longbow vs. crossbow

[lepers]

which is better? i think the longbow, my friend thinks otherwise? is there a definitive answer?

[amarillis]

The crossbow was easier to aim as there was no string to pull back, and it could be loaded in advance so it would be ready to fire immediately when needed. They also require less upper body strength to use. The crossbow was also more powerful, and could penetrate armour at 200 yards.

The longbow however was more accurate and a trained longbowman could shoot 2-5 times more frequently than a crossbowman.

I don't think I've really provided a definitive answer there lepers!! But personally I think the longbow was better as it required more skill to use.

[Octavius]

Depends.  In the middle ages an English archer could release 3 or 4 arrows into enemy lines in the time it took to wind up, reload and shoot one crossbow bolt. And if you have a 100 archers doing that, it would literally rain arrows, and if you were loading a crossbow you would hope that one of your colleagues was holding a shield over your head!  But crossbows often had slightly better accuracy.  You also had to be very strong and quite tall to be an archer since the tension in the bowsting could take someones ear off, often the archers.    

[kempie]

I think the definitive answer would be found by you standing in a field with your longbow and your friend standing 50m away with a crossbow and both start loosing your projectiles...

[lepers]

nah we tried that with the old bazooka verses rpg debate, mums weren't impressed :-/

[kaktus]

Ohh Kempie you're being naugthy ;0) Btw at 50 meters I would definitely go for the crossbow.

I think that the answer must depend on the use. As far as I remember from books, please correct me if I'm wrong my dear British AB friends, that when French and Middle Eastern armies first met the British longbow archers the opposing armies got quite a shock! The non-English army would have been happily charging and the longbow archers, standing in safety, would have unleased a rain of arrows upon the attackers way before their own archers were in shooting distance. So in my opinion the long bow, when first introduced, were a much more valuable weapon then the crossbow. But then again I got a thing for William Tell :0)

[kaktus]

LOL lepers. I do understand your mum, I'm not sure I would be too pleased if my kids came home with arrows and bolts sticking out from various placed and I would absolutely furious if they come home as a hole in ground :-D

[Octavius]

Not sure there is an answer, debated here:bows

Although the science in this one reckons the longbow was the best at close range?? longweapons

[Ray The Grey]

The use of the longbow proved decisive in a number of battles and became widespread during the subjugation of Wales. The bows were five feet long and incredibly powerful. An arrow was recorded as going through full leg armour, through the leg, through horse barding and far enough into a horse to kill it at about 250 metres.

The archers could fire one and a half times the distance of the crossbowmen and bands of  about 20 archers would pick an area  about 5 metres square and they could saturate it accurately with arrows at 300 metres+.

The rate of fire with the best archers was 6 accurate shots a minute and at Agincourt there were dozens of waggons filled with arrows (with over a million being fired). The bows were cheaper, lighter and it was easier to keep the strings dry and in good condition & restring if necessary.

Bow practice was compulsory for many years with big competitions around the country (I remember reading football was banned to avoid interfering in archery practice). Give me a longbow any day

[lepers]

i think its still technically illegal to play football on sunday, might b wrong tho

[1rovert]

I believe you will find it somewhere that Archery is the English National sport, not as we are forced to think Football.