Cross-bows vs. Traditional bows

In a pre-industrial setting, would traditional bows or cross-bows be more practical? Would one kind of bow be more useful in one situation than another? Thanks.

We have a combat thread for future reference.

However, the simple answer is they're very different weapons. Crossbows fire slowly and have extremely good armor penetration qualities. They are also very flat-trajectory weapons and simple to use for the untrained.

Only the largest of bows, like longbows, can match the armor penetration of a crossbow. They also require more training both in terms of ability to draw (it's difficult to draw a longbow), and in the fact that they arc at any significant range.

The short answer would be;

• Heavy bows are better in all respects than crossbows.
• Crossbows are best if you don't have time to train archers, or if you want to give a soldier who's trained for something else a reliable ranged weapon (it's quite hard to exaggerate how much training a military archer needs^note In addition to general marksmanship, archers need to keep training constantly to keep their muscles build up and be strong enough to pull the string on a bow with a 120lb. draw.).

This is simplified, but it's more or less what will decide who has which.

"You dont train master archers, you raise them."

"If you want to train a master archer, start with his grandfather."

Don't need to have quite as much draw strength with a recurve bow, compared to a longbow.

edited 9th Feb '14 2:30:08 PM by shiro_okami