He(Franklin) wrote to Lieutenant General Charles Lee in February 1776, “that pikes could be introduced, and I would add bows and arrows; these were good weapons not wisely laid aside.” In this remarkable letter Franklin listed the attributes of bows and arrows:
1.Because a Man may shoot as truly with a Bow as with a Common Musket.
2.He can discharge 4 arrows in the time of charging and discharging one Bullet.
3.His object is not taken from his view by the smoke of his own side.
4.A Flight of Arrows seen coming upon them terrifies and disturbs the Enemy’s Attention to his Business.
5.An Arrow Striking in any part of a Man, puts him hors de combat ‘till ‘tis extracted.
6.Bows and Arrows are more easily provided every where than Muskets & Ammunition.
The primary factor in gun powder being selected from the Arquebus to the American Revolution was the ability of gunpowder to bypass defenses, be it personally worn Armor or Fixed Defenses. Overtime it was considered barbaric to use Pikes and Bows to make war. If you want to be a modern military, you need guns.
A gun-based army is going to create far more demand for mining, blacksmithing, and toolmaking. A king is using tax revenue to pay for the finished products (guns, ammunition, and gunpowder), but he is now taxing the economic prosperity that resulted from the shift. A sulfur mine can be taxed, whereas random dude walking around the fields collecting goose feathers and yew staves is not really a property you can tax.
See, bear in mind, initially, the firearm is; close quarters only.
It didn't replace the bows, you're still launching the arrows over the heads at stand off range, the firearm was not a long range weapon to replace the bow, it was a close range weapon to smash the enemy; point blank, like a giant massed ranks shotgun.
The firearm didn't replace the bow, it replaced the pike, it wasn't artillery, it was the phalanx.
When you get to inside fifty yards, too close for your bows now, now you got to go to the spear, except, how long is your spear? The range of the massed ranks shotgun is ten times longer, at which point; pikeman; you're screwed.
The firearm was useless for single combat, but they were not employed one on one, you fired a thousand of them all at once, by the time the next wave of pikemen got into position, you've reloaded and you fire again, and that folks, is how the firearm replaced, not the bow, but the spear.
Last edited by Smitty-48 on Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:06 am, edited 2 times in total.
Muskets require less effort and expertise to manufacture, less training and strength to wield, and can be interchangeably reproduced with the same easily made ammunition for an entire army.
Strap on a bayonet, you've got a short pike. Swing 'em from the muzzle, you've got a club.
How many bolts can one man carry? How many musket balls?
How much space does a crossbowman require to discharge and reload compared to a musketeer?
Do you folks even Thirty Years War?
"She had yellow hair and she walked funny and she made a noise like... O my God, please don't kill me! "
Wolfe defeats Montcalm at Quebec; what's the engagement range?
Lowbow range? Nope, way closer. Crossbow range? No, way closer than that too
What was the range? Inside forty yards, point blank.
Not a stand off weapon, it's a phalanx.
The firearm; was not a fire-bow, it was a fire-spear.
The longbow was the field artillery of its day, the firearm which replaced the longbow; was the cannon, but the musket wasn't artillery, the musket replaced the pike.
Last edited by Smitty-48 on Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Smitty-48 wrote:Wolfe defeats Montcalm at Quebec; what's the engagement range?
Lowbow range? Nope, way closer. Crossbow range? No, way closer than that too
What was the range? Inside forty yards, point blank.
Not a stand off weapon, it's a phalanx.
The firearm; was not a fire-bow, it was a fire-spear.
More like a fire javelin really.
The javelin wasn't employed in a phalanx, the javelin was for skirmishing, the musket was not a skirmishing weapon it didn't replace the javelin, was the longbow which rendered the javelin obselete, but you couldn't close with and destroy with longbows.
At some point, you have to close and take the ground, in a phalanx, which in the 13th century was with pikes, the firearm was the firepike, a phalanx which could close with and destroy at just beyond pike range, so the pike is the weapon which the musket replaced.
Later the rifle is used for skirmishing, but at first, everything was smoothbore, point blank, massed ranks, in a phalanx of fire-spears.
