Longbows are no good

[AussieGiant]

@ mad cat mech and to most in general on this thread:

My comments are only designed around the flintlock muskets.

mad cat mech comment;

"it required a lot of labor, no how and more forged iron or steel than what you would need to make a great sword or any other large metal weapon. the barrel must be trued to be well aligned. the matchlock mechanism required forging, shaping and fitting the stock even if crude still had to be carved out for the barrel channel, trigger slot and so forth.

a soldier using a firearm although not having to develop the strength to use the longbow had to be more technically trained so he didnt shoot himself or his comrades. it required some training and skill to use even a primitive firearm as easy as guns are to use today they still require training and discipline to use properly. to me if i was given a matchlock musket or arquebus i would be flabbergasted by all the things you would have to keep in mind when loading and firing it wasnt as easy to use as a percussion muzzleloader or flintlock you had a constantly adjust the burning match that you had to keep adjusted by loosening and tightening a clamp screw.

plus you would have to make sure you didnt set the thing off while you were loading because you constantly had a flame burning near to the powder.

if firearms were so complex to make and so complex to operate then if they replaced the longbow on the battlefield it must have been because they caused more dread and death than what people give them credit for.

longbows were simply not more expensive to make then a firearm period. and firearms actually took a specialist of technical expertise and metal working skill to make. gunsmiths at one time were some of the highest paid professionals around"

Matchlock and early firearms in the late 1500, 1600's and early 1700's are what I term the transition period. It was in fact a transition period because of the all the things mad cat mech mentioned above. Cost, training, skill requirements were no where near as complete. Hence the continued existance of pikes, swords, plate armour and halberds.

I would however argue strongly that by the mid 1700's these characteristics are all resolved in favour of the musket. I mean we are really talking about 200 years of transition.

From about 1550 to 1750 range weaponry went from Bows to muskets and from swords to bayonets. As dopp mentions, once the social structure for producing archers waned they became obsolete. Equally the social structure for "knights" remained as was still seen in the Napoleonic wars. Heavy Cavalry was still around because the "Landed Gentry" and Aristocracy was still in place to pursue there preferred method of fighting. The only difference between 1550 cavalry and 1750 to 1850 cavalry was armour.

Funny hey. I won’t even go into the paper rock scissor war far of Napoleon. Cavalry still played an important part.