The Longbow vs. the Musket

[Robert Murphy]

'Llo Fellows,

In a A History of Warfare John Keegan makes an interesting contention: that, all things considered, the longbow remained a far more effective weapon than the musket, and that this held true far later than one would expect. (I.e., well throughout the Napoleonic Wars; practically up until the advent of the Minie (sp? Ball and militarily practical rifled muskets. (Sorry for the lack of a specific citation--where the %$#@ did I put that book? <img src="/forum/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" /> ) According to Keegan, the longbow approached the musket in penetrating power, while having a far greater effective range and rate of fire. The reason the musket ultimately supplanted the longbow on the battlefield? Simple: an effective longbowmen needed to be trained practically from childhood, a process which (obviously) took several years and cost a not inconsiderable sum, whereas musket-wielding infantry could be relatively quickly (and thus far more cheaply) drilled into competent soldiers, and (given the lessened expenditure in time and money) in much greater numbers. Hence, any of the advantages in accuracy and rate of fire of the longbow were effectively nullified by massed formations (and fire) of musket-armed infantry

While this (er) 'scenario' in no way sounds incredible to me, I somehow do not find it wholly satisfactory. Heavy plate armor remained prevalent on the battlefield long after the emergence of longbows and crossbows (wielded by highly-skilled archers and near the apogee of their technological development, no less). The same is seemingly far from true in re the development of reliable firearms; indeed, here there seems to be an inverse relationship: as firearms became more and more effective, heavy armor became more and more rare.

No I don't quite know what I'm talking about. Hence I would humbly appreciate any feedback here from those of you who do. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

Cheers,

Robert

P.S. Re: my two earlier threads (questions), many thanks for all of the detailed and expert answers so generously provided! (Also, I greatly enjoyed/am enjoying the ensuing discussion...)

[JeffGentry]

Hey Robert

One thing most do not consider was that with the developement of the rifle/musket they also were developing the canon/artilery and long range gunnery, and with the advent of long range fire from this the plate armour became ineffective IMO, and also with the fall of the fuedel system the nobel's idea of honor, courage changed.

There realy are no simple answer's because what we do did not develop in a vaccum, it had a social context that goes along with it, and we need to also consider this social context in alot of the thing's that we see in manuel's as to why and how they developed weapon's armour and technique's, and how, why, when and where the weapon's and armour were used.

In Talhoffer's 1459 book he has the cause's a man could challenge another to a judicial combat, it is basicly the social context, very interesting.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/Causes.htm



Jeff

[s_taillebois]

M. Gentry, good observation about the cannon, these weren't used soley agaisnt fortifications.
The demise of the longbow, as much tied to the social changes of the period as to any relative effectiveness compared to other weapons. Many of the English/Welsh longbowmen were yeoman, and as such their training was a feudal obligation. Although some did benefit from service, ie a good campaign's loot could set one up well back in England-especially compared to what they had before. Most were less inclined to agree to obligations of this sort by the late period (1480's). The post black death era social changes, had made it easier for the lower orders to 'break' some of the bond obligations. Sometimes just buy paying an enhanced tax (the period was literally cash short). And the somewhat pointless (and endless) goings on with the English/French wars disillusioned many of the yeoman class. Even some of the aristocracy got tired of it all.
So, at times the English lords couldn't really muster the longbow contingent, they'd began to avoid the obligations.
The gun, not as simple as Keegan and company imply. The gun (and bombard etc) were the high tech of the time. And so were usually run by technological specialists. (Initially, the idea of mass peasant levee's being issued muskets didn't exist...that came much later) These gun specialists often hired out to the highest bidder, and so weren't subject to the limits of a decaying feudal order. So in that regard the adoption of the gun, as much an effect of social changes as anything else.
And the need for armoured cavalry remained, but changed considerably, the tactics of the conquistador being a good example.
And with the new bastions, and star forts the italians designed...a area could be controlled by cannon fire. For a period of time, the defensive had the advantage, compared to the abilities of the older weapons like longbows and armoured cavalry. (Even trebuchets weren't much use agaisnt the new fortifications)