Musket vs longbow

I was having a chat with one of my mates a couple of days ago who is a bit of a history buff. He made a comment that if the Napolean had armed his troops with longbows, the war would have gone a different way. the effectiveness of the longbow as a weapon can be demonstrted by the Battle of Crecy in 1346. The french lost 11 princes, 1200 knights and 30'000 foot soldiers. The English lost 100 men in total.

Range - The longbow was capable of penetrating an inch of solid oak at a range of 200m, and could be accuratey fired at this range. At 100m it wa able to penetrate plate armour. If fired in large volleys, it was capable of providing a huge amount of suppressive fire out to 400m. The musket on the other hand could not be fired accurately at ranges in excess of 50m. Even volley fire at even slightly longer ranges was fairly useless.

Rate of fire - A trained archer with a longbow could fire around 12 accurate arrows per minute. The British infantryman armed with a musket was capable of 3-4 rounds per minute, with the french firing 2-3 rounds per minute.

Training - the longbow took a lifetime to learn. As soon as a child was old enough to lift a small bow, he was expected to train to use it. It required huge amounts of upper body strength to draw the bow to a useful reach. The musket however could be taught in a few weeks.

Looks to me like we lost a skill that could have changed the face of history.

I agree that the infantry would've been more effective with longbows, but the cavalry might do some serious damage with muskets and since learning to shoot a bow from horseback aint a walk in the park I'd give the cavalry muskets.
About the rate of fire, A skilled longbowman can fire 3 arrows in the air so that the 1st one hasn't even landed when he fires the 3rd one. This was important effect of longbow because the sky was literally filled with arrows in Crecy and Agincourt etc.
I wish I could've been there to see it

Originally posted by PaddyInf
I was having a chat with one of my mates a couple of days ago who is a bit of a history buff. He made a comment that if the Napolean had armed his troops with longbows, the war would have gone a different way. the effectiveness of the longbow as a weapon can be demonstrted by the Battle of Crecy in 1346. The french lost 11 princes, 1200 knights and 30'000 foot soldiers. The English lost 100 men in total.

Range - The longbow was capable of penetrating an inch of solid oak at a range of 200m, and could be accuratey fired at this range. At 100m it wa able to penetrate plate armour. If fired in large volleys, it was capable of providing a huge amount of suppressive fire out to 400m. The musket on the other hand could not be fired accurately at ranges in excess of 50m. Even volley fire at even slightly longer ranges was fairly useless.

Rate of fire - A trained archer with a longbow could fire around 12 accurate arrows per minute. The British infantryman armed with a musket was capable of 3-4 rounds per minute, with the french firing 2-3 rounds per minute.

Training - the longbow took a lifetime to learn. As soon as a child was old enough to lift a small bow, he was expected to train to use it. It required huge amounts of upper body strength to draw the bow to a useful reach. The musket however could be taught in a few weeks.

Looks to me like we lost a skill that could have changed the face of history.

Absolutely correct I still maintain a bow and a supply of Arrows for survival puposes, also an axe and sword. Gunpowder might be hard to come by at some point. A broadhead hunting arrow will penetrate modern ballistic armor.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I agree that the infantry would've been more effective with longbows, but the cavalry might do some serious damage with muskets and since learning to shoot a bow from horseback aint a walk in the park I'd give the cavalry muskets.

In the days of Napolean the cavalrymen were armed with carbines, essentially just shortened versions of the musket. The musket was too big and unwieldy on a horse. The carbines' effective range was even less than the muskets, and it is widely accepted that you would have been as well throwing it at the enemy as fire a carbine from a moving horse. The primary weapon for the cavalry was the sword.

I think the actual change from bows into guns might have had more to do with the logistics of musket shots versus arrows and the climate might have had something to do with it also. The musket might have been worse in range and accuracy but the damage it did was massive and if you got hit you were pretty much done. The logistics part being that its easier to make good musket shots than good longbow arrows.

