why did'nt bows make a comeback

[Oaty]

My question is why didnt bows make a comeback when armour became obsolete due to guns. I've often wondered this and I'm thinking of the napoleonic times. If I'm right at this time armies mainly consisted of gunmen artillery and just a small portion was cavalry.

Heres my thought couldnt you fire more arrows than the typical gunman could at that time. The second thought was guns still had problems in the 1800's but much better from 100 years ago making the bow more reliable.

My only guess is that archery became ignored and there were very very few people during this time that did not have the years of training it required to be a succesful bowmen

[Mega Dux Bob]

Bows take considerable physical effort to draw and a lot of training to use well. Firearms are very cheep. Medieval armies were in the 10,000 man range, Napolean was fielding 100,000+ armies so the cost was pretty big issue and he had to do quickly.

Napolean did run into bow arm troops in the invasion of Russia; some of the Tartars were armed with them. The French weren't too impressed.

[Red Harvest]

I'll take a stab at this: Archers would be annihilated vs. guns at several hundred yards where the archers could not reach effectively. Yes, the individual gun wouldn't hit squat at that range at that time, but a volley would...same as archers, but out of range of the archers. If you look at continental tactics you realize that tight ranks of musket armed men became quite deadly. Who wants to march point blank into a wall of musket fire at 3 to 4 rounds per minute per gun? It doesn't have to be aimed, it is fired as a volley to sweep an expanse on a relatively flat trajectory (something archers can't do.) Then there was artillery...who wants to engage artillery with archers? You will never get in range.

The American Civil War marked the apex of this arms race of formation fighting. Rifled cannon and repeaters led to trench style warfare late in the war (with mounted infantry to flank dug in positions--while saber wielding cavalry became obsolete since they were merely big, juicy, easy targets and could not dislodge entrenched infantry.) Rifled cannon are extremely accurate, have great range and can destroy hardened walls with ease, but are ineffective at destroying berms.

Since I mentioned cav, Nathan Bedford Forrest armed many of his men with revolvers to fight as dismounted infantry in the thickets. At short range in a thicket (where he fought) these were much more effective than rifles/carbines. Imagine facing some yahoo with dual revolvers at 20 paces in the woods while you have a single shot musket, breach loader, or carbine. If you've ever lived, hunted, or played paintball in forest thicket you can appreciate the typical engagement range you would face. Forrest also discarded the continental habit of keeping a large reserve (~1/3rd of your force). He threw everything he had at what he considered the decisive point. He understood that concentration of forces at the point of combat often decided the battle by breaking a key position. That (plus his leadership at the front) is why he was so effective with much smaller forces. Who cares about the reserve when your main body has been routed? All the reserve can do is halt your precipitous retreat and prevent a rout, not win the battle. On the flip side, should you fail to break a key position, your dismounted troops can still withdraw to their held horses, and retreat without being destroyed--if heavily bloodied. Defenders don't pursue immediately, since they must be wary of a trick or trap.

[Herodotus]

I can't remember which King it was but a King of England tried to make it law that every man practice the longbow after church. He was not obeyed, mostly because of the popularity and cheapness of guns. I think Longbowmen would have been useful in battle for a long time (though in relatively small numbers). I would station them behind the front line ready to let fly at anyone in range. The longbow was accurate and deadly, apparently they could shoot through one knight and into another with all their armour, so what would happen to unarmoured men tightly lined up?

[el_slapper]

For STW veterans, re-read the historic readme provided with the game. The Oda Nobunaga section. Wher it is explained that the cruel(comparing to these times standards) warlord was a fan of firearms for a single reason :

_3 years to train an archer
_5 weeks to train an arquebusier

Of course, the british longbow was more efficent than ANY personal firearm until the appearance of the Machinegun. But the training costs involved made it obsolete hundreds of years before.

[Nowake]

Quote[/b] (el_slapper @ Aug. 12 2003,11:40)]For STW veterans, re-read the historic readme provided with the game. The Oda Nobunaga section. Wher it is explained that the cruel(comparing to these times standards) warlord was a fan of firearms for a single reason :

_3 years to train an archer
_5 weeks to train an arquebusier

Of course, the british longbow was more efficent than ANY personal firearm until the appearance of the Machinegun. But the training costs involved made it obsolete hundreds of years before.

Indeed. At the amount of killing taking place in the napoleonic era, they had to be able to raise people instanly, give them a weapon, teach how to march and push them into the frey.

With bows, they would have to pause the wars in order for their 2 weeks old archer to eventually kill the enemy

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (Herodotus @ Aug. 12 2003,06:24)]I can't remember which King it was but a King of England tried to make it law that every man practice the longbow after church. He was not obeyed, mostly because of the popularity and cheapness of guns. I think Longbowmen would have been useful in battle for a long time (though in relatively small numbers). I would station them behind the front line ready to let fly at anyone in range. The longbow was accurate and deadly, apparently they could shoot through one knight and into another with all their armour, so what would happen to unarmoured men tightly lined up?

