muskets vs.longbows in MTW2

Please note, there is a distinct difference between the two arguements that are happening in this thread. One is the comparision between Muskets and Bows and the other is the "just how affective was the Long Bow, or for that matter any heavy bow in the medieval period".

Specifically regarding the comparision between Muskets and Bows then this thread is starting to feel a little over analysed.

Everyone can study history and make up their own mind.

IMO, on a macro scale, there was a period (a very long one) in which "Bows" of all types and variations were the standard ranged combat weapon.

With the discovery of gunpowder guns became an option.

As a few people have stated here, it is clearly not the case that early gunpowder weapons were any more effective than traditional heavy bows. Muskets in fact were inferior to "Heavy Bows" at all ranges other than "point blank".

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but statistical evidence proves it.

Heavy Bows were more accurate, had long effective range and a great rate of fire than any hand held gun powder weapon up until the mid 1800's.

IMO, given these characteristic in favour of the Heavy Bow, the increase use of gunpowder weapons in the first 200 years was primarily due to its ease of production and the reduced training and physcial requirements need to become proficient with it in comparison to the bow. Please don't discount these two characteristics on a strategic level. That fact that a weapon with inferior ballistic characteristics could still replace a Heavy bow is already a huge advantage for the pro-musket lobby :beam:

As for just how effective Bows were in the 4000 years they were used. Any weapon that can be that relevant for that long certainly has some effectiveness in the battle field.

It's individual effectiveness can be argued until the cows come home...I think we are nearly there actually :2thumbsup:

I'm sure the heavy bows was responsible for winning many battles. Equally they may have been ineffective on many occasions also. As for whether it is over hyped or not, well that always depends on the opinion of each person. For me it is a "must have" weapon. If I had a selection of any Heavy bow unit in my army, then Long Bowman would be my preference.

At the very least you have a massive suppression fire weapon against even the heaviest armour opposition. And in most cases you will have a decisive advantage over your opponent if they do not have Heavy Bow units.

So there is another 3 or 4 cents to the whole thread :beam:

I think your "massive suppression fire weapon" is an excellent description of bows. You can slow people down, but you cannot kill them. It seems like many people here are imagining a single unit of arquebusiers fighting a single unit of bowmen. Think of an entire army, which most likely consists mainly of shock infantry.

The bow in itself will not destroy the other army. On the other hand, the arquebus in itself can. As long as there's sufficient protection for the arquebusiers, they can completely grind down the enemy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

If I had a selection of any Heavy bow unit in my army, then Long Bowman would be my preference.

---

Fine. You can have Edmund of Ruthyn's treasonous Welshmen that cost the Lancastrians the battle at Northampton in 1460, and I'll take Sultan Mehmed's Jannisaries that killed so many Moldavians at Razboieni (1476) that it was later named Valea Alba (white valley, from the bones). Let's fight:smash: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Temujin

Fine. You can have Edmund of Ruthyn's treasonous Welshmen that cost the Lancastrians the battle at Northampton in 1460, and I'll take Sultan Mehmed's Jannisaries that killed so many Moldavians at Razboieni (1476) that it was later named Valea Alba (white valley, from the bones). Let's fight:smash: :laugh4:

---

Those examples of treachery are few and far between. You are talking about the war of the roses here and it wasn't just welsh bowmen who helped the enemy into the entrenched camp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyAnn

But during the crusades, the Western bows were never mentioned as superior or a decisive actor in any victory.
Oh, and I forgot, it was not mentioned that the French were killed by arrows from a far (the so called longbow range superiority). The French were massacred during Agincourt battle when they were very close to the English line, piled up, ready to be shot or hammered.

---

Come on plz.in the crusades when the enemies were 10vs1 or even more some times the western armies didnt have the ability of deploing in the field many archers as the enemies were mostly on horses where the bows wont do nothing,and if they did not have anough men to defend their position with foot soldiers(men at arms and...)with the enemy army many times larger and much more mobile,they wouldnt have any chance.thats why there werent many archers.

And in the battle of Agincourt come on...you want the longbow to hit from... 5Km?its normal taht even the longbow has a range and when the enemies were in that range i think it was devastating!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Blind King of Bohemia

Those examples of treachery are few and far between.

---

I'm sure Buckingham would have been very comforted by that fact: "but really, Sir, they almost never do this" :)

Could we at least agree that the results wouldn't have been different had the welshmen been armed differently? And that it is unlikely that the Jannisaries at Valea Alba would have made even more of a mess of the Moldavians, had they been sporting longbows instead of composite recurves?

[QUOTE=Basilios II Voulgaroktonos]
And in the battle of Agincourt come on...you want the longbow to hit from... 5Km?/QUOTE]

I never said that. I only said that the kills at Agincourt using arrows were at very short range, the range any other archers could kill. The targets were piled up MAAs. The majority of the kills weren't even by arrows: the archers used their small hammers and knifes they carried as side-arms, as the piled up french MAA wasn't able to even defend themselves.

Anniep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyAnn

I never said that. I only said that the kills at Agincourt using arrows were at very short range, the range any other archers could kill. The targets were piled up MAAs. The majority of the kills weren't even by arrows: the archers used their small hammers and knifes they carried as side-arms, as the piled up french MAA wasn't able to even defend themselves.

Anniep

---

True. The Agincourt battlesite is also special in that the earth gets very sucky mud when wet. As may be known: it rained a little before.

The French knights/MAA had high quality, shiny, full plate armour. When they dropped in the slippery mud, and didn't get trampled already, they had very large difficulty to get up, because the plates got sucked. The Longbowmen on the contrary lacked such armour, closed in and stabbed the helpless French.