Just how did muskets overtake the bow?

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?        

Actually, the Japanese used their arquebuses successfully against the excellent composite bows of the Koreans and Ming Chinese during the Imjin War, just as the Europeans used them successfully against the Ottomans (who also made a liberal use of guns, btw).

And the yumi's effective range was certainly more than 50 yards, though it may have been used at that range for the archery logistics reasons I mentioned above.

From reading your posts, I surmise that you have little or no experience with archery, and have never shot a musket in your life(no offense intended). 

And from reading your reaction to my posts, I must surmise that you are not particularly familiar with period treatises on archery and gunnery, or with the overall history of the introduction of the gun (likewise, no offense intended).

I admittedly have no direct archery or blackpowder experience (though, FWIW, I have shot crossbows).  However, I don't see anything in my posts on this thread that would indicate a lack of knowledge on the subject.  Everything I have posted thus far, I can back up with primary and secondary sources, which I will be more than happy to provide, if you wish.  What do you specifically have a problem with, in regards to what I have posted?

If you want to debate the issues at hand, I'm more than game.

Xenophon2000,

While I can respect your first-hand experience in regards to archery and black powder shooting, it does not necessarily make your opinions on this matter more valid than mine.  In fact, just as I suspected, you have demonstrated a distinct lack of knowledge regarding period treatises, and the overall history of the introduction of the gun.  You also clearly don't know much about the specifics of armor.  I'll counter your points one at a time, and I'll give you my sources up front.

Yes, I'm familiar with this 100-yard accurate maximum you speak of.  This was mentioned by the 17th century Frenchman, Guillaume Le Vasseur de Beauplan, in his La Description d'Ukranie, where he wrote of his first-hand experiences against the Tartars.  Paterson, the author of the classic article, "The Archers of Islam" (whom I mentioned in my original post), said that a trained archer should be able to hit a man every time at about 60 yards.  A 16th century Arabic treatise gives this maximum accurate range as 80 yards (Erik Hildinger, Warriors of the Steppe: A Military History of Central Asia, 500 B.C. to 1700 A.D.).

However--we are talking about Medieval/Renaissance warfare, not modern target shooting or hunting.  This is where your own archery/gunnery experience fails you.  You assume that your own target and/or hunting experience equals the knowledge and/or experience of a 16th/17th century archer or gunner, but that is obviously not the case.  Do you know how to countermarch?  Do you know where to shelter under the pike-block, when the enemy cavalry charges?  Do you know how to use your sword, should the fight come to HTH?  Have you been trained in the drills established by the great 17th century military writer, Johann Jacobi von Wallhausen?

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). 

The arquebus was not the reason why they lost the war.  The Japanese supply lines were cut by the Korean Navy.

Care to provide any statistics?

Again, what are your sources?  The Koreans had similar archery traditions to the Chinese and Mongols, and they likewise used powerful recurved composite bows, which the Japanese acknowledged as being superior in range and power to their yumi (Stephen Turnbull, Samurai Invasion).

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). 

It's not a "lie", though I did read it in a book--Ian Heath's excellent Armies of the Sixteenth Century Vol 1:  The Armies of England, Scotland, Ireland, the United Provinces, and the Spanish Netherlands 1487-1609.  Heath, in turn, took his info from several period military treatises, including Sir John Smythe's Certain Discourses Military (1590), and Roger Williams' The Actions of the Low Countries (1618).  Smythe's comments are particularly noteworthy, as he was an advocate of retaining the longbow.  About the Hispano-Italian musket, he said:

"But the Duke [of Alva], at this time being lieutenant general and absolute governor in the Low Countries, as aforesaid, seeing the number of rutters [cavalrymen] in all armies increased, and that most of these rutters, as also many captains and officers of footmen, were armed at the proof of the harquebus, he to the intent to frustrate the resistance of their armors did increase his numbers of musketeers, the blows of the bullets which no armors wearable can resist."

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.  

Wrong.

Despite the yumi's inferiority to Continental Asiatic composite bows, the fact remains that archery (kyujutsu) was one of the samurais' main disciplines, along with horsemanship (bajutsu), swordsmanship (kenjutsu/iai-jutsu), spear use (sojutsu), and military HTH combat (sumai & kumi-uchi) (Donn F. Draeger and Robert W. Smith, Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts).  The Japanese definitely had an archery culture.

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. (John F. Guilmartin, Gunpowder and Galleys: Changing Technology & Mediterranean Warfare at Sea in the 16th Century).   Marksmanship was considered very important in the Venetian military, and the militias held regular practices with both the Turkish bow and the crossbow (David Nicolle, The Venetian Empire 1200-1670, and Time-Life's The Seafarers: The Venetians).

Also wrong.

Henry VIII was at first resistant to firearms, and stressed practice with the longbow--but he later changed his mind and passed laws requiring the practice of all missile weapons--longbows, crossbows, and guns (Loades, Archery: Its History and Forms).  The English practice of having archers cover the gunners is described in Heath's Armies of the Sixteenth Century.   Heath also mentions that the use of the longbow by English "trained bands" was finally banned in 1595, and that all archers were converted to gunners by the following year.  If you look at things like the English involvement in the Low Countries, you'll read constantly about calivermen and musketeers, not archers. 

And that was all before the "invention of the flintlock in the early 17th century".

No, they simply recognized the power and usefulness of the weapon, and their long tufek muskets were among the best of their day.

I already offered you the real reasons as to why the gun came out on top.  If you didn't want to hear the answer, you should never have asked the question in the first place. 

Peace,

L_D

"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.

"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.

"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

"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.

"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.

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