"The bow or the crossbow - your choice?" Topic

What would be your preferred weapon of choice for yourself, and what if you had command of a small unit, what weapon for them – the crossbow or the bow?

I have a notion that the majority of non-Brits would choose the crossbow.

Time period here is 1066-1485. Thanks.

Guess that depends: are we talking about the historical longbow, or the one that shoots lightsabers at the French?

Damon :)

Crossbow as I am a weed!

Any bow that is not a crossbow – your choice.

(Distant hazy memory here – Aren't some folk a bit picky about describing a longbow as such too early in time? Before say, Agincourt)

An automatic weapon … oh ! That wasn't one of the choices !

The warbow (aka longbow) for me, every time.

(Distant hazy memory here – Aren't some folk a bit picky about describing a longbow as such too early in time? Before say, Agincourt)

The warbow, in various incarnations, has been around since at least the Viking period. See "The Warbow" by Hardy & Strickland.

Since I cant pull a longbow to any great capability, but I have knowledge of the slower firing crossbow – and I am more used with flatter arcs of fire… it would have to be the crossbow.

I was looking for a working Cho-ko-nu and stumbled on this beauty.
YouTube link
I think the longbow has just slipped to 2nd place for me now.

Longbow for me and for a unit, I would prefer the longbow …… But of course the troops have to be proficient in its use in the first place.

Crossbow, less training curve and does not require the strength of the user

While I love the longbow, I'll have to agree w/Saber6.

Ted

I'll take the 100 round, drum fed, rapid fire crossbow from Van Helsing.

Yep going to go with Saber6 as well. Another plus is that with loses to the unit it is easy to train and replace casualties. While the Crossbow might have a slower rate of fire it has as much if not more punch than a warbow and close to the same range depending on type of crossbow we are talking about.

I'm better with a crossbow than with a longbow, so the choice is easy.

Open battle, siege, or naval combat?

Longbow if in open battle on land, especially if the other side has longbows.

Siege, as a defender, a crossbow. Possibly also as an attacker, but 50:50 arguably.

Naval combat – probably a crossbow to take down at short range the armoured bloke about to lead the boarding party.

Got to agreewith Saber6. Crossbow.

Japanese longbow with the assorted "swiss knife" choices of arrowheads.

Crossbows are great but I can shoot more arrows in less time. But as stated previously, crossbows are better in tight places.

I should mention that I have shot both before. Bows are far more popular than crossbows these days. It probably means something?

Bows. They are almost like an organic extension of oneself – except those funky compound bows. Those, like crossbows, are ungainly mechanical monstrosities.

>Bows are far more popular than crossbows these days.

As a personal weapon I would prefer a longbow, but as equipment in war popularity "these days" does not matter – but the actual equipment that was chosen should. The crossbow was far more popular with actual armies of the period, especially those of the later span of the given period.

Logistics certainly plays a part in that developement, but in war logistics should always be a foremost consideration.

Mongol recurved bow for me.

Longbow. Especially if fitted to an AH64D Apache!

Longbow for me, crossbows for the hired help. I used to shoot bows fairly much way back, so assume I still retain some ability with them, but the ease of training factor for the rank-and-file definitely call far the crossbow.

Rob

Longbow. I can load it, aim it, and fire it more easily and rapidly than a crossbow, and I can shoot from any angle.

Not that I really want to be fighting zombies with either. For that, I want some sort of magazine/drum fed shotgun. An arrow's not gonna do squat to a zombie. With a shotgun you can blow it away.

I charged (right word? ) a 150 lb crossbow one time 2 days ago. Back is still sore – I don't think we appreciate how strong and good shape they had to be in to work those things for more than like 5 minutes

Crossbow if I had to. I would use it to hunt animals. For Zeds I would take my .22 clip fed, semi auto Mossberg carbine with scope any day (she's an oldie but a goodie). It's fairly quiet, ammo is common (bet there is a run on 12ga come the Apocalypse), and it is lightweight. That along with my machete or Kukri, small crowbar or hammer, a hunting knife, multi tool, and my .30 Ruger single action for emergencies!

Longbow of course, since with a crossbow, unless you are on a castle wall, behind a moat, the zombies will probably have you before you can reload it for a second shot.