After the 1400 the climate cooled down steadily to the freezing and between 1550 and 1700 it was at its lowest during the small iceage. I would think that it didnt really help the supply of good wood for arrow or bow making. Also the musket can be used to shoot from a cover better than longbow and its easier to train musketeers, but back then they pretty much stood in lines in an open field so with the lower range of the musket it was seriously overpowered by the more accurate and higher range longbow.

bows have been used for thousands of years, for hunting of cause in earlier years. it is one of mans greatest creations, being creatable from natural substances, effectively an unlimited supply of ammunition, as it too was natural; it was very accurate, light and dealt plenty of damage.

of cause it took a lifetime to train on, but such skills were looked upon with the highest regards, those who could use a long bow effectively were honored to the highest degree as they quite literally won the Battle of Crecy.

i think that these are skills that should not be forgotten, as they have made man as he stands today, from those early days of flint heads and forest deer, to now.

Originally posted by PaddyInf
Training - the longbow took a lifetime to learn. As soon as a child was old enough to lift a small bow, he was expected to train to use it. It required huge amounts of upper body strength to draw the bow to a useful reach. The musket however could be taught in a few weeks.

I think this is the key. The English produced longbowmen who had lived and breathed the weapon since childhood. It was a weapon used by specialists. The musket on the other hand could be mastered by anyone. Easier to dish out a weapon used by the masses than go through the inconvenience of producing longbowmen.

Regards

I agree with gonjo in that gunpowder allowed easier logistics and was one main reason for its use. A man can carry 100 lead balls / wadding / 1000 grains of powder much easier than he can 100 arrows. Its the same with a horse or pack animal as well. It is also easier and cheaper to train men to fire a musket than to train the equivalent skill with a longbow. These things allowed for larger armies to be fielded.

Also the musket can be loaded and fired by a wounded or starving man. Where as a long bowmen must be in good condition to draw his bow repeatedly.

Not taking anything away from the Welsh long bowmen or their weapons but the Battle of Crecy is a good example of bad French leadership causing a disaster rather than the "superpower" of the longbow.

Napoleon's tactics relied heavily on artillery and on calvary shock charges . As well as a "stronger" more dynamic and flexible command structure. I doubt that trading muskets in for longbows would have made his campaigns more successful. If anything it would have made the situation worse by making the logistical problems even greater than what they already were.

Millions of arrows tens of thousands of replacement bowstrings and replacement bows would have had to been constructed and then transported to the troops.

Logistical problems are believed by historians to be the main reason for napoleon's defeat. Making those problems even worse would not seem to be a logical path to success.

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
Absolutely correct I still maintain a bow and a supply of Arrows for survival puposes, also an axe and sword. Gunpowder might be hard to come by at some point. A broadhead hunting arrow will penetrate modern ballistic armor.

Well I wont argue with you over who has the last roasted rodent

Back when the longbow was the daddy, archery was the primary past time for all men. Indeed it was law for many years for all men of capable years to train with a bow on Sundays. The manufacture of arrows was the main industry in England, while the shaping and forming of the bow was a skill that was an art form in itself. Arrows were made to a set of guidelines regarding length and weight, with the flights being made of goose-wing feathers, always from the same wing. The bow was made by the user and was made in such a way that it fitted the owner perfectly.

When we think of a modern bow we think of curved reflex items that are light weight and thin. The traditional longbow on the other hand was almost as tall as the user and quite heavy. The bow of a professional archer could be four inches or more thick. Quite a heafty piece of kit really.

Originally posted by Heckman
Not taking anything away from the Welsh long bowmen or their weapons but the Battle of Crecy is a good example of bad French leadership causing a disaster rather than the "superpower" of the longbow.

Napoleon's tactics relied heavily on artillery and on calvary shock charges . As well as a "stronger" more dynamic and flexible command structure. I doubt that trading muskets in for longbows would have made his campaigns more successful. If anything it would have made the situation worse by making the logistical problems even greater than what they already were.

Millions of arrows tens of thousands of replacement bowstrings and replacement bows would have had to been constructed and then transported to the troops.

Logistical problems are believed by historians to be the main reason for napoleon's defeat. Making those problems even worse would not seem to be a logical path to success.

I fail to see how the replacement of muskets with bows would cause an overwhelming increase in logistical problems. After all, muskets need balls, powder, wadding etc. Also on the morning of Waterloo the skies emptied, turning the battlefield into a quagmire. A large amount of the powder was soaked, rendering it useless and thereby increasing the logistical problems. Longbows are pretty waterproof with the only part needing cover being the string. It was normal to carry a few extra strings in a small pouch inside the tunic, keeping them dry.

