Have bows truimph over Arquebus
- Thread starter Monk78
- Start date
Either the arquebus side's gunpowder gets wet, or else the bows outnumber the arquebusiers enormously.
Or the archers catch the arquebusiers in an ambush, or the arquebusiers are tired while the archers are fresh, or something else ruins the arquebusiers morale, or the archers have a better defensive position, or any numbers of reasons actually.
Battles are a fickle thing.
Yeah. Battles being fickle is your best bet here - or something like the bow armed side's shock cavalry destroys (routs, most likely) the arquebusiers, and then well "ideally-mounted archers, pikemen, and cavalry" vs. "pikemen and cavalry" is at the advantage.
Superior generalship probably can cover the gap in weapon capabilities one way or another.
Superior generalship probably can cover the gap in weapon capabilities one way or another.
Last edited:
Short version, yes skilled archers could beat arquebusiers in a straight-up fight. The problem is that they won't be in a straight up fight. The arquebusiers will be more effective at dealing with heavily armored pikes and cavalry than the archers which might tip the balance all on its own. More than that, even if the archers win the battle, they will most likely lose the war as skilled arquebusiers are much more easily trained than skilled archers. Attrition alone will eventually wear the archers down.
I'm not sure that's enough, honestly.
Bullets, even from a primitive gun, are more deadly than arrows due to higher kinetic energy.
The idea that skilled archers can defeat arquebusiers in anything like a fair fight seems to be a misconception. Basically everywhere where bows came into competition with arquebuses, arquebuses won out, and bow-using armies did everything they could to obtain as many guns as possible.
And FWIW, no sixteenth-century source mentions ease of training as an advantage of handguns over bows. On the contrary, they normally emphasise the need to train gunners well (since untrained gunners had a nasty habit of blowing themselves up in the stress of battle). Granted I'm not sure if this was because bows were easier to learn or if it was just assumed that most peasants would learn archery anyway for the sake of hunting, but it's still worth pointing out.
https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1088&context=ghj This seems interesting there as far as it not necessarily being a matter (IRl) of "bows or guns" as opposed to "bows suit some situations better than guns (and vice-versa)". 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.
Last edited:
Happend as late as the English Civil War Mid 17th Century. Irish Gallowglass mercenaries also carried bows during the 30 year war.Otherwise of cause in Feudal Japan and any war theater involving Ottomans or Tatars. Eastern European forces also used bows partly until 18th Century. The Russian ethnic Bashkir cavalry attacked French forces with horse archery in Western Europe in the 19th Century.
Both those environments have a lot of cover, which would suit gunners far more than it would bowmen.
Well I mean, what even is a fair fight when you have forces with different levels of equipment? Have a group of similarly trained and rested men with bows and another group with guns gather in a flat field and that is decidedly not a fair fight.
Is it such an advantage? The gunners can pop out from behind cover and immediately fire their weapon. The Archer has to keep the string taut and he can only do that for so long.
Last edited:
I mean, you don't need to train to use an arquebus from childhood to get good at it.
The early arquebus was short-ranged, inaccurate, cumbersome & slow to load however it did not require years to become proficient with it.
A competent archery equipped force would probably massacre an equivalent number of arquebusiers, but they are a wasting asset & another force of arquebusiers could be raised in a few weeks, provided the weapons were available, while more competent archers would take months if not years to train.
Which means over the longer term more arquebusiers would be trained and archery training would fall by the wayside. It did seem that once gunpowder weapons became more common the use of bows as a weapon of war seemed to disappear. There may have been places where bows remained either for cultural reasons or practical ones such as the ability to reload on horseback but they are probably the exception. And at least in European warfare do not appear to be significant.
A competent archery equipped force would probably massacre an equivalent number of arquebusiers, but they are a wasting asset & another force of arquebusiers could be raised in a few weeks, provided the weapons were available, while more competent archers would take months if not years to train.
Which means over the longer term more arquebusiers would be trained and archery training would fall by the wayside. It did seem that once gunpowder weapons became more common the use of bows as a weapon of war seemed to disappear. There may have been places where bows remained either for cultural reasons or practical ones such as the ability to reload on horseback but they are probably the exception. And at least in European warfare do not appear to be significant.
This is a common talking point…but it never happened. It’s pure supposition, and indeed is at odds with the reality of how armies switched over as soon as they could.