bow VS musket

[jiao]

You've also got to remember that weapons like the longbow were highly dependant on outside sources for the wood - Spanish or Italian yew, and from other countries, imported to England for the purpose of bowmaking. The Anglo-Spanish war of the late 14th century was partly due to prices of yew. A gun, on the other hand, can be made using native timbers, iron, flint, and so on. It minimises cost, and dependance on foreign resources. I suppose the same could be said of the crossbow, but again, the construction problem is probably the issue at the heart of the matter


WHY THEY ARE NOT USE OTHER WOOD FOR MAKE A BOW？

[jack farrell]

Europeans used Yew because they did not know about Osage. -j-

[Thomas Duvernay]

It was quite an issue in the Imjinwaeran, the "Hideyoshi Invasion" of Korea, by Japan, back in 1592-1598. Korean archers up until then used a distant, un-aimed shot, frequently using half-sized arrows launched from a bamboo overdraw. The problem being, Japanese armor was an improvement over what Koreans were used to and the matchlock musketeers the Japanese had could take shots from behind cover, whereas the Korean archer had to be in an exposed position, most of the time, when taking a shot. Another problem was an arrow shortage; Koreans adjusted for it by training for closer and closer shots--finally, only point-blank shots were allowed, with one arrow theoretically equalling one kill.


T

[Romain]

Europeans used Yew because they did not know about Osage. -j-

The problem is that when we European finally found out about osage, we had already made the switch to muskets

[jack farrell]

I was trying to get a conversation about the merits of Osage over Yew. I do agree that there is small comparison.

The nomads of the new World were quite capable of pitting bow against musket for centuries more, mostly by adapting strategy/tactics to their weapons.

Most think that the Colt won the west, but by sheer numbers, it would be more accurate to state that Smallpox won the fight. Some native tribes suffered 100% losses. -j-

[Murat ?zveri]

The early firearms were heavier, slower and dirtier (the last one has been once a concern for Janissary) than bow n arrow. The soldiers were not familiar with the musket's mechanical parts that sometimes broke or got lost. In these early stages the technical support for repair and maintenance in the armies were not well organised neither. Failure in transfering the flame to the gunpowder was common. Because the barrel was not rifled the accuracy was insufficient. After the invention of the flintlock the firing failures were reduced and with the invention of faster percussion lock (and with developing metalurgical techniques) rifled barrels have been possible. They increased the accuracy and effective range remarkably. Some interesting innovations about projectiles have been made too. Although still muzzle loaded, bullets (round nose) with smaller diameters and parachute-like bottoms made it easy and faster to load the long, rifled barrels.

As mentioned, the main reason must have been the time needed to educate an archer vs. a musketeer. The same happened when the longbow was first replaced by the crossbow. I think the armies have turned to citizen-armies from professional warriors too. It may be another reason for introducing easy-to-learn weapons.

Ottoman army was one of the first that introduced firearms in the second half of 16th century. It's documented that the Janissaries did not like these new weapons because of the reasons mentioned above. But muskets did gain dominance very fast. But let me tell you that the Solak group -the elite bodyguards of Sultan- armed with the Ottoman composite bow did not leave their weapons until the first quarter of 18th century.

Additionally, armies changed not only their soldiers but also their fighting styles. Systematic and alternately gun shooting in groups resulted an amazing fire power. In mediaval Europe (in Ottomans till 18th century) the power of the armies was based on the personal fighting skills and motivations of individual professional warriors. Starting (if I'm not wrong) with English yeomans, citizen armies that were moving as one single unit began to dictate new fighting startegies. And firearms were probably more suitable in such strategies, even in their underdeveloped phases.

[West]

Jiao, they did use other woods for bows. But the only types of bows that medieval western Europeans knew how to make and use, viz, longbows, required the highest quality wood known at the time, that being yew. Ash, elm and other woods were used, and had to be used by law, to minimise reliance on imported yew, but the reliance remained anyway.
In any case, I agree primarily with Murat.

[Russ Mitchell]

And even though the yeniceri hated the muskets, they were VERY effective with them.

[Diana]

One point-
The long bow require constant practice to keep up condition so the Archers had to keep the weapons at home.
Which made it rather easy to gather large bodies of armed and dangerous men very quickly.
The destructive Wars of the Roses no doubt tended to make leaders wary of an armed populace.
Muskets require far less training and zero conditioning.
So they can be stored in far more easily controlled armouries.