Feet Up Now, here ya go.
YouTube link

Grimm

Having done some archery, I think a crossbow might be easier to use.
Depends on the range and accuracy/penetration you need.

It depends.
How small is this unit?
Because I'm not so sure I want a missile weapon as their main weapon at all depending on who /what we're up against where we are, what we have to do and how small the unit is.
Oh.
And who else is on our side.

Poundage on our family longbows varied from 40 through 100.
Pretty much anyone can fire a 40 pound bow and do it a LOT quicker than a crossbow. I am not very strong but I could pull Dad's 100 pound bow after a bit of training.
So how much training do my unit and potential replacements have,
Are there any replacements going to be available?
Bows are tricky, but maybe they don't need to be expert shots,
If they're firing at a huge unit then it doesn't matter which one they hit and a couple of hours training will get them "good enough" with a bow.
Bows are a lot easier to maintain and replace than crossbows.
If we have to travel much then are we going to be in supply with some crossbow fixing experts available all the time?
How likely are we to meet our opposition up close and personal?
Are the opposition going to shoot back?
Shields are pretty handy if they are.

As Andy says, what training do we have? What sort of terrain and engagement ranges? Armoured or soft targets?

I have used a bow with a modicum of accuracy after a fair bit of practice, but a cross bow is much more like a a rifle. Just pick it it up and shoot.

Bows are much cooler of course, but I'm not sure I could score consistent headshots against zombies with either a bow of a crossbox.

So given I'm going to be fighting them with a sword/club, (and as I see we are on the WH40K board, no doubt a chainsword) then something I can sling out of the way easily is probably more important, so a bow.

I'd use my recurve bow, I'm accurate enough and can shoot 12-14 arrows a minute, a crossbow is too slow to reload.

The Steppes composite recurve bows were the most efficient bows ever made before modern times. A modern fiberglass recurve has about the same efficiency. (I won't even discuss pulley bows.)

The medieval crossbow was a very practical weapon. The same reasons why it was popular are why gunnes replaced both bows and crossbows around the globe: efficiency in the economics spectrum if not the rate of fire. Gunnes were cheaper and could be used to arm masses of men.

But the OP isn't about gunnes or pulley bows or anything other than straight up bows vs. crossbows. If I were the commander of a unit, with considerations of cost and replacement of casualties in mind, I'd definitely go with the crossbow….

Not knowing alot about either weapon let us suppose you had one group of guys who were proficient with the longbow as far as its use fighting against another group of guys who were proficient with the crossbow as far as its use and they both were in an open flat field facing each other would the crossbow be a better weapon or longbow have been a better weapon since you can fire from a longer distance at least that is what the article I had been reading stated. So which is correct or is it based off a whole lot of different factors?

Another handy thing about a crossbow is that you can load it and keep it ready to fire instantly. With a longbow, if a zombie gets the drop on you and you don't have time to nock and arrow and draw a bowstring, you could be hash.

I think the flatter trajectory of fire and simplicity of aiming would also be pluses for the crossbow, in zombie fighting. We'll presume this is going to occur at closer quarters than an open field, pitched battle scenario.

Some crossbows take longer to reload than others. Obviously you'd want to go with the simpler forms for this situation, not the big wind-up thingies.

I'm primarily a longbowman by choice and sentiment, but in this scenario I'd go with crossbows.

If I'm answering from a zombie survivor standpoint, I'd say if i knew how to use a bow I'd use one. I don't, so I'd go with a crossbow simply because of the point piper909 brought up – ease of use.

For leading a small unit, definitely crossbow to take out armored enemies, leaving bows for bigger units.

Can't remember exactly where I read it last week (doing some web search on Mongol invasion), but I saw a piece recently that noted that the Mongols preferred crossbow units when hiring mercenaries in the West.

As they had a pretty fair archery capability in their own right, one presumes that they saw a significant benefit to European crossbows.

At any rate, as noted above, crossbows have the advantage for training and logistical reasons.

Bows are a lot easier to maintain and replace than crossbows.

Good quality bow staves are not quite as trivial to make as one would think – you will need to first obtain good quality wood, then dry it and carve accordingly.

Composite bows, with their multiple layers of materials glued together, will introduce their own complexities.

With crossbows, staves can be made of various materials: plain wood, composite structure or steel. The wooden stock is relatively straightforward item.

