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
Using a bow is hard. Using one well requires regular training with the bow to build the needed strength and skill. Arrows require skill to manufacture, and have relatively high cost. A bow is also more difficult to make then it might seem, requiring strong, springy wood that must be sized to the height and strength of the user.
A gun, on the other hand, is cheap. It’s a metal tube attached to a wooden part to hold, shooting a bit of lead that can be cast over a campfire with hand tools. Two weeks of instruction and a person can reliably use one. Three months and they can use it with some accuracy and skill.
A bow can be better then a 17th century firearm in the event you can be sure your people will have had years of training, but that is not a common situation.
Latest Answers