Hi Feathermax...
Actually a modern crossbow is pretty much exactly the same as it used to be. Materials are a little different, the trigger is more like a rifle trigger instead of ticklers, but operate to unlock a sear in pretty much similar fashion. The stock has been lengthened to accomodate a more comfortable buttstock. Otherwise pretty much business as usual. That they borrow compound technology with wheels on some, doesn't make them the innovator, but makes them opportunistic to use new technology, but there are some pretty typical crossbows like the excaliber that use a basic limb... as they have for a thousand years.
Arguments against compounds from what I gather, were actually pretty loud at first, but because of a decision to accept the rational that it was hand held, well the rest is history... and yet history should have accepted the crossbow.
Back to the original questions... you cannot talk about crossbows without talking about recurves. You cannot talk about recurves without talking about compounds. You can't ignore those comparisons because that is what happened with the compound's introduction. The crossbow only brings a marginal level of additional holding power over the compound, and in neither case can that be ignored from comparisons with the longbow or recurve.
In the 1500's, crossbows were in fact used for hunting, so to say that they are traditional for hunting is entirely accurate.
Aloha...