It's not a sling, it's not a javelin, it's not a bow, it's not a standoff weapon at all, it's a close quarters weapon, for the final phase of the battle, otherwise known as the assault, close with and destroy.
Last edited by Smitty-48 on Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Smitty-48 wrote:Wolfe defeats Montcalm at Quebec; what's the engagement range?
Lowbow range? Nope, way closer. Crossbow range? No, way closer than that too
What was the range? Inside forty yards, point blank.
Not a stand off weapon, it's a phalanx.
The firearm; was not a fire-bow, it was a fire-spear.
More like a fire javelin really.
The javelin wasn't employed in a phalanx, the javelin was for skirmishing, the musket was not a skirmishing weapon it didn't replace the javelin, was the longbow which rendered the javelin obselete, but you couldn't close with and destroy with longbows.
At some point, you have to close and take the ground, in a phalanx, which in the 13th century was with pikes, the firearm was the firepike, a phalanx which could close with and destroy at just beyond pike range, so the pike is the weapon which the musket replaced.
Later the rifle is used for skirmishing, but at first, everything was smoothbore, point blank, massed ranks, in a phalanx of fire-spears.
musket is a firepike (or firespear), rifle is a firebow (or firejavalin). ok gots it.
The javelin wasn't employed in a phalanx, the javelin was for skirmishing, the musket was not a skirmishing weapon it didn't replace the javelin, was the longbow which rendered the javelin obselete, but you couldn't close with and destroy with longbows.
At some point, you have to close and take the ground, in a phalanx, which in the 13th century was with pikes, the firearm was the firepike, a phalanx which could close with and destroy at just beyond pike range, so the pike is the weapon which the musket replaced.
Later the rifle is used for skirmishing, but at first, everything was smoothbore, point blank, massed ranks, in a phalanx of fire-spears.
musket is a firepike, rifle is a firebow. ok gots it.
The rifle is a firejavelin, the cannon is the firebow(s), since bows were used massed.
The heavy infantry are the phalanx, with firespears, the light infantry are the skirmishers, with firejavelins, the field artillery are behind them, with the firebows, the heavy artillery you bring up for a siege, with the firetrebuchets
There's another strategic reason why the musket ball was more effective than the arrow/bolt; the wounds were vastly more lethal.
An arrow stuck into you, that could be survived, might take you out of the battle, might not, but odds are, the surgeons of the time could save you when dealing with such a large projectile and comparitively superficial wound.
The musket ball on the other hand, extreme lethality, you could take a lot of arrows in the ranks, and you'd still have a lot of soldiers survive that, but with musketballs, the attrition was off the charts, the lethality was exponentially greater compared to arrow/bolt.
The ball would go deep and dissapear, beyond where the surgeons could reach, so the odds of survival were close to nil, if the internal bleeding didn't get you, the infection would.
With an arrow, a leg wound was prolly not going to be lethal, but all of a sudden, with the musket ball, even if they just wing you, that is now lethal, a leg wound with a musket ball; even if you're not dead, that leg's coming off, because they have no way of going in and repairing that, an arrow they can pull out and pack the wound, with the musket ball, the wound is deep inside and it bounced around in there as well, smashed the bone, severed the arteries, so they have no way to treat it.
The wound channel of the arrow/bolt is linear, predictable and large, so they can fix that, but the muskett ball makes a total mess, at which point, even if you survive the battle, you're probably dead a couple days later anyways, so strategically, vastly more lethal when it comes to war of attrition.
This is the same reason why NATO switched from 7.62x51mm to 5.56x45mm, 7.62mm tended to go straight through you, the wound was cleaner, 5.56mm is designed to go in and stay in and bounce around in there making a big old mess of it as it goes, which the surgeons on the other side are going to have much more trouble dealing with, thus, enhanced lethality, by going smaller rather than bigger; same concept with the musket ball over the arrow.
My buddy got shot with AK-47's, seven hits, and the surgeon said "lucky it was 7.62, because if it had been 5.45, he'd be dead now".
