Longbow vs. Musket

[jakobh94]

Longbow vs. Musket, which one was the most powerful weapon?

Longbow was usually used during the 1500-1600. Then the musket jumped in and took the Longbow out. I wonder, why? Longbow has a longer range, it is easier to aim and... yeah, why did they stop use the longbow and begun with muskets instead? I cant really belive why ...

[Lord Of The Knights]

My explanation for that is:
Musket founded in early 1400 but at first it was simple and not accurate (not effective) as the longbows,and as the gunpowder is a new great destructive material,the scientists kept imporving the weapons that use it.after 1600,and after continuous development,the Musket became an effective weapon more effective than longbows,bullets more destructive that arrows.

[jakobh94]

Yeah, but you got to see the facts that Longbows have a longer range, and that Lonbows are better at defending fortresses then muskets (Longbows can shot a volley over the wall, muskets cant)

[Ragnos]

Longbows require extensive training to use properly, while any peasant can be taught quickly how to load, aim and fire a musket and sent out to fight.

[Flowermasher]

Like the crash of the stock market in America during the 1920's, there is no one reason why the musket was favored over the bow. It was most likely a combination of new siege weapons, differing political focuses, use of navies, importance of keeping conquered cities productive, and just the general shift in warfare that all gunpowder brought to field strategy.

[General_Zavier]

Nah, it just got to the point where it was cheaper to train and maintain an army equipped with muskets and bayonets than an army equipped with longbows.

Besides, muskets at least have bayonets for melee fighting. Have you ever tried melee fighting someone with a bow and arrow?

[jakobh94]

Nah, it just got to the point where it was cheaper to train and maintain an army equipped with muskets and bayonets than an army equipped with longbows.

Besides, muskets at least have bayonets for melee fighting. Have you ever tried melee fighting someone with a bow and arrow?

Because the musket where upgraded. I Think that you can do the same with bows, take away the string and then woops, a spear (of course with a spear head on)

[Jingles]

Because the musket where upgraded. I Think that you can do the same with bows, take away the string and then woops, a spear (of course with a spear head on)

Only if you want to break the bow.

You also had to be incredibly strong to use the full length War Bow. Muskets don't have this problem. Of course muskets also have that 'fear effect' that bows don't. Although I think the biggest reason is probably that the musket could penetrate ANY armour that was fielded at the time. The same could not be said of the Longbow, even as powerful as it was.

[Flowermasher]

Nah, it just got to the point where it was cheaper to train and maintain an army equipped with muskets and bayonets than an army equipped with longbows.

Besides, muskets at least have bayonets for melee fighting. Have you ever tried melee fighting someone with a bow and arrow?

Muskets were not regularly armed with bayonets until musket development was nearing its end. Most units of muskets in early gunpowder warfare in Europe were protected by a square of pikemen who kept cavalry away(kinda). So bayonets were not needed until the pikeman or halberdier was removed from the field.

Also it was a long time till muskets were effectively cheaper than a bow, somewhere around the 14th century I think. So the cost of training and maintenance was not a factor during the period of their dominance. Instead you see more of a focus on large gunpowder weapons being made cheaper during this time in order to counter the left overs of medievel cavalry and the advancements in wall construction.

[Flowermasher]

Only if you want to break the bow.

You also had to be incredibly strong to use the full length War Bow. Muskets don't have this problem. Of course muskets also have that 'fear effect' that bows don't. Although I think the biggest reason is probably that the musket could penetrate ANY armour that was fielded at the time. The same could not be said of the Longbow, even as powerful as it was.

But would "fear" of the gunpowder effect really last that long? Long range siege weapons were being used before the introduction of the musket that used gunpowder and perhaps the "fear-effect" is not as good of a reason as say the demoralization involved with close range vollys. Solders would have already had some knowledge of the sound followed by a cannon so muskets would have what kind of "fear-effect" exactly?

[knight of virtue and valor]

simple three fact here are prevalent: 1: trained longbows own trained and untrained musketeers 2:to be considered a "trained long bowmen" you would have to train almost every day for hours, and for at least 5 years, the really good ones since childhood, not to mention the fact the allot of the bows had about 100 pounds or more of pull! 3: takes about less then a week to teach a guy the fire a musket, and takes less then one year to be considered trained.

[Jingles]

But would "fear" of the gunpowder effect really last that long? Long range siege weapons were being used before the introduction of the musket that used gunpowder and perhaps the "fear-effect" is not as good of a reason as say the demoralization involved with close range vollys. Solders would have already had some knowledge of the sound followed by a cannon so muskets would have what kind of "fear-effect" exactly?

Well, you could say troops today are used to gunfire and explosions, but they still get rattled when under enemy fire, and rightly so. It's this principle that applies here.

[Flowermasher]

Well, you could say troops today are used to gunfire and explosions, but they still get rattled when under enemy fire, and rightly so. It's this principle that applies here.

