Have bows truimph over Arquebus

Elfwine

Which European (counting the Ottomans with Asia for this statement) armies made a point of relying on archery extensively pre-arquebus besides England?

Building up an archery tradition from scratch (or maintaining one when arquebuses are effective at what they do) sounds like it would be harder than six months to a year of firearms training or hiring mercenaries who have chosen guns because of their advantages working for them. But neither of those is "years" vs. "weeks".
 

vizzer

The battle of Campomorto in 1482 was a victory for the crossbow armed Papal troops over the firearm equipped Neapolitans mainly due to the heavy rain during which it was fought.
 
wcv215

wcv215

vizzer said:
The battle of Campomorto in 1482 was a victory for the crossbow armed Papal troops over the firearm equipped Neapolitans mainly due to the heavy rain during which it was fought.
Click to expand...
While true, do note this was a force armed with crossbows, not a bow and arrow.
 

Richard V

In the context of conventional warfare arquebuses were far superior as they could penetrate most armor. Arrows are easily stopped by most armor, by shields and portable mantlets. The lethality of armor penetrating arrow heads like bodkin points were also inferior. However in
later age when armor had disappeared from the battlefield, the bow and arrow with broad hunting arrowheads can be a formidable weapon. Most of the Indians at Little Big Horn were still using the bow and arrow. The biggest victory the Indians ever achieved was the Battle of a Thousand Slain, where 88% of the entire US Army officer corp became casualties. Both sides had muskets but the Indians used bows as backup weapons since they had little powder. The weapons didn’t matter so much in that battle as it was a large scale night raid..
 
Sarthak

Sarthak

In the context of Asia during the Battle of Makwanpur during the Anglo-Nepalese War, the Nepalese 4th Sher Regiment routed two British regiments carrying muskets with only the bow and arrow. Though like a few posters said it was a fickle battle. The Sher regiment had ambushed the British when they routed them.
 
9 Fanged Hummingbird

9 Fanged Hummingbird

Richard V said:
In the context of conventional warfare arquebuses were far superior as they could penetrate most armor. Arrows are easily stopped by most armor, by shields and portable mantlets. The lethality of armor penetrating arrow heads like bodkin points were also inferior. However in
later age when armor had disappeared from the battlefield, the bow and arrow with broad hunting arrowheads can be a formidable weapon. Most of the Indians at Little Big Horn were still using the bow and arrow. The biggest victory the Indians ever achieved was the Battle of a Thousand Slain, where 88% of the entire US Army officer corp became casualties. Both sides had muskets but the Indians used bows as backup weapons since they had little powder. The weapons didn’t matter so much in that battle as it was a large scale night raid..
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if most at the Little Bighorn had bows, while at least 1/10 had repeaters many of the rest would've had older trade muskets. In any case, the Indians had more firearms than Custer's detachment and repeaters played a much bigger role in the victory than bows did, what with being used by the more veteran warriors and providing critical weight of fire against the cavalry. And I've never heard anything about bows playing any major role at the Wabash. Firearms were the preferred weapon of the natives as soon as they could start acquiring them in large numbers.
 

AlanL

Elfwine said:
All eyes and ears if someone has a better discussion of the topic, but it seems like emphasizing that you need to train gunners well doesn't automatically mean that it takes as long to train gunners effectively.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. The thing about archery is that it's not just learning the technical skills - the musculoskeletal development needed to pull a heavy warbow takes years and is best started in adolescence. Archers' skeletons are archaeologically obvious.
 

Diego

I think that the best scenario for bows would be one of ambush, in a place with high humidity, with great numerical advantage, against unarmored enemies. I believe that some portuguese and Spanish expeditions met their respective ends in this kind of situation.
 
Sarthak

Sarthak

Bhutanese arrowmen were extremely effective in hit and ambush attacks during the Anglo-Bhutanese War in the 1860s apparently too
 

Jan Olbracht

My answer is: yes


That is question of numerical superiority, more competent leadership, better use/knowledge of terrain etc.

Before all: spears defeated Martini-Henry rifles at Isandlwana.
 

Elfwine

Probably about the same odds as without. Early field artillery might scare the horses, but if your pikemen aren't enough to deal with them then I wouldn't bet on your artillery being adequate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top