Crossbow Vs. Bow

Uh buddy I think you got the wrong board.....

>one takes a lifetime of training to use effectively, the other can be used after a few weeks of practice.

for armies its the crossbow.

>>39244279
Nah I'm just really fucking bored
/k/ didn't like my thread and it died on /out/

>>39244286
In a hunting setting, which do you think could be more effective?

>>39244348
crossbow because you are always ready to fire

>>39244639

not to mention you can aim without your arm getting tired.

>>39244241
Bow because it's a lot faster

File: Arrows3.gif (145KB, 300x555px)

145KB, 300x555px

>>39244241
The standard issue arrow for longbowmen was 1/2 inch thick at one end, just to get through riveted maille. They were basically bludgeoning each other with logs, and most glanced off. It's a miracle they were able to penetrate at all.

there is a reason why the pope outlawed and forbid the use of the crossbow
it was the colt of it's day, the great equalizer.
in plate armor like the Nobel motherfucker you are? lmao k, this peasant just shot you in the heart with a days practice and a good metal tipped bolt

The reason crossbows and later guns became popular was stopping power. For thousands of years wounding an enemy with an arrow or rock from a sling would in some cases be better than killing them. A wounded soldier is harder to care for, they can also spread disease and slow an amry down while not bringing any benefits to it.

Advances in medicine, supply management and armour made wounding people harder and less beneficial. Killing an enemy in battle became much more important.

Everyone knows the benefits against armour but not many realise that for millennia wounding an enemy would be almost guaranteed to kill them and kill them slowly, this is why ranged weapons were feared.

One is good because you can reload it behind cover. One is good because it overall does more damage in less time. Different weapons for different purposes.

Crossbow also seems easier to use because you're not doing a heavy draw and aiming simultaneously.

>>39244241
It's already been said pretty much but they have their pros and cons. A longbow can be fired roughly twice as fast as a crossbow (or at least back then I don't know about modern times) since putting an arrow on a string is a bit faster than putting a bolt in a mechanism and cocking a crossbow, but a crossbow has more power.

Longbow for power and range

>>39244241
>>39244286
>>39244639
>>39244669
>>39244790
>>39244976
>a challenger appears
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk

>>39244790
He also outlawed the use of the longbow against Christians nitwit.

"We prohibit under anathema that murderous art of crossbowmen and archers, which is hateful to God, to be employed against Christians and Catholics from now on."

>>39245231
one day hes going to receive dat arrow right in da eyebrow

/tg/ has this thread daily.

Short story is that yes the longbow can do much more than a crossbow, but in order to do that you need to train a bowman for a lifetime. However, with a crossbow you can teach somebody how to use it in an afternoon.

So when arming peasant militias and mass military the crossbow is the better option.

File: 1502903954155.png (64KB, 1612x1428px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1612x1428px

The Chad javelin
t

>>39244286
Unless you do what the English did and make it the fucking law for every male in your country to be trained with the bow every sunday from the moment he's old enough to hold one steady.

>>39244241
If I was a medieval military commander, I'd have a peasant militia armed with spears + shields for the infantry and crossbowmen for my ranged united. The spearmen's sole job would be to protect the crossbowmen. Because both of those weapons are really easy to use (crossbows might be a bit tricky to manufacture, idk) I could train and hold huge armies, think red army during ww2.
I would also a decently sized cavalry force, while the enemy is stuck in a melee with my spearmen as they get peppered with crossbow volleys, I would have my cavalry go in from the flanks and stick it up their asses

>>39245691
I would still have heavy infantry and regular archers, but the core of my army would be peasant militia. I'd also have more wellfare n shit for them so that they don't overthrow me.
I've always dreamt of being a medieval king who everyone loves because of how nice he is to his people but also gets mad pussy from foreign countries

File: 37fd7bbbf642.jpg (80KB, 482x700px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 482x700px

>>39245728
Quantity may have a quality of its own but I doubt they'd be able to stand toe to toe with professional soldiers.

File: 02C.jpg (28KB, 468x329px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 468x329px

>>39245886
It really depends on the training and disiple of the troops.
I was thinking more roman empire esp strategy and and equipment but with poor people and slightly less impressive armor (it would be really expensive to give every peasant fucking plate armor)

Like with any kind of medieval weaponry there's no clear better or worse, all the different shapes and sizes have their own advantages and disadvantages.

The crossbow for example may take longer to draw, but it can also have a much greater draw weight than the single-arm pull of the bow. Even the typical stirrup-style draw of the crossbow is heavier, using both arms and the back to pull. Some crossbows like the arbalest even use mechanical tools like hand cranks and levels to draw. While this may take longer, it provides a lot more power and the draw can be held indefinitely.

Bows were probably used more for volume of fire, shooting volleys of arrows into enemy formations. Crossbows had much greater armor penetration and were very controversial in some places because of how easily they could dispatch a knight in plate armor.

Since knights were typically nobles, they would be captured rather than killed if possible. Then sold for ransom back to their family or kingdom.

File: piquero.jpg (44KB, 430x581px)

44KB, 430x581px

>>39246109
Then legions were as far from militia as you can get. They drilled for at least two years before they were considered competent and trained everyday for 16-25 years.

Beymp for a interesting thread