc made it better to do so.

early chinese calvary especially... more mounted infantry than anything before Han wudi tried to emulate the xiongnu calvary.

Base on Wugiang’s information, mounted crossbowmen can carry 10 to 20 bolts. In that case, foot crossbowmen should carry less numbers of bolts for 3 reasons.
1. Bolts and arrows are heavy in numbers.
2. Mounted crossbowmen can do hit and run. Foot crossbowmen can’t do.
3. Crossbowmen usually can fire less than 3 bolts before the opponents can shave their asses with blade.
I am not sure Qin cavalry used crossbow. However, I know western military had mounted crossbowmen. Their crossbows are weaker to foot loading type. However, they still need crowbar or gear machine to reload. If mounted crossbowmen prefer large size crossbow, chariot is a good option.

PS. Is any one know the effective shooting range of crossbow?

On the contrary, it is the mounted crossbowmen that would be carrying less bolts. Mianly because they can't afford the extra baggage of more bolts for effective movement. Horse riding in itself can be difficuit, more so when you are in battle. Carrying so much baggage no only obstruct one's ability ot ride, but it also obstructs the ability to load and aim properly.

max range is about 800m. Effective range should be aorund 400 - 600m

Here is some info on crossbows, the range in the Han dynasty of a 6 dan crossbow was 260m (As per Yang Hong). The range in the Qin period is often given as 200m (as per J. Rawson and several texts).
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...=4470&st=15
This was probably an effective/lethal range and stories about arrows shooting beyond this are not relevant to the battlefield (and stories of pentrating 'any' armour at 800m are pure fantasy)

There is no point just speculating about the ammo carried by infantry, especially on such strange logic.

Carrying a quiver of bolts it not the hardest task a soldier would have to perform. (see; http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...id=4862992& for a physical test for elite troops)
Crossbows would be employed in situations of massed fire and would not be unsupported if they were going to be effective. Even if they fired only three rounds into a full charging enemy there would be suporting infantry nearby and those three rounds would have proved their worth.
If the charge was made successfully onto crossbowmen, then that's a bad situation for the missile troops and their general leaves a little to be desired. It would be the same as musketeers being charged, if the enemy is charging then make them suffer, and be prepared for close fighting.
The weapons fired by foot-crossbowmen would be a lot harder hitting and easier loaded than cavalry...so mobility sacrifices firepower with the heavy infantry crossbows.
Crossbowmen, certainly in later periods, developed a rotating rank to enable massed fire. Archers were used at the same time as crossbows also from the earliest times, and so in combination even enemies like the Xiongnu (steppes cavalry) were said to suffer from ancient Chinese crossbows hitting power.


The actual answer about ammunition or a rough figure won't be too hard to find.
I earlier mentioned that I recall the Qin quivers had clusters of just over 30. I checked my earlier posts and the figure I gave much earlier was 34 arrows and this would be based on an excavated quiver (I don't tend to make up things like that). It is still only 1/4 of what ammo a musketeer might carry.
I can check for the original source, if I have it at home, but that is hardly a number that would be difficult to carry in a single quiver.
I have a couple of books that show quivers from Zhou to Han which I could check, and pictures of the clusters of many arrow heads shown in soil when all organic material has rotted away. There would provide an idea too. If I remember at home I will take a look.

For what it is worth I am not sure the Qin cavalry used crossbows either. The only thing I have heard about this is hearsay on CHF, but it seems that in the Han period mounted crossbowmen were used. One reference Yun gave to Han history IIRC suggests it was a certain mechanism type for these crossbows, and I expect it would be a lighter arm drawn crossbow. Loading a leg drawn crossbow of 360lb or more from a horse in the age before stirrups were invented sounds like more trouble than it is worth.

I checked a few books last night, I saw a couple of diagrams of east Zhou quivers and both I could count 32 arrows in 2 rows of 16.
In two different examples of clusters of arrows in the Qin buried army (most likely quivers) there were many arrow heads, in excess of 30 on both occasion and potentially even more.
Some diagrams of ancient quivers in pictures seem to hold less arrows, but it at least it shows that 30 or so arrows is a reasonable quiver in ancient China.