King Edward I was the one who introduced the law and it was never withdrawn... Having such a vast reserve of archers is the main reason why The English conquered so much French territory in the Hundred Years War. French Guns and Cannon helped a lot to reclaim it

This practice of archery eventually gave birth to Darts as a sport.

[Tony]

My 2 cents on the longbow vs musket debate...

Not all muzzle loaders are created equal. In the times of Napoleon it was a smooth bore musket with a flint mechanism to ignite the charge. Effective range - about 50 yards. In a line vs line type situation (area target) you MIGHT start an engagement at 100 yards or even 150. Beyond that you might as well throw rocks, as you won't do much damage. Most engagements were fought MUCH closer.

Around the 1840s the percussion cap was invented - provided a much more reliable method of igniting the powder charge. Nice, but no big deal and no impact on range.

In the 1850s a Frenchman called Minea (sp?) invented a long slug with a conical base that could be used in a rifled barrel. The conical base was critical, as it allowed the base of the slug to expand and grip the rifling AFTER the powder charge was ignited (the slug must have a diameter of less than the rifling in order to be rammed down the barrel easily in battle). This became known as the Minee Ball in the west - and the battlefield was NEVER the same again. Individuals could put down ACCURATE fire vs point targets at around 200+ yards - and group fire vs area targets could be effective at 500+ yards. The effective range of the rifleman was tripled or quadrupled overnight.

At this point any longbow vs musket equation becomes a no-contest. A line of infantry with rifled muskets will open an engagement at anything up to 600 yards - and will start inflicting casualties from that point onwards. Each man will fire a minimum of 3 to 5 aimed rounds per minute. All else being equal, the longbowmen will be shattered in short order.

Bring in repeating breach loaders with smokeless powder and it just gets crazy. A company of infantry with .303 Lee-Enfield rifles will put down EFFECTIVE fire vs an area target (i.e. a formation of longbowmen) at ranges of over 1000 yards. Individuals (with a little training) can be quite accurate vs point targets at 300+ yards and vs area targets at around 600+ yards. Firing 10 to 15 aimed rounds per minute is not very difficult (reloading via 5 round clips into the 10 round magazine - I have done it on the firing range). Any bowmen silly enough to show their faces at this point will be ripped apart. Remember that the riflemen are prone and exposing very little of themselves at this point. It unlikely they will suffer any casualties in an open battle vs longbowmen.

Longbowmen are cool, and represent the application of archery to battle about as far as you can take it. They are the ultimate bowmen - and a solid argument can be made about them being potentially more effective than the average musket of the Napoleonic period (but they were MUCH more expensive and time consuming to train).

Once the rifled musket shows up, this argument really falls apart IMHO. The rifled musket has a decent rate of fire, is quite accurate up to 200+ yards vs point targets (i.e. individuals) and can be used vs group targets (i.e. enemy formations) at 2 or 3 times that range. It is also extremely hard hitting - the impact of the big lead slug on the human body was very unpleasant.

Napoleon had his army effectively detroyed 3 times - in 1812 (Russia), 1813 (Germany) and 1814 (frontiers / France / abdication). Each time he was able to rebuild La Grand Armee by pouring conscripts onto the remnants of his shattered army and weld them into a new army. He could do this in a few short months each time with musket armed conscripted infantry - he could never have done it with longbowmen.

I have done this quickly - no time to confirm the dates - so I might be out on some of them. I think John Keegan wrote an excellent analysis of Napoleonic muskets vs longbowen in The face of battle. Not sure.

One last point in favour of the musket - you can stick a bayonet on the end and you have instant spearmen. Not a bad trick.

[econ21]

Lots of good points. I think the training point is very important, but also I suspect compared to muskets - or melee weapons - most bows were rather non-lethal. An arrow would tend to wound rather than kill or even incapacitate. Guns, because of the higher velocity of the projectile, can be more lethal. On a related point, I think in small scale engagements - eg man to man skirmishes - bows are pretty ineffective. A single swordsman with a shield could probably charge and kill a single archer; he'd be toast against a man with a steady nerve and a gun. By the time of the bayonet, I think melee combat was nearly obsolete - the charge being a psychological contest, rather than leading to a medieval style attritional slogging match. Bows were really only useful en masse to kind of bombard the enemy with a hail of arrows. I suspect artillery - which had a far greaer range - replaced them in that role.

[Mak]

I recently visited Warwick Castle, (England)
a most excellent visit very recommended.
The castle is intact and inspired many a siege on MTW afterwards.

There is an excellent armoury with all the equipment from swords, bows to muskets right through the ages. so anybody interest should pay a visit.

There was an exhibiton by a trained longbowman we saw where he fired at 150 yards at s small target about a foot square, he fired 12 arrows at it in one minute
and hit with 90% of time, even smaller areas like head and groin put it this way lots of dead frenchies

The training to this standard as already suggested may have taken years. but i tell you they were lethal
The rapid fire 12 a minute to a primitive gun say 4 rounds aminute at best. The arrows were large and very powerful, highly accurate and could punch through any armour. The aim of this guy was amazing he could hit a knight on the head every time.

