Comparing a hunting bow to a crossbow is like comparing an apple to an orange.
First lets look at history. Crossbows have been around since about 600BC. There are examples of Greek and Roman Crossbows. They were a military weapon and came to England in 1066 with William the Conqueror. They remained much more prevelant in Europe than Britain.
They were far easier to make and did not require the training or strength to use that the English war bow required. I watched a BBC program on the English archers and boys began apprenticing at 8 but never drew a bow until about 12. Everything to that point was strengthening exercises and theory. A trained archer was able to hit a mansized target at around 100yrds. Bodies of English archers could often be identified by their deformed right shoulders from huge muscle growth on that side. With a crossbow, childern, oldmen and cripples could be used as archers.
Both weapons were designed for one thing. To peirce armor, and both could do the job out to 300yds. However, a crossbowmen could only fire 2 bolts a minute to a longbowmans 12-13 arrows.
In 1346 the English archers decimated the French army at Cercy. The French lost 2000 dead to English arrows to 50 English dead.
The crossbow became a popular huntinn tool by A) poncey nobility who did'nt want to spend the time practicing and B) peasants who could not afford a proper bow and because of their high use in Europe were familiar.
All that preamble aside, which is better..They both have their advantages , bows are quieter, faster less complicated and more accurate with practice .Crossbows can be drawn by folks who for what ever reason cant draw a bow, they are much easier to use in a tree stand, easier to learn to use . BUT THEY ARE NOT A BOW....