Good point, I suppose having even a thousand musket men fire on you would not quite be normal until all of society was used to gunpowder. Kind of like when armies began to use plate armor on ground troops, I imagine that had to be a pant wetting experience to see the enemy in plate armor early in its use.

[knight of virtue and valor]

there......so.....shiney.....its da gods....RUN!!!!

[jakobh94]

Yeah guys but you got to see the facts, a Longbow vs Musket=Longbow wins. A musket isnt a long range weapon wich Longbow is. A longbow army would totally crush Muskets.

Muskets ----------------------------------------------- fire Longbow

Longbow ---------------Fire Muskets

[knight of virtue and valor]

on the battle map, yes!

[Lord Of The Knights]

An important point,the reloading time,longbow man can shot three times or more while Musket man is still reloading.

[Flowermasher]

Granted but lets also consider that the time period when muskets were first being used was also a time when cavalry was improved to a point great efficiency. Obviously the long bow did not beat the musket out of use so re-fire rates could not have had too much of an effect. Oh, and I mention cavalry because with heavier cavalry came more strategic use of said cavalry in and out of battle. Such as a strong early charge was usually enough to decrease the effect of a long range unit like the bow.

However, this is not enough to counter that argument seeing as cavalry was used in a wide range of jobs during the early gunpowder era.

[General_Zavier]

Yeah guys but you got to see the facts, a Longbow vs Musket=Longbow wins. A musket isnt a long range weapon wich Longbow is. A longbow army would totally crush Muskets.

That is indeed true, but it was damn near impossible to train a large army of longbowmen. At their peak, at the battle of Crecy during the hundred years war, the English employed barely 7,000 longbowmen. Why is this? Well, several reasons. (For reference, I am generally referring to a late 14th century longbowman vs an early 18th century musketeer since it is just longbow vs musket, no specific time period)

First off, the amount of training time. (I don't understand why you're refusing to grasp this point. No offense.) It took years for longbowmen to be trained to even use the damn weapon. It took years of constant practice to become even slightly proficient in the use of a longbow. This meant that for all that time that could have been spent learning a trade that is useful in peacetime, and tons of time that could have been spent growing crops, or making a family, or a house. It took mere months to train a musketeer. And in peace time, because they hadn't spent all of their time learning how to shoot a bow, they had houses, crops, families, and jobs to return to.

Furthermore, musketeers were much more easy to get. If a sudden war came up, or for some reason a military disaster happened, levying (drafting basically) an army of musketeers took much less time than getting an army of longbowmen together. In a couple of months, armies of 10,000 or more could be trained. That's more musketeers trained in a few months than the highest number of British army employed longbowmen in the entire Hundred Years war.

Musketeers were also much cheaper. Since often they were conscripts, they could easily be dirt poor people, so the government wouldn't going to pay them much for their trouble, and they would get away with it. Longbowmen, however, were decidedly middle class. Simply because of the gear required for war at the two different times, it would definately be much cheaper to pay for musketeer gear than for longbowman gear. Generally muskets were supplied by the government. Longbows were not.

The time periods of the two show the feelings for the different weapons as well. Give a man from the 1300s a musket and tell him that it kills a man 20 yards away with seemingly nothing more than a loud noise and a puff of smoke, and he'll realize he's looking at the weapon of the future (or he would shout "witch!") However, give a longbow to a redcoat from the 1700s, and he'll tell you its a weapon that is a step backwards used by savages and not civilized people in war.

Finally, I think it is human tendency to be lazy. Or at least to be efficient as possible in order to do less work. Therefore, as soon as firearms became cost effective, the little training required, flexibility as a weapon, and relatively low cost of manufacturing led to the quick implementation and evolution of the firearm into a killing machine.

Even look at if from today's point of view. We now have guns that can fire ten times as fast as the fastest longbowman. We have guns that can kill even more accurately than the longbow and from ten times as far away. Say what you will about the musket, but there is no way longbows would have evolved to the point that they could fire 900 shots a minute at an effective and accurate range of 600 meters like the M-16 can.

Phew. Did that change any of your minds?

[Flowermasher]

Well I don't think we would disagree with you on some points and your general thesis based on your comparison of the 13th century to the 17th is valid. However, this is not really the question. During the 17th century the musket was no longer in use, they used smooth bore rifles and in the later half they used rifled long and short guns. The "musket" I believe being referred to here is the one that came about during the 12th and 13th century. The musket in later eras was not responsible for the removal of the bow in earlier eras, if you gather my point.

That being said, your general hypothesis that training and cost were a factor is certainly on of the reasons that the bow did start to loose favor politically but militarily other factors would have been involved such as the removal of front displays such as marching out and showing off your army before advancing. The constant movement of men on the field would make a long bowmans job far more difficult because the standard of fighting was changed. Just like how the repeating rifle destroyed the Napoleonic battle formations in the 1870s.

I personally do not believe we can pinpoint one exact cause of the removal of the bow from battle. As I said before, this is like the stock crash in America during the 20s....there is no one actual cause and instead a host of causes led to the eventual removal of the long bow from battle.