The Chinese had bowmen auxiliaries through the end of the 19th century; the government only abolished archery from the military exam syllabus in 1901. In Europe, archers seemed to vanish surprisingly quickly following the adoption of gunpowder arms, as opposed to being used in conjunction. What if archers were kept trained and ready in smaller units through the Napoleonic Wars?
WI European powers in the age of Napoleon kept archers in an axillary usage?
- Thread starter Mitchell Hundred
- Start date
Training a competent bowman takes years and constant practice, while training someone to use a musket is much easier.
It could make more sense to use crossbows in place of pre-breechloading rifles. They need less training than a longbow, have higher rate of fire than a musket and a range not too diffrrent from a muzzle loaded rifle - and reloading should be possible kneeling. With no smoke or muzzle flash and much quieter, they are better than rifles from cover and for ambushes. However, the need for specialist ammunition is a limitation.
That is true but as I mentioned the chinese did not drop training bowman until the 20th century, so they evidently saw some use for them in the gun powder age.
The armies who still use them tend to perform less well and the practice gets abolished.
The Chinese still fought in a very different way throughout the 19th century, failing to latch on the lessons of modernity, and correspondingly tended to get the worse outcomes.
Archery was considered one of the Six Arts, essential to the cultivation of a proper individual. Since a government was supposed to consist entirely of proper individuals, training in archery was thus highly valued.
It should also be noted that by the 19th century, China's military was incredibly backwards, corrupt, and incapable.
But less range, which made them not so desirable.
Fair enough. Archery is still practiced for its historical value, for sport or for spiritual discipline in various countries around the world
As for crossbows, a good one should be better than a musket for accuracy, range and rate of fire, closer to a typical Napoleonic era rifle, but maybe not quite level with a Baker.
But if you have a powder supply and lead, you can cast bullets and shoot, whereas making quarrels in the field is not going to happen.
Did happen in OTL. The Bashkir regiments took part in the napoleonic wars: 7,000 in 1806-07 and approximately 10 - 15,000 in 1812 - 14.
If you look at the firearms of the 19th century Qing army, you mainly see matchlocks without paper cartridge or socket bayonet. Basically the equivalent to the European early 17th century. Which is as it happens is the tail end of combat archers in Europe. The last battle with archers in Europe was iirc in the English civil war. Of course by that time archers were mainly used in place of light artillery, a field were early 19th century Qing China actually had some modern pieces, but underdeveloped doctrine and training. Even so the Qing were increasing the share of gunpowder weapons
That indicates to me that the 19th century Qing themselves were technologically right at the tipping point where the advantages of the firearms (ease of training, density of formations, ease of logistics, robustness, flexibility, sustained firepower) heavily start to outweigh the advantages of bows (indirect fire, somewhat reusable ammo, range and rof under good conditions). Of course European armies of the 19th century were well past that point
That indicates to me that the 19th century Qing themselves were technologically right at the tipping point where the advantages of the firearms (ease of training, density of formations, ease of logistics, robustness, flexibility, sustained firepower) heavily start to outweigh the advantages of bows (indirect fire, somewhat reusable ammo, range and rof under good conditions). Of course European armies of the 19th century were well past that point
Effective range and rate of fire - a good archer could hit the target at a similar range to something like a Baker rifle, and do so at a rate that wasn't matched until breech-loading was introduced. The issue, as noted above, was that it took about decade, starting from childhood, to produce a good archer.
Not so far past that adding a few thousand bowmen to the orbat wouldn't have been a significant improvement - Wellington asked for them. only to be told there weren't any.
I'm dubious about the "years of training" meme -- actual contemporary accounts from the 16th century don't give ease of training as an advantage of gunners, although it seems like something they'd have mentioned, if it were true. For the rest, the musket is more dangerous and generally capable of shooting further. In other words, there's not really any advantage of training bowmen over musketeers, certainly not by the Napoleonic era when musketry drill and tactics were well-developed.
