Just how did muskets overtake the bow?

Originally posted by xenophon2000 Hi guys, The other day, I shot one of my friend's blackpowder match-lock muskets.  The gun was slow to load, the powder  and lit-match was dangerous to keep in large quantities and it fouls up the barrel after like 5 shots.  Seriously guys, after 5 shots, you would've had to start cleaning out the gun.  And in terms of accuracy, I could barely hit a man-sized target at 25 yards, and missed every shot but one at 50 yards.  The burning match is a constant danger being so close to the powder.   Worst of all, every shot produced a huge cloud of foul smoke, so that even if I had a second gun loaded and ready to fire, I would still have to wait like 10 seconds for the smoke to clear up and take aim.  Overall, I think this weapon is a piece of crap. Now in comparison, my recurve bow seems almost magical.  I can shoot off like 5 or 6 arrows a minute and have 3 or 4 hits on a man-sized target at 100 yds.  The recurve bow is so less than 1/2 the weight of the musket and shorter as well.  Additionally, carrying 20 arrows isn't exactly as dangerous as carrying a quarter pound of blackpowder and lead.  So the question is, how the heck did this weapon over take the composite or long bow?  An army of longbowmen or horse archers would've slaughtered an army musketmen.  And you can't exactly shoot a musket from horseback.  So how did this happen?

 

 I don't think it was a piece of crap. One thing you should understand, you are not trained to use a musket effectively, those people at the time were. Also the musket wasn't supposed to be a precision weapon but a weapon aim at a general mass. When you individual aim at a mass, chances are very high you hit something, now consider the destructive power of  a large group of muskets firing together in sync.  Also you don't need to wait for the smoke to clear you just need to aim at the general direction of the enemies.

 Bows were obsolete due to the introduction of bombards and cannons (see battle of Pattay for an example of bombards frustrating longbows). However, although bows may be more effective at long range, muskets tends to have a far more devastating effect on cavalry and infantry at shorter range. So artillery, muskets protected by pikemen with cavalry support was a far superior force than earlier classical medieval forces . You need to look at the combine effect not just at the individual characteristic of the musket itself.  One on one a match-lock musket vs a composite bow, chances is the bow will win .

in case xenophon comes back and sees..

3.  The Koreans were using composite(non-recurve) bows with an Effective range of 50 yds which still out-distanced the match-lock musket.

this is how much Mongol and Turkish bows are recurved:
http://jjang0u.com/data/196/110852992137528.jpg

this is how much Korean bows are recurved:
http://jjang0u.com/data/196/110852708962358.gif
that one's actually a ceremonial 2.5 meter monster with 270 pounds strength, but the curve is about the same as regular ones so..

composite bows are often recurved. they refer to different aspects of the bow

categorizing bows:

by size - long, short
by material & process - simple(self), built, composite
by shape - straight, recurved

i.e. Yumi can be long,built, and straight, Korean bows can be short, composite, and recurved.. extremely recurved, as you can see..

and they use powered-down version of the Korean bow in Korean sport archery, at 160 yards.. there's a record that Yi sunggye killed a man with a single arrow at 440 yards, and the rate was 10/minute at a target 110 yards away.. theres a person in the present day who can make those hits.

John the Kern:

composite recurved bows are a little better.. even if you match the strength or try a little harder and match the range as well, you will never match the accuracy with a longbow or yumi..

Edited by I/eye

 lol this thread is amusing, a an longbowman i can tell you, because i have seen it, that the war bows of englands with poundages up to 130, can easily punch into plate at 150yrds and go right through plate and out the other side at 50, lol the Yumi bow of Japan is one of the best bows ever made, and Xypthon or what your name is the bow is drawn past the ear for your information, the arrows are often over 33inchs long

I think that standing up for the bow is nonsence. If the bow was as good as that, no one (either european or asian) would had ever trade it for the crossbow and then, for the gun.

The fact is that the arquebus, and then the musquet, were capable of:

1 - being used by everyone without much experience (I think the above stated is quite enough to explain my idea);

2 - piercing through any ordinary breast plate. Some of the best steel plates, however, couldn't be pierced through, but they were also very heavy (BTW, Xenophon, I HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF THIS!). Usually, because of the weight, these plates were breast plates only. The bullet proof armours were also very expensive, and I think that even no man out of 20 would have enough money to pay for one;

3 - producing a loud noise, which is very effective when it comes to analyse the psycological effect of weapons in warfare.

