Crossbows vs. Longbows

[Jazzepi]

A couple of points on crossbows as well. Much like modern guns, crossbows didn't require the extensive training that longbows did to fire. You could give anyone a crossbow, and show them how to load it. Beyond the ability to turn a crank, or stretch the initial string, the force of the weapon was completely independent of the wielder's own strength. Obviously they still have to aim the thing, but the mechanics beyond that are very simple.

It was also my understanding that the mud in the field made it very, very difficult for the knights on foot to do any fighting. Since the bottom of their feet were basically broad plates of metal, they would squish down into the mud, and then when the knights when to lift their feet out of it, there would be a huge amount of suction keeping them in place. The longbow men had much different foot wear (I can't remember exactly what) that was /much/ better suited for fighting in the muddy field that they were fighting on.

Jazzepi

[Horst F. JENS]

Another factor favouring firearms over bows/crossbows was the quantity of ammunition a solider could carry.

Transporting 50 arrows takes a lot more space than transporting 50 bullets and gunpoder.

[Illuminated One]

I agree with the OP.
Imo longbows should be armor piercing but much more expensive than crossbowmen.

Another thing that I find funny about missile troops is that slingers are mostly represented as inferior to archers.
Slings are superior to most bows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sling_(...epresentations

[BesucherXia]

Originally Posted by Illuminated One

Another thing that I find funny about missile troops is that slingers are mostly represented as inferior to archers.
Slings are superior to most bows.

Some slingers do have shields (i.e Marverni ones), which give them edge over archers.

Besides, I beileve slingers are much cheaper and thus useful in skirmish against bowmen. They are very effective in beating independent missile cavalries if deployed carefully.