Bows have seen active service in armies for thousands of years prior to the introduction of gunpowder. When Blackpowder weapons became prevalent, they quickly superseded and eventually replaced the bow as the missile infantry weapon.
How did this occur and why?
Were there any battles in which the bow and musket competed against each other?
Bowvsmusket.com is specifically dedicated to this topic, detailing the unnamed blogger’s views on why the bow was completely inadequate compared to the musket. He cites battles, opinions by gunpowder era figures and uses these to form his conclusions on the matter.
The two myths that he declares busted are:
· That bows outranged muskets significantly
· That muskets replaced bows because they were easier to train with
The first has reasonable credibility, within a certain context, while the second has no rational basis.
Range of Muskets vs Bows
It is true that muskets had a greater overall range than a longbow. However, a distinction between maximum range and effective range must be drawn. The maximum range in arcing fire of an arquebus could be more than 1000 meters, whereas that of a longbow is around 300 (or slightly more depending on the draw weight). Effective fire could be determined by a number of factors. The first is the ability to aim for single targets at different ranges. The second is the ability to target formations at a distance. The third is the damage done when the shot hits.
What the author of bowvsmuskets.com neglects to consider is a fourth factor with respect to Blackpowder weapons: visibility. While muskets might shoot farther, evolving tactics with gunpowder weapons did not involve firing at extreme ranges. After several volleys (especially if cannons were involved) the ability to see what one was shooting at rapidly diminished. This is why firing range was limited to tens of meters rather than hundreds of meters, not because they lacked in power at extreme ranges. If an engagement was only to last a few minutes with a skirmish line of troops, an enterprising commander may allow the troops to fire out further than would normally be permitted for volley fire in large battles.
An engagement listed with the Native Americans against the European settlers would certainly fit this category. What the author fails to mention is that the settlers came from a period when buff coats and breastplates were commonly worn, which would certainly mitigate any lethal effect that stone arrowheads might have had.
Other examples given were 16th century accounts of combat between mixed forces of musketeers and longbowmen. A battle occurred when longbowmen advanced within bow range of a French force of musketeers. The musketeers fired a volley, devastating the English longbowmen. Here, we see that a brief and devastating volley can be fired at what is typically described as longbow range. There was no follow up fire, however. The French force charged and routed the English force after they discharged their muskets. The range at which the longbows could reasonably be expected to fire against soft targets was around 200 to 300 meters. However, by the 15th century, entire armies were outfitted with cheap, munitions grade steel, which resisted longbow arrows entirely (unless fired at point blank range) but was useless against the musket if struck by it at any range.
The author of bowvsmuskets.com then presents an example of musket use in the east, where the Koreans engaged the Japanese, who had made extensive use of muskets by this time. The Koreans were engaged by around a dozen musketeers. Arrows shot in reply fell short of the target. Again, this is in the context of a small force engaging another small force. The amount of smoke produced by the event would probably not have hindered visibility. The Japanese also used muskets to shoot the defenders out of arrow range. Attacking gunpowder forces could choose their shots carefully in this instance. This was not a Napoleonic field battle in which anything at range was obscured by smoke.
On the subject of Napoleon, the author cites an incident where Russian Tatar and Bakshir forces engaged the Grand Armee using horse archery. He uses the most deprecating language to describe the effects of the arrows.
They were described as cupids (for obvious reasons) and engaged them as an apparently undisciplined horde which did not impress the French forces, who killed a great number of them. In one engagement, the commander admits that some casualties were caused, including his best NCO. It is apparent that arrows did not cause any immediate distress to the French forces. Why was this?
Firstly, gunpowder armies were used to immediate, lethal effect from their weapons and those of their enemies. Entire lines would drop in a volley from wounds that were impossible to ignore. Arrows do not produce the same effect. The effect is more gradual due to the lack of cavity produced upon impact. Arteries and vital organs need to be hit for there to be anything resembling immediate lethal effect. Even then, they do not harm the affected part as harshly as a bullet would. Wounded soldiers would eventually bleed out as the horse archers continued to fire unabated.
In the battle of Dresden, the horse archers did not fire unabated. They were blasted apart with musket fire and probably by cannister shot from the cannons. In battles lacking effective countermeasures, horse archers could fire with impunity, producing a continuing and eventually withering effect on the forces arrayed against them. However, they were never meant to be decisive in the armies that deployed them. They were used to create opportunities for more decisive, harder hitting forces. Horse archers, in their heyday, nearly always worked in tandem with heavy cavalry and infantry. In Carrhae and other battles, their job was to make the infantry bunch up, in order to allow the heavy cavalry to burst through and inflict massive casualties.
The best counter to them was infantry missile troops. Horse archers would usually dismount before engaging missile infantry. The account of the battle described the archers as not being able to fire in a horizontal way without hitting other troops, therefore firing wildly. This might indicate that the art of the ‘Cantabrian circle’ had been forgotten or was very ill taught.
The ancient and medieval armies would know the debilitating effects of continuous arrow fire, even if the effect was not immediate. Experienced gunpowder armies would not be familiar with the gradual withering effects and may not be immediately deterred by them. In addition to this, in a world without antibiotics, arrow wounds would often render an enemy unfit for any following battles.
Are Muskets or Bows Easier to Train With?
The implications made by the author of bowvsmusket.com that archery training took little time, is merely an internet claim. It is a bad start.
Many sources, including archaeological evidence, testify that a very considerable length of time (usually since boyhood) was required for a bowman to build up the requisite strength to repeatedly draw a longbow with a greater draw weight than 100 pounds. The reason for the statute demanding continuous training with the longbow was to ensure that the King had a ready supply of well trained longbowmen, should he need them to fight a war.
Nobody with any knowledge of gunpowder weapons denies the need for good training, but this does not support a claim that gunpowder weapons require more extensive training than other weapons.
He supports this with a claim by Thomas Kellie, who explained that musketeers were a danger to themselves and others around them if they were improperly trained. This is because of the constantly burning match cord used to fire the gun. He also states that the bow was not subject to this dangerous side effect.
This proves nothing with respect to ease of training. Bows simply do not use explosive power to shoot arrows.
He further explains his point with a dialogue written by Robert Barrett (1598) between a ‘gent’ and a ‘capt’. The former questions why the bow and bill should be kept as they were both obsolete on the modern battlefield. The latter replies that pikes and muskets should be reserved for those trained in their use. The bows and bills, which all men had, should be used when necessary.
Again, this does not further his point. The longbow was ubiquitous in England until the 1600s, and the aforementioned statute lasted well into the 1600s, although it was not as strictly enforced as the centuries that preceded it. All men who were obliged to train with it were obviously going to be proficient. Muskets were only acquired upon induction into the state forces. He uses another quote by Captain Yorke from Rouen which states the same thing.
The claim that muskets require harder and longer training also defies reason and common sense. Muskets can shoot on a flat trajectory at a far greater distance than bows can. To achieve the famed 300 meters distance, a longbow has to be pointed upwards at 45 degrees. In addition to this, bows require far greater corrections for windage. Both of these require long training to perfect.
The only argument in his favour is that musket loading and volley fire procedure involved a greater number of steps. However, the aiming and firing was relatively easy and required less skill and very little strength to achieve accuracy.
Muskets have greater power at longer distances, are easier to standardise, and can be more accurately aimed out to distances of 100 meters and beyond. They do not require the great strength or many years to achieve such specialised capability as would a bow. These factors all lead to a much more reasonable conclusion of the eventual replacement of bows by muskets.
Comments
Post a Comment