Why do Crossbows Suck?

[MoonSong]

But was it though? Expensive I mean. I recall reading that one of the primary reasons the English had so many archers at Agincourt was because archers were about the cheapest soldiers you could field.

I dunno, perhaps sheeps? was England sheepland back then as it is today?

 

[Ryujin]

I dunno, perhaps sheeps? was England sheepland back then as it is today?

All the sheep that you kill are sheep whose wool you won't be selling next season.

 

[MoonSong]

All the sheep that you kill are sheep whose wool you won't be selling next season.

But eating an old sheep is still better than no meat.

 

[Ryujin]

But eating an old sheep is still better than no meat.

The point being that there are only so many old sheep.

 

[Hussar]

And you really wouldn't be shooting sheep with a bow.

But if bows were really so clearly superior to crossbows, why have crossbow units at all, and why would they be so cheap? You'd think that a vastly superior force like this would be in very high demand, and thus command a much higher price.

 

[Derren]

But was it though? Expensive I mean. I recall reading that one of the primary reasons the English had so many archers at Agincourt was because archers were about the cheapest soldiers you could field.

Considering that it took 2-4 years to make a longbow (drying the wood) and that England had at some point a shortage of wood required for longbow so that they taxed foreign merchants in bow staves (although that was way after Agincourt I believe) I don't think thats correct. Maybe for a common bowmen with a low strength hunting bow, but not for a trained longbow archer.

But if bows were really so clearly superior to crossbows, why have crossbow units at all, and why would they be so cheap? You'd think that a vastly superior force like this would be in very high demand, and thus command a much higher price.

Better armor penetration, faster training times meaning higher reinforcement rates and once you figured out how to make the trigger in masses crossbows were more easy to make than real quality longbows as they didn't need quite as specific materials and also being able to train "normal" people to use high strength crossbows because of mechanical aids instead of relying on finding enough strongmen.
Plus they usually didn't fatigue as fast as longbow archers so would probably do better than them in a day long siege battle, especially on the defensive side.

 

[Ryujin]

And you really wouldn't be shooting sheep with a bow.

But if bows were really so clearly superior to crossbows, why have crossbow units at all, and why would they be so cheap? You'd think that a vastly superior force like this would be in very high demand, and thus command a much higher price.

You mean like elite Swiss mercenaries? (see my earlier post).

 

[Derren]

You mean like elite Swiss mercenaries? (see my earlier post).

The swiss were the pikemen. Famous Crossbow mercenaries were the Italians (Genoa and Venice).

 

[Ryujin]

The swiss were the pikemen. Famous Crossbow mercenaries were the Italians (Genoa and Venice).

Both Swiss and Italian actually. See "tactics and organization":

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_armies_swiss.html

 

[Derren]

Both Swiss and Italian actually. See "tactics and organization":

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_armies_swiss.html

The swiss used crossbows as part of their pike formations (and later phased them out for guns), but they were never hired for their crossbow skills alone.
The Italians on the other hand were hired specifically for their crossbows.