An expert bowman could outmatch a group of 12 crossbowmen.
But if you had a group of 50+ men to arm with bows or crossbows (hundereds and thousands weren’t uncommon historically), a crossbow was more effective because there’s no way in hell you’d get, say, 10.000 expert bowmen. If you were to arm such a legion with bows, you’d most likely suffer more damage from friendly fire than from enemy fire.
Hmm, sounds like a solvable problem, why not crossbows?
Crossbows are clunky and slow operate.
Their plus is that untrained people can use them.
An expert bowman could outmatch a group of 12 crossbowmen.
But if you had a group of 50+ men to arm with bows or crossbows (hundereds and thousands weren’t uncommon historically), a crossbow was more effective because there’s no way in hell you’d get, say, 10.000 expert bowmen. If you were to arm such a legion with bows, you’d most likely suffer more damage from friendly fire than from enemy fire.
I have to dig that back up. I think it ended up being that the size of a crossbow capable of bear hunting vs a compound bow was significant.