The bow, on the other hand, although with a greater range, had less (and eventualy, none) hitting power and armor piercing capability.

It is interesting to note that the crossbow, allthough with a lower ROF, was widelly spread. Why is that? Because it was easy to use, and it had a enormous hitting power.

The actual apearing of plate armour, at least when considering Europe's history, and the increase of it's thickness, is not atributed to bows (either longbows or turkish ones) but to crossbows, and, most specially, to steel-bow crossbows, that apeared in late XIV/early XV cent. , and then to guns.

I was lucky to FIRST-HAND experiment the design and weight of four breast plates, from the XIVth to the XVIIth century. They were NOT replicas but originals. The first one was very light and I could lift it with one hand (yes, THAT light!). The XVth cent. one was quite heavier and I needed both my hands to lift it. It allready had an angle, to better resist crossbows arrows. The XVIth cent one was very heavy and had a characteristic "pidgeon qeel" (speling?) bulet-proof design. The XVII cent. breast plate just weighted a ton! But it was in deed bulet-proof since it had the mark of a shot in it, but without penetration. But it was extremely heavy.

Many people in this forum gave the right answers, and at least two of them with gave their sources.

But if anyone else does not agree, then I would be much obliged if that someone could explain me why Everybody in the World abandoned bows (even the excelent turkish bows) and adopoted the gun. Could it be just... I don't know... fashion?!?

Best

Sikander

Originally posted by The Angry Reislaufer Xenophon2000, Having read this entire thread from the beginning, it is apparent to me that you are not only arrogant, but ignorant as well. You came on here with a question that has been intelligently answered and you choose to ignore it's validity. Apparently you felt you already had the answer, even though your answer was based on false assumption and a lack of overall historical knowledge.  Ignorance and arrogance, are bad traits when found seperately in an individual, but it is much worse when somone possesses both.

Think that pretty much sums it up.  lol @ picking a fight and getting shredded.

 

Originally posted by Temujin why you always come up with the longbow? that's not at all a representative example for a good bow,

Please define what constitutes a "good bow".

 

and from his initial post it's clear he was talking about he best ever bow, the composite bow who wasn't used in western europe at all.

As I already stated, it was used by the Venetians, and the last time I checked, Venice was in Western Europe.

Xenophon2000,

Having read this entire thread from the beginning, it is apparent to me that you are not only arrogant, but ignorant as well.

You came on here with a question that has been intelligently answered and you choose to ignore it's validity. Apparently you felt you already had the answer, even though your answer was based on false assumption and a lack of overall historical knowledge. 

As it's already been stated, the feeble experiment that you witnessed against 1/4 inch of steel has no bearing on reality. NO armor was that that thick.

The link to Valentine Armories that you posted had me laughing my ass off. It was talking about tournament armor, not field plate. You screwed up big on that one.

Also, how good is this black powder weapon you fired? How good of a replica is it? What type?

You must also realize that one does not need accuracy when firing into a large group of humans, especially with volley fire.

Read Landsknect's explanations over and over again about 100 times unti it sinks in. To my knowledge, he is 100% correct about everything he wrote, not to mention that he backed up his sources.

There was an almost equal discussion to this one going on at www.myarmory.com

A smart man on there named Gordon Frye further explains the answer to your question:

"Sir Roger Williams and Humphrey Barwick tackled this question in the 1590's... and their answers were pretty definitive. The major problems with the Long Bow were that A.) the Archer needed to be trained for years to have the eye and muscles to actually hit his target at long range, and the art by that period was much decayed; B.) the Archer had to retain his health on campaign in order to "Shoot strong shoots"; C.) the Archer had to "discover himself", or expose his body in order to shoot from a trench, and D.) the logistical problems as noted above. Furthermore, a well armoured Man-at-Arms on a barded horse had virtually nothing to worry about from a longbowman, and there are records of Continental Men-at-Arms laughing at the longbow as an ineffectual toy. Nasty as heck against unarmoured opponents and horses, mind you, but not at all effective against the armour of 1500.

