Crossbows vs. normal bows

by Pashahlis

Crossbows and normal bows coexisted during the Medieval Ages, yet not everyone switched to the more modern crossbow. Why? In fact, what even are the differences between a crossbow and a normal bow? What advantages and disadvantages exist? Is a crossbow clearly superior to a normal bow and the reason why not everyone used it was due to higher production costs or training time?

Also, wasn't the crossbow invented very early in China? Did they use it more? Did it give them an advantage?

I am asking this because in the Civilization games crossbowmen are usually a straight upgrade of archers and in the Mount and Blade games crossbows are more accurate and do more damage but have a slower rate of fire and I wanted to verify if this is historically accurate as well as find out why those weapons coexisted. I know firearms and bows coexisted for some time due to the high production cost of early firearms and their inaccuracy.

nusensei

The crossbow was definitely not a "clearly superior" weapon. Though it is the more modern of the two, the crossbow coexisted with the bow, with armies often using both. Some of the differences were:

  • The crossbow required less training to use; bows typically required years to build up the skill and strength
  • The crossbow could be scaled up to very heavy draw weights
  • The crossbow had a slower shooting rate, as the heavier weight required special methods or tools (using a belt hook, goat's foot lever, or a windlass)
  • Crossbows had a shorter power-stroke - the smaller size meant that the prod had to be stronger, while bows could be drawn further.
  • Crossbows were generally suited for short-distance direct shooting; bows could be used for both short and long distance shooting
  • It was easier to unstring bows for storage and travel - if rain was anticipated, archers could remove the strings to prevent them from being soaked. This was a notable advantage the English archers had at Crecy over the Genoese crossbowmen.
  • Crossbowmen often required two men - one to shoot, and the other to load and/or hold the pavise shield
  • Bows were easier to manufacture
  • Bows could be more widely used on horseback

In general, the bow as a more versatile weapon, and in many cases the more economical choice and tactically better suited for some armies. Crossbows were perhaps logistically better as they could be given to more troops to use with less training.