this discussion is a false dichotomy wrought out of centuries of british antiquarians masturbating themselves delirious about the single period in english history they were actually able to trade with a peer on land. both crossbows and bows are fine. and neither were magic medieval armor-piercing ammunition.
much ado is made about the longbowmen 'long training period' but it was the common recreation & hunting tool, you generally had plenty of potential archers, the problem was economics---levying peasant laborforces for military service sucks for the harvest, and it was difficult to attract men to the campaigns professionally if there's not a labor surplus. the same stressors applied to crossbow soldiers, you didn't want nobodies without experience with crossbows either. the theoretical lower skill requirements isn't going to be relevant unless you're opening up an armory while under siege. unskilled burghers in that situation weren't particularly potent anyway, whatever implements you might give them.
so all we're really talking about is tactics, and it's pretty simple: is the field restricted, are there terrain obstructions and physical obstacles? clear case for crossbows because they require less space for the firing and range isn't an issue. on the other hand, a big field to maneuver can make the best of bows' range. if you want a rounded 14th century army you'd obviously bring both. notice 'firepower' is not included here, because whether or not 5% more missiles bite into an armor plate is not what decides a battle. missiles are harassment that damages the cohesion and effectiveness of the enemy, they don't have to directly kill people to achieve their purpose.
this discussion is a false dichotomy wrought out of centuries of british antiquarians masturbating themselves delirious about the single period in english history they were actually able to trade with a peer on land. both crossbows and bows are fine. and neither were magic medieval armor-piercing ammunition.
much ado is made about the longbowmen 'long training period' but it was the common recreation & hunting tool, you generally had plenty of potential archers, the problem was economics---levying peasant laborforces for military service sucks for the harvest, and it was difficult to attract men to the campaigns professionally if there's not a labor surplus. the same stressors applied to crossbow soldiers, you didn't want nobodies without experience with crossbows either. the theoretical lower skill requirements isn't going to be relevant unless you're opening up an armory while under siege. unskilled burghers in that situation weren't particularly potent anyway, whatever implements you might give them.
so all we're really talking about is tactics, and it's pretty simple: is the field restricted, are there terrain obstructions and physical obstacles? clear case for crossbows because they require less space for the firing and range isn't an issue. on the other hand, a big field to maneuver can make the best of bows' range. if you want a rounded 14th century army you'd obviously bring both. notice 'firepower' is not included here, because whether or not 5% more missiles bite into an armor plate is not what decides a battle. missiles are harassment that damages the cohesion and effectiveness of the enemy, they don't have to directly kill people to achieve their purpose.