Why use a crossbow when you can have a bow with bigger range and more power...

Why use a crossbow when you can have a bow with bigger range and more power? Crossbows are proof that people in middle ages were half apes with IQ 35 who the fuck invents inferior weapon lmao I'm lmaoing at our ancestors.

Other urls found in this thread:

web.wpi.edu/academics/me/IMDC/IQP Website/IQPReports/2013-2014/Evolution-Crossbow-Longbow.pdf
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Anyone can use a crossbow though

this cancer threads need to end.

Crossbows were easier to use, and still had enough energy to drop most targets. The only downside to them is long reload time.

>muh iq

Why are people obsessed with this bullshit. I swear it's autistic as Dragon Ball Z LARPERS confronting eachother in "battle" and comparing their power levels.

1.Siege crossbow have more power than any bow.
2.When you use bow your energy from using strenght draw a lot faster.
3.Crossbow is easy to use.
4.Armor penetration with crossbow bolts is better.

>bigger range
depends on the arrows

>more power
depends on the bows

This. You can't draw a war bow for very long. Crossbows are drawn by default.

Because cover.

The crossbow was invented around 700 BC,dude, was not a middle age invention.

I guess they both have their strenghts and weaknesses (sorry if I'm not using the correct terms):

Crossbows:
+Lets you ready a shot in advance.
+A lot easier to use behind cover.
+Easier to learn to use it properly.
+Faster to make.
+More stored energy and draw weight(more initial power).

-Slower to reload.
-More expensive (requires multiple contacts to produce).
-Shorter total and effective range
-Slow shooting rate

Bows:
+Cheaper to make(requires only a bowyer to produce).
+Longer total and effective range
+fast shooting rate

-Requires to draw and shoot rapidly(big strain on the user's muscles).
-Takes quite a long time to train in order to be efficient with it.
-Takes longer to make

Source:web.wpi.edu/academics/me/IMDC/IQP Website/IQPReports/2013-2014/Evolution-Crossbow-Longbow.pdf

One final point i'd like to add:Giant stationary crossbows are a thing, thought that is another story and can't be added to this discussion.

Can you draw 100 lbs with one arm?
If not you'll need a crossbow.

Longbows require too many mad skillz. Same reason guns got popular.

Also, because crossbows have a standard held tension at draw as opposed to a war bow which often depends on the strength of the individual, commanders could assume greater consistency in combat.

>The crossbow was invented around 700 BC,dude, was not a middle age invention.
The idea of crossbows was actually prehistoric, first arising from the brown people tribes living in what is today Southern China.

When the Proto-Chinks under the Shang & Zhou expanded Southwards, they encountered these people who used such weapons to hunt birds without tiring their arms. The Chinese then applied the concept to military, man-killing, weapons around the 1000s-700s BC.

Because im a stupid fucking peasant who has no skills but my liege still drafts me to fight in his army

Bolts were also much faster to produce. A forge could put out hundreds overnight. A skilled fletcher might craft less than 10 arrows a day.

Crossbows were cool though. Bows are for try hard fags

Ancient commanders didn't have organizational statistics and just had to eye ball shit, though they were still pretty stupid. The worst is for 200 years when they paid for all the expenses and training of heavy cavalry, then paid additionally for six flintlock pistols per a man, just to have them prance around the battle field shooting them and doing near 0 damage. Why wouldn't you just use a regular musketeer? Why wouldn't you just trample and lance infantry?

Inbred retards

>age of pike&shot
>Why didn't they just trample the tercio formations?
So this is the true face of Veeky Forums

Why do you think they used lances? Shitposter.

>crossbow
>simple machine anyone can use, even a woman or child
>can train up a whole regiment of crossbowmen in a month and have them be effective in battle

>longbow
>long range and fast firing speed, but it's high draw weight means only very strong men can use it
>takes years to train a troupe of longbow men to be effective in battle

And there you have it. England was the only country that bothered to create a land-holding class for archers (yeomen) and that's why Longbows were used so prolifically in their army. If you don't have the option of recruiting archers from a class of people who spent their lives training to be master archers then you make do with the cheap, mass produced option. The same reason fire arms caught on really.

Yeah, longbows are so great, that's why Margaret Paston tells her husband to stop fucking around and find some crossbows as fast as possible, when their manor house is under attack.

all of these so they could pierce armor

it compensates for being a shitty marksman, they're probably given to those kind of people

It probably would have been given to you OP

One other thing that people forget is that bows are custom made for their owners. Yes you can use someone else's bow in a pinch, but bows are generally made to match a person's height and dominant hand.

Crossbows are ambidextrous and can be produced to the same specifications.

In war, logistics is king.

Proof that crossbowmen were no skill noobs archers were doing Matrix style dodges but those shits had to rely on a mobile wall.

>You train 100 men in a year to effectively shoot the English Longbow.
>I train 100 men in 10 minutes to shoot a crossbow.
>???
>I win the war

Nice trips but a peasant wouldn't be drafted because why the fuck would anyone use a guy who is needed at a farm and cripple his food supply? Peasant levies are a myth.

Because musketeers were less mobile you nigger.

Longbow users had to train all day to get the muscle and accuracy needed to perfect it.

Could imagine this being costly, let's give the peasants a weapon that's just rooty tooty point n shooty. Sure you gotta reload it but you can get quicker reload times.

Less skill, less expensive. Any idiot could fire a crossbow.

Also using a crossbow has more power. When loaded you could run around and point, with a bow it's aim and shoot. you can't hold it for any longer than a few seconds. if you argue otherwise either you use babby tier my first bow or compounds.

Why the fuck everyone here talks aobut disadvantages of english lonbows if other types of bows also existed?

Because anglos keep pushing the longbow meme

Could a crossbow pierce plate armour?
I've heard a mixture of things, but to me it seems like armour would have fallen out of favour much faster if it was the case.

Siege crossbow could.

I mainly meant handheld crossbows.

Depends on the quality of the armour, the force of the crossbow, the distance, the angle the bolt hits the plate...
But generally neither bows nor crossbows were effective against plate armour, some armourers would only brand a new breastplate after it withstood both an arrow and a bolt.