Thank you for correctting and answering my words. However, 400-800 meters is really far. Can you provide resource of your information?

thank you for point out my mistakes. from now on, i will do research before typing.
base on what i know, musketeers do hand to hand combat because they are first line of defence in 17th. do crossbowmen join the front line action when the enemies are closed for bolts and arrows?

PS. i found several ways to draw crossbow from wikipedia. it may be useful information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbow

Back-up weapons of sorts are likely carried by crossbow troops too. Weapons for personal defence were carried in conjunction with primary weapons, i.e pole-armed infantry in East Zhou are depicted with shortswords.
Han infantry shown in ceramic forms often suggest a combination of weapons, as in infantry with quivers on their backs (see below).


This isn't uncommonly shown, even for shield bearing infantry, to have these quivers. It suggests a versatility in the application of Han infantry. Here's an idea of the various weapons (although not a complete list) http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=7672
Qin crossbowmen were depicted as including missile troops with good lamellar armour too, although just as in the Qin period there are still many Han warriors depicted unarmoured. The figure above is an example of an unarmoured warrior.
Since shortswords can be used as a secondary armament there is every possiblity such East Zhou-Han troops whether armoured or not could be outfitted to fight close combat if required,
i.e at Agincourt English longbowmen could help dispatch French men-at-arms in the crushed and muddy melee by using their daggers. Fighting with daggers is not a battle winning tactic but in that instance the nimble longbowmen were said to have performed better than bogged down armoured warriors.
In response to a charge, although not an ideal employment, there is reason to assume the more well equiped crossbowmen would not be totally helpless.
The enemy to enter to close combat with the crossbowmen does however remove their option of missile fire and if the engaging enemy are better armed with polearms (assuming a good formation is maintained) or long swords and shields and/or armour then the crossbowmen will be in an uneven & short fight.
It appears that some missile troops would be able to defend themselves to a degree in answer to your question but it would be better for crossbowmen to be supported by close-combat equiped infantry of their own.

Which tomb is that terra cotta archer in? His hairstyle/hat is something I've never seen before, not that you can actually see the hairstyle, but the fact that it's inside the hat(and thus not vertical in conjunction with the body) is enough to say it's different. Or is that hat actually not a hat but hair?

It's probably his hair in this instance, held by a band. Headgear is more often about hairstyle than protection. Han warriors would have taken as much pride in hairstyles as the remarkable Qin terracota warriors.
See the unarmoured figure at middle below for another simple hairband.
The above picture is from Tony Allens website, it is of unknown regional provenance. (allensantiques.com)
Some of the headgear on Han warriors (these common Han examples typically lack clear detail) can look either like a simple cap or in this instance it could just be the way the hair is tied.
Osprey reconstructions suggest a leather cap of sorts (either a rough leather helmet or something like a WW1 pilots headgear) as I attached to the 'various weapons' link given earlier and shown here...*1) but others it seems more related to the hairstyle, Chinese wearing their hair atop their heads (and as Qin examples show they can be in a bun slightly to the side or in these examples a bun to the top & rear in a cap or hairband.....both shown on *2
Others seem to be turbans ....#3


*1 Helmet/cap


*2 hairstyle cap & armoured plus hairband & unarmoured (the difference can be seen here)


*3 Turban-like


plus a combination of a headband and rearwards cap (below)

A Warring States period reference to soldiers being enlisted into elite units refered to them performing a forced march with armour, weapons and a quiver with 50 arrows.
Snowbeagle provided this on an earlier thread;
The arrow clusters I saw in pictures from the Qin buried army meant I could see numbers in the high 30's or 40-ish even from those visible and here is a reference to suggest that some clusters could be even greater (and cavalry quivers in the Qin period being carried on horsesaddles may have been bigger than typical infantry quivers;
http://www.silk-road.com/artl/stirrup.shtml
THE STIRRUP AND ITS EFFECT ON CHINESE MILITARY HISTORY
By Prof. Albert Dien


Could this even be 2 quivers on a horse? (2x40, or 2x50?) or one very large quiver?
There is as yet no reference to the finding of crossbow mechanisms with the cavalry, and the hand positions do suggest a bow based on those I have seen.
BTW I have seen Han era horsemen in minature ceramic form clearly shown in the posture for drawing and firing a bow from the saddle too. I hope I kept a picture somewhere.