Poll: Bow or Crossbow

[David Bray]

You can lay down between 5 and 10 volleys of longbow arrows in the time it takes to cock and fire a new crossbow bolt.
However, you do miss out that crossbow bolts can pierce far stronger materials and therefore kill more efficiantly.

Still. BOW

 

[xHipaboo420x]

Longbow, brethren.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

I'd take a longbow over a crossbow any day.

Battle of Crécy, anyone?

 

[Continuity]

longbow > crossbow by a long way simply because of rate of fire:

longbow = 12+ arrows/minute
crossbow = 2-3 bolts per minute (heavy crossbow)

Both can be accurate, depending on quality of manufacture and skill of archer, both will happily pierce mail or plate, even at range.

 

[BlackLiger]

Both. After all, I can carry both. It's not like choosing between a 50. cal machinegun and a javelin anti tank weapon, for example. Both are actually quite lightweight and can be carried by a single human being.

 

[Knight Templar]

I would rather have a team of well trained bowmen than a team of crossbowmen, unless the target is in some form of heavy armour, in which case a crossbow would be needed.

But without heavy armour I'd perfer bowmen because when both weapons will kill people putting more rounds down-range is a good advantage. Maybe I'm bias sinse I use a bow myself. Well used, ever since I moved house I haven't been able to setup my target in a safe place.
I remember reading somewhere that a crossbow's accuracy drops well before it max range is reached, and this is hard to compensate for compaired to a bow at the same range. Again its all rendered moot by who I'm fighting, if I'm equaly skilled in two weapons then I'll take whichever is more effective for the fight.

 

[spectrenihlus]

TREBUCHET!!!

 

[bad rider]

Bullshit. A crossbow has far greater power and accuracy than a bow. Sure a bow takes a long time to train, and can be a highly effective weapon. But a crossbow is far more likely to penetrate armour and hit a target at range. Which is a better weapon depends on the circumstances.

THE REAL DIFFERENCE between a crossbow and a long bow is that the bow can loose far more shots in a far lesser time. A crossbow takes ages to reload. A crossbow is handy if you have quite a few at your disposal, you have plenty of time to reload them, and plenty of cover to hide behind without getting harmed. Otherwords, a crossbow is ideal in a siege, if you are shacked up in a castle.

If you need to be firing lots of shots into a huge group of men, go for the bow. The long bow's effectiveness lay in it being used in great numbers, able to fire clouds of arrows in rapid succession. In otherwords, a longbow is handier in the field. As far as maintenence goes, a bow is far more simple in the sense that you can easily remove the strings in between battles. That is a necessary part of bow maintenence, as many crossbowmen made the mistake of not removing their bow strings in between battles. The consiquence was that many wet crossbow strings bust in the battle whilst the bowmen could just wap up the old bowstrings on, dry as a bone.

I'll tell you what when I was reading the OP this is what I was thinking.

 

[Gardenclaw]

I would use ballistae.

I too would go with the ballistae.

 

[The_Communist_Tsar]

I would use a bow, you can load it fast and it only requires one operator.

 

[Aiden_the-Joker1]

Im personally going with bows because on average you can shoot 10 arrows with a bow in a minute but can only shoot 5 with a crossbow also they have a much longer rang some can even go miles and they are easier to make get a plank of wood, bend it, make it round, add string however with a crossbow you have to create matching joints for the pieces to connect together

 

[draven198]

You kinda screwed up the description due to thet fact that crossbows are more powerfull then bows and have better speed and armor piercing ability.Also it depends on situation if you got a small group of troops charging over open ground use the bow for speed shooting.Now if you have a crossbow you need cover and a fair distance between you and the enemy.Yet i still believe that a crossbow is better.

 

[ZephrC]

The correct answer is that it depends on what you're trying to do. That's why crossbows and longbows existed along side each other until firearms made them both obsolete.

Crossbows have more power, but the fletching on an arrow causes it to wobble less, which evens out the range and accuracy, and for piercing weapons in general accuracy is more important to kill potential than power anyway. An arrow to the vitals will immediately kill you, and a bolt to a non-vital area won't immediately kill you. Arrows also have plenty of power to penetrate most armor, so overall power, accuracy and range are all moot points.

Basically it just comes down to a few guys firing rapidly vs. a lot of guys firing slowly. A group of longbowmen is likely to have been well trained, which has other side effects such as increasing loyalty and morale, while the crossbowmen will be easier to replace if the war drags on. Also, crossbows are more expensive than bows, while arrows are more expensive than bolts, again favoring bows in shorter conflicts and crossbows in longer ones.

I chose bows in the end, because they're overall slightly better at first, and if the war drags on you can replace them with crossbows as you go.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

I'd say crossbow because in close quarters combat with revolting serfs you can use the butt of the weapon to take them down. The bow isn't as good in close quarters combat.

 

[Macgyvercas]

Let me put it this way...Crossbows are slower to load, but if you get within range they can do some serious damage. Longbows are faster to load, have longer range, and in the hands of a skilled bowman, can pierce plate armor from 300 yards away.

My vote goes to the longbow.

 

[The Eggplant]

Longbow by a mile. I've used and enjoyed both, but a longbow is somewhat less cumbersome (in terms of sheer bulk, not weight), allows for mobile combat, has less of a recoil issue, is FASTER, can fire over a marginally longer distance, and if you fancy being some kind of medieval assassin, it's also not as noisy.

 

[martin's a madman]

I'd rather have a shield.

 

[Shifty Tortoise]

Talking from experience, i don't think bows are hard to use, but they do require more upper body strength than crossbows. But bows still win, 'cause only bad asses can use them ^^

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

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.

I find issue with your last statement. With the bodkin armour piercing arrowhead, a longbow arrow could pierce plate armour at 200 yards. Also, firing a longbow doesn't take that much practice.
Longbows are also cheaper to make, so I would rather outfit my army with longbows.
Look up the battle of agincourt for the best use of longbows in history

 

[Continuity]

Bullshit. A crossbow has far greater power and accuracy than a bow.

I think you're misunderstanding draw weight, it does not directly equate to the power of the shot. For a crossbow, with its smaller span, to have the same power as the longbow it needs 3 times the draw weight or more. Common battlefield crossbows would have much less power than the longbow.