You didn't answer the question...from your description, he was a long way away...
From a long way off, a bow, crossbow, rock, bullet (whatever), would do little real damage at maximum range...
As the man said, the ENERGY involved is the important factor..arrows have MORE energy than bullets or bolts... it's in the delivery that counts.
-Maybe 50 yards. -the lucky end..
Thats assuming:
One on One fire, not massed volleys...
a really good archer with a well made set...
Also: remember that if you missed the 'Knight', you might kill his horse...putting him on the ground and making it easier to kill him...(etc)
Under the same conditions...maybe ~100yds~...if he is lucky.
Remember, even with TODAY'S equipment, most large game is taken at LESS than 15 yards with a bow(and it isn't trying to kill you typically). Myself, I wouldn't shoot much over 30 yds, even with a 70#'s and good equipment...lose too many arrows, and injure too many animals...
I would agree with that. From my recently-increased reading on medieval warfare and tactics, missile weapons generally seem to have been effective, but mostly against unarmored troops.
It also seems to me that in several different times and places (Spain, Ireland, the Byzantine Empire), people adopted javelins or even darts as the armor-piercing missile of choice. Which leads me to believe javelins are rather under-rated in ArM5.
This discussion has actually been rather interesting to me. I didn't know the crossbow was considered so comparatively inefficient / ineffective. I'd always thought the much higher draw-weight of the crossbow to be it's advantage, vs. speed of the conventional bow.
I've read 'somewhere' about some italian heavy crossbows / arbalests being ridiculously powerful and shooting straight through armored knights. Is this just a total inaccuracy? It gives me the feeling that my relative understanding of the merits and drawbacks of the two types of systems in regards to the warfare of the day may have been quite flawed.
Probably not a total inaccuracy, no ... but the anecdote you remember may be from the 15th or even 16th century. I seriously doubt 13th century crossbows were that powerful.
They were! But take into account armored knights worn chainmail in the 13th century, plate and chain in the 14th century and fine gothic armor in the 15th century.
Crossbows dominated in medieval Europe as a battlefield weapon. They absolutely are NOT ineffective. They showed poorly against the English and their longbows, but that has as much to do with disparities in training and tactical advantage as it does the merits of the weapon. It also isn't an issue for nearly a hundred years after the default Ars Magica timeline.
As a weapon for an individual or small group, the crossbow has issues in that its rate of fire suffers substantially compared to any sort of self bow. However, it hits a lot harder. If you want to shoot once and then draw your sword, the crossbow is the best choice. If you want to run around like Legolas, firing arrow after arrow, then you need a bow.
So, perhaps we need a rule that allows a volley of crossbow bolts to break the opposing group into indivudal combatants, so that the disciplined crossbow group can then defeat them in detail?
This is basically my original thinking on bows vs. crossbows... but for some reason all the talk back and forth gave me the impression that some of the folks spouting numbers had differing views. Perhaps I just didn't pay close enough attention to all the technical bits.
As a concession to those who think the Longbow was most effective...
I firmly believe that crossbows should do DOUBLE longbow damage in HALF the rate of fire.
Just my opinion... (personally I think crossbows should be even more effective when compared to longbows, but I offer the above concession)
Are any of the folks in this thread British???
I could easily understand arguing FOR the greater power of the Longbow if'n you are a Brit... National Pride and all that!
"I'd always thought the much higher draw-weight of the crossbow to be it's advantage, vs. speed of the conventional bow."
THIS has been my assertion!
"the crossbow has issues in that its rate of fire suffers substantially compared to any sort of self bow. However, it hits a lot harder."
The crossbow that was cocked using the 'belthook and leg(s)', would fire with 5-8 TIMES the power of a self-bow. THIS should be reflected in lowering the damage of bows, AND raising the damage of crossbows, WHILE still trying to keep some game balance.
I'm a Brit, and if it's not obvious by now a real medieval weapons geek.
Crossbows in the 12th Century were simply not the weapons of today. There were of course variences, but the lighter commonly found in combat crossbows were indeed deadly despite being mechanically inefficient. Ironically it wouldn't be until the birth time of the Musket when some of the greatest leaps in crossbows would be made. The load speed of a really beefy lever drawn crossbow is about 15 to 25 seconds in the hands of an brawny expert. This is about 3 to 4 combat rounds by above average strength and is not hand drawn and is impossible to hand draw without leverage. This would probably do a really nasty amount of damage, moreso then the Longbow. But for something that could be drawn in a round be strong people, this is not likely to have the punch of the Longbow or, more importantly the speed of fire.
One important advantage of the crossbow regarding ist efficiency has not yet been mentioned:
You can use a cross bow while staying in cover. Using a bow you have to stand upright and need considerably more space. Thus the crossbow is superior when it comes to defending a castle and when attacking it.
I also seem to remeber that because the quarrel was shorter then the clothyard arrow the Crossbow had marignally better grouping, even on those bows where it barely had the power to punch through butter.
...good humor...