Either way, bows don't need to be replaced all the time. But whether you go for self bow or crossbow, you will need a frequent supply of bowstrings and more importantly arrows/bolts.

I am rubbish with a bow so I will take the crossbow

Chinese repeating crossbow is good, but I'm English yoeman stock to it's got to be the bow ;-)

A warbow….. Can pull the draw but would then not be able to afford the minis…… So many distractions to the hobby……. :-)

A downside to the Cho-ko-nu is that you have to fire it from the hip, the bolts cannot have any fletchings, and a relative weak bow, about a 40lb draw was one quote I've heard. You may not need too much power for an effective head shot on a zombie, but short comings of the Cho-ko-nu add up to a short effective range (40 yards? Payne-Galloway).

Another logistical advantage to the crossbow are the bolts.
I'll make an assumption, since this is warhammer/medieval board, that these are handcrafted items. It takes some skill to make arrows, and they have to be matched to bow's draw weight because the arrows flex when fired. Plus you should only string bows when you need them, otherwise they start to stay bent, a handicap when caught by surprise.

Crossbow bolts don't have to flex. They can be massed produced; turned on a lathe, a jig can be used to attach the fletchings, which in turn can use thick paper or thin leather.

What about weather concerns? If it's raining, which strings are most likely to get ruined? My guess is the longbow string because, well, it's longer and more delicate.

So don't fight zombies in Great Britain or Ireland, haha!

Like all things it's choosing the correct tool for the right task.

In line with DBS303, in battle or hunting (stalking), I would normally go for a bow, but in a siege or hunting (in a hide), I think a crossbow would be more useful.

On the strings issue, there is a solution, but you'd have to 'keep it under your hat' ;-)

Running total:

Bow 13

Crossbow 16

For sniping the crossbow for area fire Bow.

Oh dear…..

Darrell.

Darrell Hindley Figure Painter:
darrellhindley.co.uk
Just Add Water II Blog (Painting etc):
link
La Journee Blog (Hundred Years War):
link
Gewalthaufen Blog (Late 15th Cebtury Blog):
gewalthaufen.blogspot.co.uk

Not knowing a lot about either weapon let us suppose you had one group of guys who were proficient with the longbow as far as its use fighting against another group of guys who were proficient with the crossbow as far as its use and they both were in an open flat field facing each other would the crossbow be a better weapon or longbow have been a better weapon since you can fire from a longer distance at least that is what the article I had been reading stated. So which is correct or is it based off a whole lot of different factors?

This actually happened in one well known battle, Crecy. Genoese crossbowmen were hit first by the longer range of the English bows, even though the crossbows shot first. Apparently a sudden rain shower had compromised the crossbow strings (that was the later excuse anyway; but strings are equal, what would have adversely effected the crossbow strings would also have had the same adverse effect on the bow strings). We are talking about thousands of men on each side at Crecy. Had the crossbow bolts actually impacted the English longbow ranks they would have caused casualties. But the rate of "fire" would come instantly into play. On an open field a crossbow is out-shot by a bow, in volley shooting, at a rate of three to two rounds every thirty seconds. When the range comes within "pointblank", and individual shooting commences, then the crossbow is out-shot by a rate of three or even four to one by bows. At Crecy the crossbowmen were routed off before they came anywhere near pointblank range….

Bow for me – its the rate of fire. In the seige of Vienna one of the troops that suprised the defenders was the Janissary archers in the breeches and the rapid close in fire.
Again Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt the warbow for rate of fire range and penetrtion. Crossbow units would need replacements more often than bows ;-)

YouTube link

At Crecy the Genoese were not only lack vital parts of their equipment (the pavises) but were also outnumbered by a significant degree by the English archers. If there was a rain shower the archer can easily remove the string from the bow and put it inside his clothing were it will be protected from the water. On the crossbow this is often not possible due to the force needed to bend the bow. At least in northern Europe crossbows can be seen with leather covers protecting them from rain and snow in various artwork.

At Poitiers were the crossbowmen went into action with their pavises (and against a smaller number of archers) events were very diffrent from Crecy. The French crossbowmen remained in action throughout the battle. Geoffrey the Baker describes vividly how the crossbowmen supported the final French attack with "with a dense mist of bolts" without any Crecy like rout due the "hail of arrows" from the English archers.