"When did firearms become better than bows? " Topic

The Last Conformist

Exactly – so there is no real evidence (or certainly none has been presented) to support the idea that people could be expected to break and run away when they faced firearms for the first time. Their introduction was gradual and wouldn't have come as a 'surprise' to many opposing armies, certainly not in Europe.

Even when armies of vastly different technologies clashed, the 'natives' seemed to have taken it on the chin. The Matabele, for example, had never faced Maxim guns before the 1893 war but they didn't immediately break and run away despite the terrible casualties they took.

So unless you can come up with some examples which illustrate that the noise and flash of firearms shattered an opponents morale, I think we can agree that this was not a major factor in their introduction?

Quite right, the thing that impressed was the nasty casualties and the fact that a pleb could take down a noble who was otherwise invulnerable in Milanese or Maximillian plate armour.
The same horror was expressed in the eleventh century when crossbows could kill mail armoured knights and led to a papal ban on people killing their betters
'Come on baby let's eat the rich,
bite down on the sonof a bitch.'

Quite right, the thing that impressed was the nasty casualties and the fact that a pleb could take down a noble who was otherwise invulnerable in Milanese or Maximillian plate armour.
The same horror was expressed in the eleventh century when crossbows could kill mail armoured knights and led to a papal ban on people killing their betters
'Come on baby let's eat the rich,
bite down on the sonof a bitch.'

Quite right, the thing that impressed was the nasty casualties and the fact that a pleb could take down a noble who was otherwise invulnerable in Milanese or Maximillian plate armour.
The same horror was expressed in the eleventh century when crossbows could kill mail armoured knights and led to a papal ban on people killing their betters
'Come on baby let's eat the rich,
bite down on the sonof a bitch.'

So unless you can come up with some examples which illustrate that the noise and flash of firearms shattered an opponents morale, I think we can agree that this was not a major factor in their introduction?

I didn't say it was.

Then I am really not sure what point it was you were making?

I think one key element that everyone is missing too. With the advent of shoulder stock and later the plug bayonet and then the socket bayonet, the firearm far surpasses the bow. Your bow can't be used as improvised club. 100 men with bayonets can hold ground or take ground in melee. Most bow and crossbowmen generally only had a short sword for personal combat. They were at a disadvantage when faced with matchlock equipped troops.

We may plenty of politicians on this thread for either the House of Commons or House of Representatives for your ability to dance and sidestep the obvious:

It seems as though most if not all of the longbow supporters are on the defensive regarding "Why the longbow was as good as a firearm," as opposed to "Why wasn't it better?"

And it did become better on a Tuesday as previously cited.

Oooo! he used the "P" word….

The longbow had one significant advantage over the firearm up until magazine-fed repeating guns came around in the 1860s: rate of fire. However, that rate of fire came at a huge cost in trained troops.

Picking on the Japanese again, less than 1/3 of their troops were armed with firearms during the Warring States era. The rest of the troops were armed either with bow or with a long-spear. To protect the gunners as they reloaded, there was a pair of archers assigned to 'snipe' the closest threat to every three gunners.

Even in pretty heavy armor, I can cover a lot of ground in the 20 seconds it takes to reload a matchlock.

Am I the only one who thinks the question needs context? I believe one reason why the switch over to firearms occurred later in England or in places in eastern Europe is that conditions in those areas were different than they were in France, German and Italy.

Greetings

A relevant article is link

Regards

Edward

Please let us kill this trained troops nonsense.

The longbow dies out in England despite the fact that it is cheaper for the king than gunpowder weapons because the longbowmen train themselves at their own expense. Longbow dies out because it is less effective than firearms by the mid XVIth century. If it was really better than the musket then Henry VIIIth would have enforced its use by draconian laws. After all the Tudors managed to get the English to turn up for church that way.
The steam went out of the longbow because when Henry took an army to France his troops were ineffective. Similarly when bowmen were sent overin the reign of Elizabeth Ist to fight in the Low Countries. The generals wanted shot, not because of cost because the cost , once the bowman has trained himself, is little different, but because longbow were not as effective as shot.

Yes, bowmen trained themselves in England, at essentially no cost to the King.

What happens when the King doesn't have enough archers? Convert some from other troops? Have those 'other troops' been keeping up their archery practice? If they have not been keeping up their practice, they're useless.

In addition to hitting harder than bows, firearms are much faster to teach someone to a level of battlefield effectiveness. Need to arm the camp followers and the military engineers/working parties in an emergency? No problem, it takes an afternoon.

How could he not have enough archers? In the Wars of the Roses there were enough archers to fill out two large armies at a. Time. The kings of England do not cease to use archers because they cannot get them (though there is a desperate rearguard action by conservatives) , they c transfer to handguns because they are more effective..