Against someone in a full plate of armor, the musket was superior to the smaller hand canon and the longbow. Also, there is no need to worry about losing strength during battle and weakening fire. A musketman was not defenseless in melee like an archer (actually, English archers usually brought along spikes, but presumable there is some advantage in not needing a separate ranged and melee weapon)
However in the 1600s, there were disadvantages a msuketman might have had over the 1300s longbowman. The rate of fire of the latter could easily be triple. A longbowman actually had slightly longer effective range. Arrows can slightly arc over low obstacles. They can attack silently. And until the flintlock, both bows and muskets sucked in the rain.
I don't know about everyone else, but according to TvTropes (an evil site where you visit and waste your time clicking links and reading) the English started preferring the musket due to... being able to train a user in a few weeks and that musketman could carry into battle 3 musketballs and the requisite powder for the shots for every arrow an archer could bring into battle. Well, that sounds like a dumb reason. If those were the reasons and not battle fatigue that the commanders were worried about, why not have bowmen for most of the army and use muskets for specialized units? It seems silly that the English gave up the longbow not for a tactical reason but for training and ammunition purposes. Of course, come reliable flintlocks and muskets get better, but the Europeans grabbed the musket before the matchlock.
However in the 1600s, there were disadvantages a msuketman might have had over the 1300s longbowman. The rate of fire of the latter could easily be triple. A longbowman actually had slightly longer effective range. Arrows can slightly arc over low obstacles. They can attack silently. And until the flintlock, both bows and muskets sucked in the rain.
I don't know about everyone else, but according to TvTropes (an evil site where you visit and waste your time clicking links and reading) the English started preferring the musket due to... being able to train a user in a few weeks and that musketman could carry into battle 3 musketballs and the requisite powder for the shots for every arrow an archer could bring into battle. Well, that sounds like a dumb reason. If those were the reasons and not battle fatigue that the commanders were worried about, why not have bowmen for most of the army and use muskets for specialized units? It seems silly that the English gave up the longbow not for a tactical reason but for training and ammunition purposes. Of course, come reliable flintlocks and muskets get better, but the Europeans grabbed the musket before the matchlock.