It was the superior musketry of the British infantry that decimated the French columns. When the columns tried to spread into line the platoon fire from the British forced them back. The Cavalry charges of the French were competely destroyed by the disiplined infantry squares of the British, firing shot after shot into repeated cavalry attacks that refused to charge home. This was typical of an engagement of the time.

I believe if the cheese eating surrender monkeys had been armed with bows they could have stayed at 200 paces and poured arrows into the British lines, which would be able to do nothing in reply.

Oops! Double post !!!

[edit on 9-6-2007 by PaddyInf]

You guys have pointed out the ease of aiming and shooting a musket and so forth, what about crossbows then? These can also be fired from behind a cover, a pavise which some crossbowmen carried with them. A crossbowman also dont have to be in the best of shape, as long as he is cabable of arming the bow, which in itself was the biggest drawback of crossbow. The difficult arming takes time and strenght, but once you're hot you're wielding one powerfull and accurate piece of hardware.
Like this hypothetical conversation isn't difficult enough without this adding to the mix

Yea, thanks for that one !

With crossbows we get the problem of rate of fire again. Many crossbows of the time took nearly a minute to reload, making them even slower than the musket! Then again, a crossbow bolt had an effective range nearly double that of the longbow, so it did have some advantages.

Longbows
Pros - Decent range, powerful, fast rate of fire, waterproof.
Cons - Took years to train, needed extreme strength to use.

Muskets
Pros - Easy to learn, average rate of fire, ammo easy to make
Cons - Slower than longbows, limited range, subject to weather

crossbows
Pros - Extremely powerful, easy to train for, lon range
Cons - VERY slow to reload.

It's a tough on all right!

Well now a good conversation for me to chime in on. I used to do archery in the SCA. On crossbows, the Heavy Crossbow 100+ lbs pull are slow to reload. But a smaller 50lbs crossbow can be loaded very quickly. Those really big ones that used a hand windlass to cock were slow indeed.

One of our rounds was a speed shoot, as many as you cared to fire in 30 sec. With a 50 lbs recurve bow, I could fire off 8 arrows accurately any faster and I risked missing the target. My friend with his crossbow would fire off 9-10 bolts accurately has fired 14 once. The secret is the foot stirup at the business end and a simple thumb trigger that was common to 1400's design.

Part of the accuracy in ranged shots is the length of the arrow shaft as well as the poundage to get it there. In flight the arrow will flex up and down. Crossbow bolts do not flex as much due to their short length. There is a physics reason in all this I am sure, but I never bothered in the why it worked. I was more concerned with learning the angle for the range of the target. I can say that as ranges increased I used less angle than the equal poundage crossbow at the same range for the target. So the bow would have a longer range than the crossbow of equal poundage. I want to say maximum reliable range for a bow is 2.5 x draw in yards and 2 x draw in yards for a crossbow. But that is just casual observation.

[edit on 9-6-2007 by Ahabstar]

Thanks for your input on modern crossbows. However technology has caught up on us here. The circumstances we're talking about are those of several hundred years ago. The crossbows of those days were very slow to reload indeed as the materials that were used in their construction were very basic. It's kind of like comparing a musket with a modern rifle. The concept of the machine is the same but the technology has advanced so much that they are completely different in all but the most basic sense.

With regards to draw weight, medieval crossbows commonly had draws in excess of 700lb compared to approx 70lb of the longbow. This massive draw weight often required some form of mechanical aid, for example a windlass or lever system to draw the string. This slowed the rate of fire considerably.

crossbows
Pros - Extremely powerful, easy to train for, lon range
Cons - VERY slow to reload.

Crossbows were also very effected by weather. Such as the strings getting wet as was the case during the battle of Crecy.

Also on the morning of Waterloo the skies emptied, turning the battlefield into a quagmire. A large amount of the powder was soaked, rendering it useless and thereby increasing the logistical problems. Longbows are pretty waterproof with the only part needing cover being the string. It was normal to carry a few extra strings in a small pouch inside the tunic, keeping them dry.

Thats a good point. However one could argue that if only they would have used better means to keep the powder dry....

