From a layman’s point-of-view it seems like the Bow & Arrow would be better for war since they, shoot much more efficiently, are cheaper to make and in even some cases significantly stronger.
I know that learning to shoot a bow is no easy task so would that be the main reason muskets became so popular?
In my simple man’s brain I’m wondering why you don’t see or hear anything about bows being used during something like the American Revolutionary war. Could it be that by then muskets had reached a certain level of design that made it more useful than a bow?
In: Engineering
Bows are not more efficient or more effective in battle. Before asking the question, you should ask if the premise is true.
The people who used muskets realized and even wrote down how much more effective they were at killing targets and causing panic than mere archery.
Range: Muskets have been badly underrated for how far they can shoot, while (longbow) arrows have been overrated. A musketball can travel over 1000 meters, while longbow arrows can not.
At 300 meters you can still hit targets in formation.
At 100 meters you can hit single targets fairly reliably.
At less than 50 meters most soldiers can hit their targets, which makes volley fire absolutely devastating.
Damage: Musket balls travel much faster than arrows and are heavy enough to do tremendous damage. A body hit will likely kill or incapacitate a man. Meanwhile a soldier hit with an arrow in the chest might even be able to fight back for some time before blood loss and infections take them down.
Speed: Arrows can be shot faster than Musket. However, to shoot deadly arrows with good range and penetrative power you need heavy warbows and strong archers. But even these can’t keep up fast reload for long before becoming exhausted. Reloading and shooting muskets , while complex, can be kept up for a long time.
There are other factors in favor of muskets, but these will do for now. Most importantly, they tried both, and the sides with muskets won more.
Latest Answers