Chasing the Sunset

Dan says:

Maybe the ordeals are fighting with her health insurer to get coverage for the poultice and bandage! =D

LadyPhoenix says:

She's not gonna have to lop off one of her... Oh, nevermind, I see the 'zon still has both of hers. (Crosses arms over chest protectively.)

LadyPhoenix says:

I couldn't be a 'zon. I would have to take drastic measures to be able to use a bow. (And to think, I was pretty proficient with one when I was a young teen.)

Eikan says:

and that's why Eikan loves her crossbow ^____^

Ivellios says:

longbows are better than crossbows they have longer ranges with the same power

Coyote says:

In D&D, sure.
In real life, that depends - I've seen functional replica crossbows for sale with 400 pounds draw weight. You don't wanna be on the wrong end of that.
The quality of the bow would make a big difference here, the classic English longbows were actually quite pathetic compared to Asian composite bows, however they were devastating due to circumstance; the enemy usually wore chainmail which allowed the arrows to slip right through.

Nahiayi says:

Circumstance wasn't what made the longbows deadly. It was the yeomen who made them deadly. They practiced waaay too much and could hit insanely hard targets. As in, a one inch thick willow wand at a hundred yards. Also, they were quite powerful. At distances below a hundred yards they can fire arrows through plate armor, not just chainmail. The traditional test wasn't armor though, it was 9 inches of oak shingles.

Basically, if you were within a hundred yards, you were dead. If you were over a hundred yards but less than three hundred, you were probably dead. It is true that crossbows have more power and some of the later models could shoot farther. However, most people who used crossbows were rather unskilled. Which was the point of creating them actually. Anyway, regardless of power, if you missed it would be a while before you fired again. You might fire one or two per minute maximum. With a longbow, it was not uncommon to fire twelve to twenty in the same time.

Alphawolf says:

let's just face it, crossbows are for wusses :P

Mimir says:

The problem with longbows (and here I really give credit to Nahiayi's comment on the user's making the longbow deadly) was that they required an insane amount of stregth to pull on them. Remains of longbowmen have been dug up, and the skeletal remains are distorted beyond beleif. Longbowmen didn't live long, whether they died from battle, or the strain on their skeletal structure.

An advantage of crossbows was their ability to be used well in sniper combat. Probably not a good weapon for a pitched battle, but in siege conditions it could really pick off small targets (through those thin window thingies for example). Of course, seiges were really more about cutting off food and starving enemies into submission, but reducing the enemy numbers and moral never hurt, especially when you have almost as good a chance of running out of food as those inside where ever it is you're attacking.

I wish I could remember the name of those windows. Darn, I hate it when my mind does this.

Ivellios says:

theres also recurved bows that even the recorved short bows are almost impossible to draw the only person i know who can draw a recurved longbow is my sister and she does 50kg weights

Midget says:

crossbows are for wusses my a**! crossbows rock!

All bows (long, short, and crossbows) have advantages and disadvantages. Long bows have good power and distance but are harder to use and tend to have less accuracy. Short bows tend to be more accurate but weaker and don't shoot as far. Crossbows can have power and are easy to use but tend to lack distance. The type of bow you prefer really depends on the person. None are really any better than the other.

Dryg0n says:

Give me a recurve anyday. Ivellios, I pull a 20/25 pounder at 10 yrs old.And I dont lift weights.Mimir, there arrow slits.

Nahiayi says:

Well, yes, all different bows have upsides and downsides but those aren't exactly them. No bow is more accurate than another, it depends on the user and conditions. Shortbows look more accurate because they're used for closer targets. They are the 'basic' bow. Crossbows' good side is that anyone can use one, their bad side is that they fire so slowly. Longbows are, in my opinion, the best kind of bow but they are extremely hard to use because of their large size, draw, and the time that must be taken to become accurate. Recurve and composite can't really be factored in to this because they were not European, and hence not traditionally in fantasy stories.

And they're arrow loops, not slits. Even though they're not circular? >_<

It has been several years since I last fired from any bow but I really like them and hope to get one someday

Anyway, all that aside, only 3 hours 'til the next update! Woot! =D

Nao says:

I've spent a decent amount of time researching bow (and crossbows). Crossbows were a useful tool when they started being used, becuase you could give them to any soldier and allow for them to get a volley off before closing for closer combat (there were other uses but in warfare that was the most common use I've found). As far as I know there were never any designated "Crossbowmen", people who trained solely for the crossbow, and the reason why is that it would be pointless. After learning how to load and aim a crossbow, you've essentially learned everything there is to know about using one.

Bows on the other hand were very different. While you can easily learn the basics of using a bow, to be of any real use in combat it takes a great deal of training and practice. In warfare though the bow was the weapon of choice for a long time. A good bowman could be pretty accurate, could reload quickly, and was more durable.
One story I've read described a bowmen in Britian who could put 4 arrows in a target at ~100 yards in less time then it took a feather to fall from shoulder height.

Basically, a crossbow is useful becuase it's abilities are more or less static and are unaffected by the skill level of the person holding it. A bow on the other hand's strength was that it WAS affected by the skill of the one using it.

Phydeaux says:

The crossbow was a later invention, and it's primary advantage was the power behind it. The crossbow needed a long time to reload, because they were wound with a crank as opposed to pulled back like a bow.

However, a crossbow could fire a bolt in a near-perfect line with high power. The bolts would hit someone in plate armor, go through, and hit the person standing behind them. They were extremely overpowered weapons - there was no armor that would stop a crossbow bolt.

Lessa says:

Yeah, just thought I'd add a comment in case you're wondering about the "amazons reduced their breast size". According to mythology, to be an amazon, you had to burn off your left breast. Well in archery, if you're right handed, that's the breast that would get hit. I've done archery for three years though and never once seen anyone hit themself there. (Arms common, and wtf an ear! though)

sjon says:

The main advantage of the long bow in warfare was that it was fast and long range. In a charge you don't aim for single targets but try to lay down a barrage. If the enemy is charging at a run they will cover 100m in about half a minute (loaded down with weapons and not on a nice track) If you can start hitting 200m out and shoot one arrow every 10 seconds and you'r a serious group of people shooting there won't be many enemies passing trough.
The short bow is a much better hunting weapen cause it's easier to manouver trough woodland and undergrowth. It's as fast (or even faster) than the long bow but with a shorter range and thus not as effective in war.
Crosbows typically shoot harder. That is the bolt is much heavier than a typical arrow. Shooting an armourd knight in the shoulder with a normal arrow may wound him but he keeps comming. With a heavy crossbow bolt the same shot can kick him right out of the saddle. It's way too slow though for the battle field and rather heavy and cumbersome for hunting.