Quote Originally Posted by SMZ
Considering you just listed greater range, faster rate of fire as well as lighter and less cumbersome weapon... it seems rather odd to conclude by saying that there were no significant advantages.
There is no greater rate of fire, where did I write that? Greater range when using comparably lighter arrows that also has less kinetic energy at max range. It's not important for a foot archer if a bow has a length of 4 or 6 feet.

AFAIK Arab manuals from the 15th/16th century put 160 yards as the max effective range. Sure they could shoot longer but the chance to hit anything is considerably reduced as well as having less power. Shooting at max is just harrasment, the real killing power is at a much shorter range.

Your example with a longer spear is flawed as there is no difference in chance to hit nor in power.

IIRC The French king at one point even employed a "Saracen" for building composite crossbows. We can only conclude that the knowledge and materials certainly where available but the added cost for bows just wasnt worth it. The extra cost for more powerful crossbows was worth it and they used it.


CBR