you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 11 months ago (3 children)

Not crossbows, interestingly.

Hmm, sounds like a solvable problem, why not crossbows?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago*

    Crossbows are clunky and slow operate.

    Their plus is that untrained people can use them.

    An expert bowman could outmatch a group of 12 crossbowmen.

    But if you had a group of 50+ men to arm with bows or crossbows (hundereds and thousands weren't uncommon historically), a crossbow was more effective because there's no way in hell you'd get, say, 10.000 expert bowmen. If you were to arm such a legion with bows, you'd most likely suffer more damage from friendly fire than from enemy fire.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I have to dig that back up. I think it ended up being that the size of a crossbow capable of bear hunting vs a compound bow was significant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment