Crossbows vs. Longbows

[Aezeal]

Well I think the being cheap part is mostly why shepards used it.
But the fact the army didn't despite that must means slings < bows so dom 3 rocks

[Endoperez]

Originally Posted by Aezeal

Well I think the being cheap part is mostly why shepards used it.
But the fact the army didn't despite that must means slings < bows so dom 3 rocks

Slings are better than poor bows, and there are thousands of years of wars fought before bows became better than slings.

Vegetius, a Roman writer in the late 4th century, observed in his famous Epitoma Rei Militaris:
Soldiers, despite their defensive armor, are often more aggravated by the round stones from the sling than by all the arrows of the enemy. Stones kill without mangling the body, and the contusion is mortal without loss of blood.


This article (on slinging.org) has several chosen quotes about the slings' effectiveness. They probably chose the pro-slinging quotes, but at least this particular quote shows that slings could be as or even more effective as bows.

[chrispedersen]

Cretan, and miletan slingers were famous throughout the ancient world.

However it took years to be able to master the staff sling. Even more than longbowman.

Longbowman also had the advantage of indirect fire - ie., that they could fire *over* intervening troops.

But fundamentally, longbowman were simply out produced. I've seen studies that showed the 'muzzle' velocity for longbows and period crossbows of the time - were approximately even - and are still closer than you might think.

but good crossbows were much easier to mass produce than bows.