It was the superior musketry of the British infantry that decimated the French columns. When the columns tried to spread into line the platoon fire from the British forced them back. The Cavalry charges of the French were competely destroyed by the disiplined infantry squares of the British, firing shot after shot into repeated cavalry attacks that refused to charge home. This was typical of an engagement of the time

Well Napoleon lost nearly his entire army during the Russian campaign. Losing about 380,000 men and tens of thousands of horses due to logistical problems.

After returning to France he was able to raise another army yet was seriously lacking in calvary horses and thus the French calvary was never as good as it had been in previous campaigns.

While the superior British musketry certainly played a role being outnumbered 119,000 to 72,000 at waterloo certainly contributed to Napoleon's defeat.

I believe if the cheese eating surrender monkeys had been armed with bows they could have stayed at 200 paces and poured arrows into the British lines, which would be able to do nothing in reply.

errmm ok

Lets not forget that the musket was a duel purpose weapon being both a skirmish weapon (gun) and a hand to hand weapon (spear).

You dont think that perhaps the British would have used a bayonet or calvary charge to decimate the unequally armed bowmen??

The bayonet was a major weapon of the time period and tactics revolved around the bayonet formations and charges just as much as it did around musket fire , artillery , calvary charges....

[edit on 9-6-2007 by Heckman]

I think long bow out of all those 3 is more superior. You can also shoot many arrows in the air and rain them down on the battlefield. Quite effective and lethal. Not only that men in towers, walls, tree's, hidden wooded areas. Bows are silent. A man in a wooded area could probably take down several before being spotted. 3:1 ratio determines any battle. Musket on other hand loud, smoke blocking your vision, lower range, gives away your location. Some things to think about.

Originally posted by Heckman

While the superior British musketry certainly played a role being outnumbered 119,000 to 72,000 at waterloo certainly contributed to Napoleon's defeat.

However only 67'000 British troops were committed to the battle as the rest were made up of Prussians who were several miles away and did not actually join the battle. Napolean was able to deploy all of his troops, which means that he actually outnumbered the British by around 5000. He also had 100 extra guns and 3000 exta cavelry. No cavalry at the time was trained to charge home against an infantry square.

Lets not forget that the musket was a duel purpose weapon being both a skirmish weapon (gun) and a hand to hand weapon (spear).

You dont think that perhaps the British would have used a bayonet or calvary charge to decimate the unequally armed bowmen??

The bayonet was a major weapon of the time period and tactics revolved around the bayonet formations and charges just as much as it did around musket fire , artillery , calvary charges....

A bayonet or cavalry charge would have been stopped in the same way that it always was - by supporting cavalry from the flanks. A charging and disorganised body of infantry was a cavalrymans wet dream. That was why infantry doctorine at the time depended on disciplined formations until the very last minute. French cavalry was some of the best in the world at the time, and was very well led. The British cavalry were equally good but the leadership was cr@p. Saying that, at the battle of Waterloo the French cavalry completely destroyed themselves by constant charges at in-depth inantry squares, but that is another story...

Archers would never be deployed alone. As you rightly state, they would be particularly vulnerable to bayonets etc. However in medieval times they were deployed as part of a fighting group, consisting of cavalry, spearmen, men-at-arms etc. who would all be used for close defence. After all, what is a bayonet but a slightly bulky spear?

[edit on 10-6-2007 by PaddyInf]

Originally posted by PaddyInf
Thanks for your input on modern crossbows. However technology has caught up on us here.

I need to clarify here Paddy, the SCA is a medieval recreation group and this particular crossbow was basically an oak 2x4 with a bolt groove. The prod was wrought iron held on with a wood block lashed with artifical sinew holding it place. The thumb trigger was just a simple level with a pin as the fulcrum that pushed up the drawstring. Design-wise, it could have been made in the 1200-1300's easily. Nothing was modern exotic about it except for the artificial sinew.

In the winter months we would practice at an Outdoor/hunter's shop. Many local hunters that used compound bows and crossbows that used compound bow designs were impressed both by the speed of reload and relative quiet fire. The 50lbs draw puts it in th realm of modern hand crossbows but this was about 2.5 feet long with about a 12 inch draw. The bolts were about 14 inches long and about 1 inch extended past the end of the rail.

Only bad thing about crossbows versus bows is restringing.