Arquebuses, and later Muskets, were simple to train men to use, would shoot as powerfully with an unhealthy soldier using it as a healthy one, could be fired from cover, and were easier (at least by the 1590's) to keep supplied in the campaigns in the Low Countries than longbows. And finally, the arquebus would penetrate light armour easily, and the Musket would penetrate all but the very finest armour, of which not more than one in 20 men was armed with. Sir John Smith wrote treatises defending the bow, but was effectively shouted down.

One thing to point out is that the 16th Century arquebus and musket was not nearly as inaccurate as the 18th Century variety. By the 18th Century, speed was paramount in their tactics, so ease of loading with paper cartridges was necessary, and a very loose-fitting ball was needed. Earlier however, accuracy and power were the primary motivators, so a much tighter fitting, and therefore more accurate ball was utilized. There are plenty of references to the accuracy of such weapons at well over 200 yards, and English "shot" were to practice by shooting at a 4X4" post at that range. Hardly something that was assumed to be shot at by inaccurate weapons. Sadly our ideas of smooth-bores have been coloured by the disparaging writers of the early 19th Century, not the views of the 16th Century."

Here is the link to the thread: http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=1321&postd ays=0&postorder=asc&start=22

So, if your friend's black powder musket is an 18th century variety, then it is even less accurate than the 16th century varitey, throwing your feeble reasoning and experimentation off even more.

You must also realize that first-hand experience with archery and muskets is not necessary to understand and explain the answer to your question.

I urge everyone on this thread with the exception of Xenophon to RUN (don't walk) over to the link above to the discussion on the Myarmory website and take part in it. There seem to be some fairly intelligent people over there.

Xenophon, I don't even know you, but just from reading your posts on this thread, I already dislike you very much. Ignorance and arrogance, are bad traits when found seperately in an individual, but it is much worse when somone possesses both.

Edited by The Angry Reislaufer

Originally posted by Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner This is a modern myth. There is nothing on the 16th century Japanese arquebus that didn't already exist on the Portuguese original.

The reason why the arquebus was so inaccurate was because the barrel was not perfectly round inside. The Japanese, who already had a great multitude of skilled smths made improvements on the design.

Xenophon2000,

LOL, this has been rather amusing, but your attempts at saving face are becoming increasingly desperate at this point.  Let me show you what I mean...

Originally posted by xenophon2000 "The fact is, using massed fire against a massed target, both bows and guns can be used at longer ranges (Mike Loades, Archery: It's History and Forms)." Few Western armies used such saturation tactics because the CEP of the arrows were too great at extended ranges  and the armor too thick for the arrow to be effective at that range.  Moreover, longbow men, unlike those depicted in Braveheart, actually aimed at their targets before firing, long range saturation fire is simply too expensive in terms of logistics and too impotent against armor to be effective.  The only time where massed archery bombardment would be effective would be against an army of unarmored soldiers or heavy calvery.

Yeah, I believe I mentioned the logistics deal in my very first post--thanks for confirming what I already said!

 

"One yumi is hardly representative of all Japanese bows, as the yumi's construction can vary from being a wooden self bow, to a composite type made of a wood core with laminates of bamboo, to an all-bamboo laminate model (Robert Hardy, The Longbow: A Social and Military History). " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurai Read it:  Its size made it possible to shoot various projectiles like fire arrows and signal arrows at an effective range of 50 meters or less.

Well, not only do you have first-hand experience with target shooting; you also have impressive Googling skills!  Bravo!  Is the Wikipedia the best source you can offer?

 

"Too bad the "experiment" you witnessed is meaningless, considering the obvious fact that no plate armor was ever 1/4-inch thick!  Plate armor is typically only a couple of millimeters in thickness (Hardy, The Longbow).  So you see, your own lack of knowledge regarding armor has deceived you here.   " http://www.varmouries.com/vinfo.html Read and learn:  average plate armour is  3/16" in high target areas

LMAO! 

Read more CAREFULLY--here's what Valentine Armories actually said:

"The thickness of tournament armour could go up to 3/16" in high target areas."