Simon apple i fail to see how you could say an archer against a single man would result in close combat. The longbowmen were practically the modern machine gun of their day. Down wiv the Frenchies

[LCJr]

Another point against bows is food supply. An archer needs to be relatively well fed to be effective.

Here's a nice little page that gives a quick rundown on guns and possibly why they replaced bows.

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~dispater/handgonnes.htm

As far as the killing power of muskets I found this awhile back. Keep in mind this is referring to a Spanish matchlock musket of the 16th/17th century, they were the long and heavy(17-20 pounds) type that required a rest.

Quote[/b] ]In tests conducted at the H. P. White Laboratory, Eel Aire, Maryland, on 1 July 1970, an 85 caliber lead ball of 890 grains (about 2.3 ounces), driven by 215 grains of black powder (0.49 ounces), typically produced a muzzle velocity of about 1,100 feet per second. Sixteenth century Spanish musketeers almost certainly used a considerably larger powder charge, as heavy as the weight of the ball according to Jorge Vigon, Historia de la Artilleria Española (Madrid, 1947), Vol. I, p. 236.

In case your wondering that comes out to approx. 2391 ft/lbs muzzle energy.

Also keep in mind todays blackpowder is also a little better quality:) I've fired some heavy loads in a reproduction Hawkens and don't even want to imagine what the recoil from a 800+ grain powder would feel like.

[motorhead]

I saw a history program where they dug up some bodies from an old English battlefield. They found that on the bodies they identified as longbowman that their spines had an unnatural curvature to them. They speculated that it was due to the amount of training and the strain put on the spine by pulling back the bow. Now I'm no doctor, but I'm guessing that these longbowman trained _alot_ to get their spines to grow crooked.

[Revenant69]

My memory is vague, but i do remember one history fact.
During the age of muskets, an English army (sorry i forget when and where) was fighting a superior french force. English army comprised some longbowmen and lots of musketeers. French obviously didnt have the longbows. Well that day of the battle it rained a bit, so the powder was wet. Needless to say French werent amused when they saw arrows land in between their ranks and decimate them.

I think this may have been tha last big battle where longbows were used (im not sure thou).

Also if someone can recall the battle site/time/etc will get many thanks.

[Hakonarson]

Quote[/b] (el_slapper @ Aug. 12 2003,03:40)]For STW veterans, re-read the historic readme provided with the game. The Oda Nobunaga section. Wher it is explained that the cruel(comparing to these times standards) warlord was a fan of firearms for a single reason :

_3 years to train an archer
_5 weeks to train an arquebusier

Of course, the british longbow was more efficent than ANY personal firearm until the appearance of the Machinegun. But the training costs involved made it obsolete hundreds of years before.

More efficient in what respect? The needle gun and Chasspot both shot further, had better armour penetration, could be fired prone and at 6-10 shots per minute.

Used en-masse muskets could and did often stop cavalry charges cold - something archers never did - even at Poitiers, Agincourt and Crecy some French managed to make the English lines on horseback, and of course a lot of them did on foot at Agincourt.

As to the original question - yest I think the asker got his answer spot on.

society had moved on, and the skills were no longer there, nor was the interest.

Also handguns (as opposed to artillery) were seen as more efficient at killing - a hit from a firearm projectile almost always put the target out of combat regardless of armour or wher the hit was (arm, leg), whereas an arrow could be pulled out of a limb, the wound bound and the target could fight on - arrows mainly kill by blood loss because they rarely hit vital organs.

[Fragony]

With the introduction of the bajonette every weapon was considered absolete. The combination of having a spear and a rifle was so allround they didn't need anything else.

[Auxilia]

Allow me to dip my oar in as t'where

In the early 17th Century there was a ludicrous attempt to reintroduce the longbow to English Armies, in a concept known as the double-armed man. Now, picture in your mind a longbowman drawing back for a shot - superimpose upon this your standard pike (12-15 feet??); the poor guy was expected to hold said pike in the same hand as the bow, whilst propping the butt against his back foot. Ludicrous I know - still the longbow was still in use in 1588 during the Armada campaign; a cheap way of arming lots of men quickly I suppose.

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ Aug. 13 2003,16:17)]Bows were really only useful en masse to kind of bombard the enemy with a hail of arrows. I suspect artillery - which had a far greaer range - replaced them in that role.

You are correct there mate, The problem at the end of the Hundred Years War was that French Cannon could bombard the Longbowmen before they got into range to unleash their hail of arrows... Previously they were untouchable by all except the crossbow, and that had the big disadvantage of long reload times.

The rise of Cannon marked the general end of the usefulness of the bow on the battlefield... and Muskets were cheaper and required a lot less training to use than a bow. So in effect artillery and the economics of war made the bow obsolete.