Poll: Bow or Crossbow

[Snotnarok]

Ballista, I like the idea of shooting trees at enemies. If not that then a bow, less cranking and more HURK I'M DEAD

 

[Swifteye]

In dynasty warriors I used to have body guards. When they were privates enemy soldiers looking at them made them fall down and die. Eventually I got the option to arm them with crossbows or normal bows. Normal bows were fine but it seemed to never get enemies very well and getting surrounded mean't they never got a chance to shoot. Crossbows were much faster and was very deadly to the enemy when there ranks rivaled the generals. From that experience I'd have to say crossbow is good if you have enemies racing to your face but a safe position probably makes normal bows just if not more useful.

 

[firedfns13]

Would you rather have a bunch of crossbow men or a few trained archers (me and my girlfriend got into the discussion after watching Robin Hood) Bows take a lot more training to use and their arrows are a lot harder to make then crossbow bolts but are more accurate and longer ranged; crossbows are cheap "simple point and click interface", the only hard part is cocking it (lever or wind up , or simple pull back, the bolts are just small wooden spikes, even with training, are less accurate and shorter range then arrows. Basically this boils down to quantity(crossbow) vs. quality(bow). Oh and crossbows, and with the exception of those giant overpowered mounted crossbows, could not pierce any but light armor.

Crossbows are more accurate and farther ranged.

 

[Theron Julius]

It's all preference. To put it in modern terms, it's like an assault rifle and a sniper rifle. Do you like to hit hard and far and the expense of fire rate or do you like to get as much lead (or iron) out as possible?

Personally, I would prefer a crossbow.

 

[TheSeventhLoneWolf]

Bow. Arrowspam is always fun, Plus shooting and reloading is faster for much higher outputs.

 

[rekabdarb]

Considering i own both a crossbow and a regular bow, i'd say the Long/composite/whatever bow is much more viable than a crossbow. Crossbows might be easier to aim but A: they can't go as far and B: they take 3 times as long to load, unless you have a custom built repeater crossbow

 

[Jroo wuz heer]

I'm fairly certain crossbows had longer range than longbows. It's a pretty simple principle; the bolts are lighter, and fired with more force, and therefore should go farther.
A balistae is just a giant crossbow. There isn't a super-longbow however. Also you forgot to mention factors like the fact that crossbows have better armor-penetration.
You pretty much got the quality V quantity thing backwards. Crossbow shots are generally more effective all around, but they take significantly more time to load and fire.
Real men use polearms anyways.

ninja'd

(if I'm using that word right)

 

[blankedboy]

I'd use the Longbow AVRiL. It's a pretty damn good longbow.
(reference anyone?)

 

[Danpascooch]

I'm fairly certain crossbows had longer range than longbows. It's a pretty simple principle; the bolts are lighter, and fired with more force, and therefore should go farther.
A balistae is just a giant crossbow. There isn't a super-longbow however.
Real men use polearms anyways.

REAL men use suplexes to defeat their enemies.

Yes, but we were talking aboot armed combat here. Relying entirely on one move limits you.

Says the guy named Souplex

 

[Sansha]

Coming from a person who's actually used both several times to shoot things, I'm going with the longbow.

The longbow is a snap-fire creature. While keeping a crossbow loaded and ready to fire at a moment's notice is incredibly dangerous and fiddly, with a longbow you can keep the arrow in the string, then pull-back and snap-fire (with skill) at a target, hopefully blowing a squishy hole in it, after which you can pull an arrow out of your quiver and be ready to fire again in about a second.

Meanwhile the longbow is also much easier to carry, due to most crossbows being unbelievably heavy, mostly because of easier reload devices on it, and crossbows can and do break down.

Also, the kickback on a crossbow is unbelievable if you're not expecting it. And frankly, you never are.

 

[DarkDain]

This isnt a complete question, in close quarters like in a castle you'd want the crossbow. Citing the training and cost doesnt fit into your poll, so those things dont matter. The Longbow IS the high powered bow. The arblast is the high powered crossbow, you still had to be trained to load one of those things. The chinese had rapid fire crossbows too that could fire as fast as any bow. The power of the crossbow and longbow were actually about the same, but the crossbow had slightly more range with less accuracy, the crossbow had a heavier bolt and draw weight but less energy stored. But the crossbow also locked once loaded, so you could fire instantly, while a bowmen could become tired holding an arrow and aiming. Lastly there are some pretty cool crossbow concepts, taking advantage of the crossbows cross shape to mount a small shield on it, so you could shoot with it and block arrows.

Crossbow for me.

I'd also like to point out that the figures of longbow firing speed are inaccurate, as you wont be standing still shooting arrows at a target. The crossbowmen will load a bolt behind cover and pop out and shoot. The longbow men will likely be doing the same and there firing speed will be limited too how fast they can take cover again.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Zhugenu-payne.jpg

Chinese repeating crossbow, anyone?

 

[Fingolfin High-King of the Noldor]

A crossbow is much more powerful than a normal bow and it doesn't take the space and time to use it. It is also much more accurate than you would think and could easily pierce armor. But yet I picked the regular bow anyway.