That's tournament armor, my friend--and it was NEVER meant for use in battle (hence its name).  Tournament armor was overly-heavy armor meant specifically for jousting, NOT for war.  It should not be confused with a "field harness", aka battlefield armor, which the site you posted the link to also mentioned.  In fact, let's see what Valentine Armories had to say about "field harnesses":

"The gauges of steel used in authentic armour would vary from 16 to 20 gauge on field harness."

16 gauge is 1.52 millimeters.

So, you've demonstrated once again that you don't know much about armor.  You couldn't even differentiate between armor meant for tournaments, and armor meant for war.  BIG difference there.

Check out Charles Ffoulkes' The Armorer and His Craft, from the XI to the XVI Century, and educate yourself.  The book is a little dated, but still has plenty of useful info.

Or, just read Valentine Armories' site more carefully.

"Likewise for the Venetians.  You seem to be unaware that the Venetians used the Turkish composite bow, which makes sense, considering that when they weren't fighting with the Ottomans, they were trading with them. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice#Naval_and_military_affai rs   The venetians were a naval power.  And their military only had formal range training with CROSSBOWs.  A few people in a culture shooting good bows doesn't make a bow culture.

LOL @ using Wikipedia as a reliable source again.  I give you books written by professors who are leading authorities on the subject (Guilmartin and Nicolle), and you retort with the Wikipedia.  Gimme a break.

If Guilmartin and Nicolle aren't good enough for you (and Guilmartin alone should be), then check out period Venetian artwork, and you'll note that Turkish-style bows are well represented as being used by Venetian troops.

 

"If you look at things like the English involvement in the Low Countries, you'll read constantly about calivermen and musketeers, not archers.  " If you read closely, you would've realized that the longbow was banned because the aristocracy feared it's power and simplicity, not because the musket was better.  Few people could make a musket along with powder and lead ball, at the least you would need steel production, a powder mill, and a shot tower.  To create a long bow and servicible arrows, one would need far less overhead infrastructure.  Thus the longbow is a cheap peasant's weapon, and that's also why it was banned from use.

Now you're just totally reaching.  That desperation has clearly gotten the better of you.

The longbow was not a "cheap peasant's weapon"--it was a weapon of the yeomen, who were landholders.  The yeomen were not upper class, but they certainly weren't peasants either, since they owned land.  In 1252, the Assize of Arms of 1181 was renewed, and thus the richest yeomen were required to arm themselves with melee weapons (lance and sword), while the rest of the yeomen were to serve as archers (Hardy, The Longbow).

The longbow was ultimately banned because it could not pierce the "armor of proof" of the day, whereas guns could.  Even longbow advocates like Smythe had to confess that.

If you're going to be an armchair general, at least get your facts straight.  You've just demonstrated 2 things: 1.  lack of actual experience with archery and muskets. 2.  incorrect knowledge of the military application of these weapons

Xenophon2000, I have backed up everything I have posted with primary and secondary sources.  Forgive me, but I happen to trust the writings of actual 16th century soldiers (Smythe, Williams, and Humfrey Barwick) over some guy like you who has simply done some target shooting and hunting.

BTW, it was specifically Humfrey Barwick who mentioned the Hispano-Italian musket being able to punch through "proof" armor at 100 yards, in his book, A Brief Discourse Concerning the Force and Effect of All Manual Weapons of Fire and the Disability of the Longbow or Archery, which was published in 1594.  Barwick had risen through the ranks in his long service.  He had begun his military career as--you guessed it--a common musketeer.

In the final analysis, it is thoroughly ironic that you accused me of having "incorrect knowledge of the military application of these weapons", when your own "actual experience with archery and muskets" has been limited to modern target shooting and/or hunting--two activities which likewise don't give you a proper "knowledge of the military application" of the weapons in question.

So, unless you plan on writing your own book on the subject, which counters the actual experience of veteran soldiers like Smythe, Williams, Barwick, and others, I suggest you drop the debate at this point.

Peace,

L_D

Originally posted by Belisarius The Japanese guns used by Nobunaga were improved versions of those they recieved from the Portugese.

This is a modern myth.

There is nothing on the 16th century Japanese arquebus that didn't already exist on the Portuguese original.