Poll: Bow or Crossbow

[the idiot computer]

Cannon or musket yes they did exist.

 

[maninahat]

Whilst they do have a much smaller span, they normally have a much greater draw weight to compensate. This is why crossbows often required a complex winching system to reload them - they were that overwrought, they needed a lot of mechanical power (and time) to draw them back.

A longbows max drawstrength was 200N, compared to the most powerful crossbow's (the Arbalest) max, of 22kN. That is somewhat more than "3 times the draw strength". Thisridiculously high draw strength more than compensates for teh crossbow's shorter span and lighter darts. Even if you assume the OP is referring to standard, early crossbows, the power of a typical crossbow is marginally greater. The range of early crossbows is less than that of longbows, but crossbows developed considerably, increasing in range and power. It was specifically the crossbow's penetration power at closer ranges (and not the bows's) which led to heavier and heavier armour.

Well this is all I can find it terms of a credible comparison:

http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/cross_l_v_c.html

from the figures it looks like the crossbow bolt has roughly half the momentum

Interesting. I based my argument on the exact same source you provided:

"In general, arrows weigh more than bolts, so they have a larger momentum (force) associated with them. However, a late Medieval crossbow bolt has a higher speed associated with it, which will overcome the lower mass. (the the force being equal to the mass times the square of the velocity). Both longbows and crossbows were capable of penetrating all but the thickest plate maile armour, but my understanding is that the heavy crossbow was the main driving force leading to heavier and heavier plate maile armour. At point blank range, the crossbow almost certainly had greater penetrating power than a long bow. By the 15th century, and possibly earlier, it is safe to say that heavy crossbows (such as a windlass spanned crossbow) were more powerful than longbows. The common crossbow probably wasn't much more powerful though."

 

[Continuity]

Yes its a little self contradictory, and the comments about force in that paragraph only serve to show the ignorance of the person writing it. I think he's over estimating the common crossbow though, the figures they provide are for a cranequin spanned crossbow which is likely to be at the top end of the "common crossbow" range in terms of power, the exit and presumably impact velocities are similar (to the bow) so assuming a similar head the longbow arrow will have twice the kinetic energy of the bolt and so logically would have greater penetration.

The arbalast is a different beast and clearly "out guns" the longbow in every respect bar rate of fire, although if i understand correctly the arbalast is a fairly late addition and so though most of the period in which bows and crossbows were used you'd be looking at something with much less power, and before composites and spanning devices were used I'd say the crossbow would be significantly less powerful.

 

[Reenix]

I'm biased towards the crossbow because my mum bought me one from Germany and it ROCKS. I took it to a D&D session :3