Peaceful Gunpowder
- Thread starter VT45
- Start date
this is higly unlikely, anithing that can hurt living things even by acidet will eventualy be used as a weapon
but hipotetically, bows and crossbows would evolve to higly sofisticated powerfull weapons, terrible when used in mass formations, and ewen more terrible in the heawy forms, such as the heawy siedge crossbow, or the 10/15 kilo crossbows used to fend of atacks on forts
bows and crossbows had the advantage ower firearms of any kind in that they were easy to produce, easy to use, were already established as a norm, and, in the first seweral centuries of gunpowder use, were much more acurate than arkebuses, kuburas or muskets, wich would direct hit about once in 25 shots, but had the advantage of superiour firepower
still, seeing as a english long bow had a afective range at least a dosen meters superior to most muskets, in fact it is estimated that a long bow or a crossbow are relatively acurate, ewen in untrained hands, up to 70meters, and if shot by a trained soldier a long bow is relatively acurate at ower 100 meters, as oposed to a musket wich cant hit an elefant at ower 60 meters
the rate of fire of muskets was wery low, around 3-5 shots a minute as oposed to a bow that could shoot ower 10 arrows a minute, or equal to a crosbow at around 3-5 shots a minute
what would develop would probbably be similar to mass crosbowmen formations used in china, in europe crossbows would evolve into models that emfasised power and speed, with rates of fire increasing as more sofisticated crank mechanisms are developed
by the 16th century its probbable composite and compound bows would be in wide use, especially with the development of metalurgy, bows would become ewer more deadly, as there is olnly so much armour a person can carry, and an eficient, well designed compound long bow, fiering steel tiped arrows can pierce most metal armour
also gass or compresed air weapons would be widely used
but hipotetically, bows and crossbows would evolve to higly sofisticated powerfull weapons, terrible when used in mass formations, and ewen more terrible in the heawy forms, such as the heawy siedge crossbow, or the 10/15 kilo crossbows used to fend of atacks on forts
bows and crossbows had the advantage ower firearms of any kind in that they were easy to produce, easy to use, were already established as a norm, and, in the first seweral centuries of gunpowder use, were much more acurate than arkebuses, kuburas or muskets, wich would direct hit about once in 25 shots, but had the advantage of superiour firepower
still, seeing as a english long bow had a afective range at least a dosen meters superior to most muskets, in fact it is estimated that a long bow or a crossbow are relatively acurate, ewen in untrained hands, up to 70meters, and if shot by a trained soldier a long bow is relatively acurate at ower 100 meters, as oposed to a musket wich cant hit an elefant at ower 60 meters
the rate of fire of muskets was wery low, around 3-5 shots a minute as oposed to a bow that could shoot ower 10 arrows a minute, or equal to a crosbow at around 3-5 shots a minute
what would develop would probbably be similar to mass crosbowmen formations used in china, in europe crossbows would evolve into models that emfasised power and speed, with rates of fire increasing as more sofisticated crank mechanisms are developed
by the 16th century its probbable composite and compound bows would be in wide use, especially with the development of metalurgy, bows would become ewer more deadly, as there is olnly so much armour a person can carry, and an eficient, well designed compound long bow, fiering steel tiped arrows can pierce most metal armour
also gass or compresed air weapons would be widely used