you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]wilymaker 32 points33 points  (2 children)

Well there's a little bit of a problem with the question upfront, which is that you begin by assuming at once that the bow is superior to the musket, an assertion which we shall scrutinize closely, and funnily enough, we'll do it by answering the question in itself, by explaining the effects of musket in battle, or more generally, in the organization and conduct of war, and even more generally, not only of muskets but of firearms in general.

Now the two big reasons that lead one to intuitively find the bow better than the musket are the greater rate of fire of the bow and its better ballistic performance, wouldn't a weapon that shoots faster and can more accurately hit a target at longer distances be the better ranged weapon? However these two advantages are actually only true under a terrible number of implicit assumptions that are often mischaracterized as the general rule.

One is assuming that the average archer can achieve a greater range than a musket, which is wholly different from asking whether the bow has theoretically better range than a musket. Bow range is strictly limited by the strength of its user, and when you're talking about organized warfare that includes thousands and tens of thousands of soldiers, what you'll get is not the theoretical best which the musket is usually compared to, but the average, and the average can only be good enough if there's a dedicated archery culture to develop a big enough pool of proficient archers. And this is a very precious and fickle resource in the context of war, because you'll naturally lose your strength during campaigning due to desertion, starvation and disease, in far, far greater numbers than you'll lose by fighting enemy musketeers. Even then without constant training they'll lose their proficiency, so their effectiveness during a war at the peak of their performance will be drastically different to that after a long period of peace in which decay affects all armies. The musket offers a sort of baseline, and not particularly low one considering that even a pistol already has greater killing potential than the strongest longbowman, not to talk about the musket. While the loading procedure is time consuming, the input is exceedingly minimal, a small lead ball and around a third of its weight in gunpowder, and even more so when compared to the result, a projectile flying way past the speed of sound at around 450 m/s. So in terms of economics the musket is a much, much more efficient generator of kinetic energy that the bow, generating much greater velocities for a fraction of the investment, which puts the issue of range in a completely different perspective, so that 80 yards range of a musket is actually much more reliable than the initially apparent 200 yard range of the bow that only an insignificant minority might be able to achieve.

Another problem is assuming that the musket is inaccurate in the first place, which is actually contingent on a few factors, mainly being windage and rifling. Balls were usually smaller in diameter than that of the bore, which made loading easier but reduced accuracy, but a fraction of a millimeter does modestly increase accuracy. However the most important thing is rifling, and rifles have been a thing ever since the 16th century, being employed primarily by specialist troops of frontiersmen and hunters, before regular light infantry units started appearing in the 18th century. Rifles are actually accurate, and as such have insanely greater effective ranges than a bow. The fact that the musket is usually considered to be smoothbore by default is of course because rifles were in the minority, because they were more expensive and required a more skilled soldier, but if one is going to use the absolute theoretical best performance of the bow, which necessarily only a minority can even approach, then its only fair to compare it to the best theoretical ballistic performance of firearms that could be achieved with the technology of the period. Noting that under this comparison firearms are strictly better it makes all the more sense then that average archery would also fare no better than average smoothbore musketry.

Yet another incorrect assumption? That long range mattered at all. This resonates with us nowadays because we're accustomed to extremely long ranged weaponry with electronically assured perfect accuracy, but in pre modern times ranged weaponry in general was much, much less reliable, whether it be a musket, a bow, or a crossbow, trebuchet, cannon, sling, whatever. This is because of limitations to any such kind of weapon, in terms of range, accuracy, rate of fire, killing power, weight and mobility, etc. No single ranged weapon could be dominant in the battlefield like a machine gun or a breech loading high explosive howitzer could be in the industrial age. This tells us that the question in itself is missing an entire dimension of combat which was recognized as more decisive than ranged combat, and that is melee combat. Swords and spears never went out of use, even in the 18th century when all infantry was armed with muskets, those muskets were fixed with a bayonet. Close combat was an expected feature of war, and ranged weaponry only served a support role in this system, not the dominant one. Close combat though also means close ranges, which are the ranges at which the musket is actually effective, since it is still accurate at less than 80 yards and still retains most of its kinetic energy and is thus more deadly. Therefore believing that the musket is ineffective because it is not a good long range weapon is completely missing the point, the musket is a short range weapon, which only makes sense in a type of warfare in which at some point armies are expected to clash head on. So comparing muskets and bows is not only a matter of pitting one against each other, but how each of them perform against heavy infantry and heavy cavalry. The Austrians for example in the late 18th century started issuing smaller diameter balls, which shows a clear conscious preference towards rate of fire at shorter ranges over accuracy. This makes sense considering that longer ranges were the domain of other firearms, rifles as explained above and of course also field artillery, which obviously needs not be compared with the bow in terms of range.