There’s a lot of military historical narratives that go like “X wasn’t defeated because Y was more effective, you could simply field more of Y than X and thus overwhelm them with numbers”. English longbows vs muskets, Caroleoan Sweden against Russia, Germany in WW2 against the Soviets, etc. They probably come about because it’s easier to accept a defeat that stems from your side being too small and elite, rather than simply being outclassed, evoking the image of a defiant Spartan at Thermopylae or whatever. That’s just my two cents anyway.
iddt3
Donor
Previous thread on the subject https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ow had to be,much less training time involved.
But yeah, there are a number of reasons, but bows and crossbows were almost entirely replaced by matchlocks, and in a pretty short time too. It wasn't just easier training, matchlocks had better effective range, better lethality, better armor piercing, more shock value... Outside of certain small niches, they were just better. And everytime they show up in a new area, they rapidly outcompete bows and crossbows.
So by the time you get to Napoleonic tactics and flintlocks, bows are positively archaic.
But yeah, there are a number of reasons, but bows and crossbows were almost entirely replaced by matchlocks, and in a pretty short time too. It wasn't just easier training, matchlocks had better effective range, better lethality, better armor piercing, more shock value... Outside of certain small niches, they were just better. And everytime they show up in a new area, they rapidly outcompete bows and crossbows.
So by the time you get to Napoleonic tactics and flintlocks, bows are positively archaic.
That’s not true. The musket has a higher effective range than either a longbow or crossbow. A musketeer was expected to put out five shots in the time it took an archer to fire eight, so not much less than an archer. And a musketeer put a LOT less effort in doing so. Muskets also are MORE accurate, and retain more power at range.
Crossbows meanwhile are a TERRIBLE idea. You want to see a weapon that tales for-fucking-ever to fire look at the crossbow.
The bottom line is bows weren’t used because bows were far LESS effective than guns.
The French even faced bow armed soldiers during this time period in the form of Russian cossacks. They were dismissively called cupids.
BlackDragon98
Banned
The only uses I can see for crossbows (bows are completely obsolete and outmatched in every metric) is as some sort of silent tripwire trap.
Crossbows can also be used for assassinations with poisoned bolts.
But outside of that, they're useless.
BlackDragon98
Banned
Yet the Cossacks took a high toll on Napolean's Grand Armee as they retreated through Russia.
And it must have been a few isolated incidences, as "War and Peace" by Leo Tolstoy does not mention Cossacks armed with bows.
French soldiers may well erroneously have categorized all Russian nomadic allies, Kalmyks, Bashkirs etc, that may have been more likely to use bows, as “Cossacks.”
I mean, there are absolutely instances where one side won due to superior numbers ("Quantity has a quality all of its own," as Stalin is supposed to have said). With bows vs. muskets, though, we see musket-armed armies regularly beating equal or larger bow-armed armies, which is the reverse of what we'd expect if bows were better and only fell out of favour due to ease of training with them.
The Russians had some during the Leipzig campaign in Germany. You can find a first-hand description of them here.
The use of bows is talked about in The Exploits of Baron Marbot. As another poster noted, Cossacks were only one group. There were other nomadic groups from much further east, and how distinctive these were to the French is questionable.
One pertinent passage:
“the barbarians surrounded our squadrons with loud shouts, letting off thousands of arrows. The loss these caused was slight, for the Bashkirs are totally undrilled and have no more notion of any forma- tion than a flock of sheep. Thus they cannot shoot horizon- tally in front of them without hitting their own comrades, and are obliged to fire their arrows parabolically into the air,, with more or less elevation according to the distance at which they judge the enemy to be. As this method does not allow of accurate aiming, nine-tenths of the arrows are lost, while the few that hit are pretty well spent, and only fall with the force of their own weight, which is inconsiderable ; so that the wounds they cause are usuaUy trifling. As they have no other weapons, they are certainly the least dangerous troops in the world.”
He also at one point is injured by an arrow and doesn’t even notice.
They were apparently more dangerous on the long retreat from Moscow but…yeah, the army was already in terrible shape. Lots of things would be more dangerous.