 

[Aulleas123]

The problem is that the crossbow is horrifically inaccurate and only works en masse. Unless you have a group of at least twenty guys with crossbows firing, you're probably not going to hit anything worth while. In addition, it takes about a minute to fire and reload. An English longbowman can get off 6 shots in the time it takes to fire one crossbow bolt shot. In addition, due to the proper use of the longbow (firing into the air to get distance and allow the acceleration due to gravity to gain power), the longbow was just as powerful of a shot as a crossbow.

A bow, depending on how you use it, can be a personal weapon with the other use of hunting. Yes, it takes a lot of skill to use a bow but its a weapon that is much more versatile to a skilled user than a crossbow.

Now here's another question I'd ask you lovers of bows, would you use an older style short bow, an eastern style composite bow, or an English longbow?

 

[Pinstar]

It depends on what you have more of, soldiers or materials/production.

If one were trying to raise a militia from the local population, crossbows would be the logical choice. However, if one were, say, a commander of a professional troupe, perhaps a mercenary, the longbow would prove better.

If I had to choose one for my own defense, I'd go with the crossbow. More portable and easier to ambush someone with...and my aim sucks with bows as my archery record has proven (from gym)

 

[LitleWaffle]

My opinion is based on the middle ages.

Definitely bows, preferably longbows. Longer range than crossbow, faster firing rate than crossbows, and with well trained archers better accuracy. How could you not?

 

[The Stonker]

I would have gone for the japanese longbow

 

[Spitfire175]

TREBUCHET!!!

OVERKILL!
Nothing like hurling a dead cow at someone.

OT:
Well. The actual difference is ease of use, rate of fire and efficiency at a certain range.

A longbow and a crossbow will both give all but the best armours a hard time. At short range the Crossbow is superior, but when fired en masse over hundreds of yards, the longbow is even deadlier. A crossbow is easy to aim and very accurate at short ranges, firing the weapon requires very little training. Maintenance and long range marksmanship is a whole other ordeal. A longbow takes more training to get a hold of the basics, let alone hitting a target at a few hundred yards. But who used longbows? Professional, hard drilled and highly skilled archers. No doubt crossbowmen were also skilled (or not), but the shortcomings of the longbow didn't hurt its performance.

A longbow will fire as much as 10 arrows in a minute,6 if aimed carefully. The volume of fire a unit of longbowmen is staggering. Folklore tells "Frenchmen were wiped off the decks of their ships by arrows" in some naval engagements of the Hundred years war. Actual records tell of staggering English victories at sea, since the French vessels were void of any soldiers before contact was made. Do the math. History proves the reputation of the longbow, while quite hyped, is at least somewhat deserved. Those French knights in their plate armour didn't plunge those arrows through their own bodies themselves.

A crossbow fires 2-3 bolts in a minute. Not fast. But nevertheless deadly. from a steady position behind a pavise and guarded by infantry crossbowmen were a dread to nobles. The lowest peasant could kill a king with relative ease. The king had to come quite close, though.

The range. Oh the range. Big question. Here's your answer: Pretty much the same. Yup. Depending on the size of the weapon and wind. But hitting anything where the projectile lands is another thing. A longbowman could land an arrow within 5 yards of a target at 300 metres. That's a helluva long way away. Imagine 500 longbows at the same time. A crossbow can launch a bolt about just as far away as a longbow. But the ballistics of a bolt aren't quite cut out for long distances. An arrow or a bolt wobbles like hell in flight. A bolt is short and thick. The bolt drops, and with a crossbow you have to try to "aim directly". Let me tell you, one tough job hitting anywhere near a target beyond 150 metres. The drop of the projectile isn't an issue for an arrow: it's supposed to rain down on the target anyway, gravity just makes it hit harder. And the bolt will go straight a head when it hits something, probably to the front, so penetrate shields and armour with reduced strength. So to say it clearly: crossbows and longbows both have a similar theoretical range. Longbow has a longer effective range.

A crossbow works well in a siege. "Sniping" as far as medieval times go. Protected by a wooden rampart a crossbowman was not in danger while aiming. In the field, longbowmen were more effective, but they needed a formation and a disciplined unit. A longbow is a large weapon, lethal in large numbers.

One on one, longbowman vs. crossbowman, it comes down to who hits first. I'd put my money on the longbow.

 

[crudus]

In times of peace you would want to train people to use bows. In times of war you pick a peasant and say "here's a crossbow and there's the front line".

I'm fairly certain crossbows had longer range than longbows. It's a pretty simple principle; the bolts are lighter, and fired with more force, and therefore should go farther.

False. Bows have a farther draw therefore can put a lot more force on the projectile. Also, a lighter projectile means less range (Cēterīs paribus) since it has less inertia to push its way through the air and is affected more by changes in air current. Looking at crossbow bolts it doesn't look like they would be able to flex in the air like arrows do which might also give an accuracy decrease, but I could be wrong on that.

 

[Spitfire175]

Now here's another question I'd ask you lovers of bows, would you use an older style short bow, an eastern style composite bow, or an English longbow?

Definitely a Welsh longbow. Composite bows are nice until the glue melts away in the rain and the weapon disintegrates.