So the issue of effective range is a very nuanced issue that depends on a lot of factors, and claiming that the bow has greater range than the musket is rather disingenuous. But the issue of rate of fire is overwhelmingly decided in favor of the bow. Still there were ways to minimize the low rate of fire of the musket to maximize its effectiveness. First of all was intensive drilling in order to achieve the best performance while reloading the weapon in the midst of the chaos of the battlefield and thus ensure effective firepower. Coupled with this were firing systems in which musketeers would take turns firing in successive ranks, or alternating fire by different sections of a line, in order to maintain a constant hail of bullets. Another tactic was relying on a defensive position, be it in a trench, ditch, hill, forest, village, palisade or whatever other obstacle that difficulted the approach of the enemy and allowed the musketeers to more safely reload. This naturally leads to the implication that the musket was absolutely amazing in sieges, completely static and very long lasting encounters in which musketeers could reload and fire safely from their forts over the walls, in trenches and through musket loops. In the battlefield a similar effect could be achieved with squares of pikes which accompanied the musketeers and fended off enemy infantry and cavalry while being supported by musket fire, while outside of Europe a much more common tactic was to arrange wagon carts in a sort of fort from which musketeers and cannons could shoot at the enemy. Another very effective tactic was literally not even relying on rate of fire at all, but instead approaching the enemy and at a very short range fire a single devastating volley before falling on the enemy with pikes and musket butts, or bayonets in later times.

(continued below)

[–]wilymaker 30 points31 points  (1 child)

But then come the undeniable advantages of the musket over the bow, first of all as said above its greater killing potential, as musket wounds were more fatal, were much better at piercing armor (during the 16th century shotproof armor was becoming common to face firearms, what can an archer hope to achieve by then? In contrast the response of firearms was just to make slightly bigger firearms to better penetrate this stronger armor) and at short range could even pierce people. The musket could also be loaded with buckshot to inflict several casualties and thus is also useful against unarmored opponents, and this paradoxically enough means that given time constraints, for example when faced with a cavalry charge that wouldn't let even an archer let off more than a few shots before contact, a musket loaded with buckshot actually has greater rate of fire! The musket is also a notably scary weapon, due to its loud bangs and white smoke, so its absolutely great for scaring off the enemy and creating a greater loss of morale with a successful volley, an advantage that is very significant as battles were far more a matter of psychological fortitude to remain resolved when faced with the prospect of death than they were strictly physical confrontations. The musket can also be shot from a prone position and shot form a rest to improve stability while shooting, and can be carefully aimed after being loaded, therefore they are great for sniping and shooting at the enemy without exposing oneself. They are also shot in a straight trajectory which is easier than an arched trajectory. The bullets are also way faster than arrows, which means that you can't dodge them, something that native Americans had become very good at and thus greatly influenced their interest in adopting firearms. And top of all that is the good old advantage that muskets don't need highly skilled labor like the bow does, great ranges can be achieved without any lengthy training, and the best armor can be easily penetrated by the pulling of a trigger by any man. This last advantage is often understood as "it requires no training" but that is kind of taken to mean that is a more mediocre but cheaper weapon, which is not, and that's why the lengthy discussion on the characteristics and advantages of the musket is important, to understand that in the end the musket is not really significantly worse than the bow, nor really is the bow worse than the musket, they both have their advantages and disadvantages, they both bring something to the table, the bow might have way better rate of fire but the musket is just a much more powerful weapon, a skilled archer might have greater range but any person without enough strength to use a bow is better fitted with a musket anyways. If you look outside of Europe you'll find that armies kept using bows well into the 19th century because a cultural tradition of archery continued to exist and thus ensure the existence pool of proficient archers, but this did not mean that they didn't use muskets, on the contrary they used them in significant numbers and to great effect along with bows, with the latter providing short quick bursts of arrows while the former provided more methodical and punishing fire.


  • Keith Roberts, Adam Hook - Pike and Shot Tactics 1590-1660

  • Tonio Andrade - The Gunpowder Age: China, Military Innovation, and the Rise of the West in World History

  • Andrew De La Garza - The Mughal Empire at War: Babur, Akbar and the Indian Military Revolution, 1500-1605

  • Kenneth Chase - Firearms: A Global History to 1700

  • Armstrong Starkey - European and Native American Warfare 1675-1815

[–]nueoritic-parentsInteresting Inquirer 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Wow, what a nice and historically accurate way to school OP. I learned a bunch, thanks!