Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

76

Yes, a trained archer can probably put more effective shots on an unarmored target than a trained musketman of the 18th century. The problem is that word trained. Consider that most nations in the 18th century did not have a standing army. Men were called up, served their time, and left. That means you either need to use skills they already have (in WWII ...


17

They got their weapons from the Hôtel national des Invalides, which were stormed by a Parisian mob earlier the same day. Much of the armaments previously stored there had been removed just two days earlier, but the revolutionaries still managed to acquire ~28,000-32,000 (sources vary) muskets hidden in the cellars and the church. They also found several ...


8

One often missed factor is that arrows are delicate and require skilled fletchers to make them. The English invasion of France under Edward IV in 1475 required two years lead time producing enough arrows to supply his troops on campaign. Also the logistics of transporting arrows is problematic. A sheaf of 24 arrows takes up considerably more space than a ...


7

There have already been some good explanations, regarding relative ease of use for muskets, as well as less training required to use, but I have not seen two constants of campaigning considered: Rain and Disease. Gunpowder and bowstrings both need to be kept dry. On a bow this was possible by unstringing it, and tucking the string somewhere relatively dry. ...


5

One of the answers is the effect of Muskets and bayonets on Cavalry. An crossbowman needs someone else with a pole arm to protect him from cavalry. Formed infantry with muskets and bayonets can defend themselves from cavalry charges. Together with the Musket's higher rate of fire and greater stopping power at shortish ranges that tips the balance well in ...


5

Before making statements about the US Constitution, I suggest reading it. The original Constitution said nothing about who does or who does not have the right to vote. Voting standards during the colonial and immediate post-colonial period were the same as those in Britain, which operated on a simple principle: whoever paid taxes was entitled to a single ...


5

There's a lot of very good answers already; but I'd like to add on to what @Schwern has said from a Japanese perspective. When the musket was introduced in Japan in the 16th century, it quickly overtook archery in terms of importance. This is despite the fact that archery remained (and remains) a culturally important and valued skill among the samurai. ...


4

There is two questions here, since "political elite" did not (and does not) equate to membership in congress. In terms of the physical overlap of the two Congresses, let's examine the composition of the First United States Congress. In the Senate, only four senators out of 25 (+3 replacements), or 16% (14.3% counting replacements) had not previously served ...


4

Schwern had a lot of very good points, but there are other factors as well. siege warfare. Most of the battles in 17th and 18th century were sieges, where at least one side was fortified. Bows and crossbows have to be aimed relatively high to shoot at longer ranges. This means both that it's easier to protect against them with a simple wooden roof, and ...


3

Logically, if armor made archery obsolete, then why would you bring back archery knowing that it can just be countered again with armor? Moreover, that arrows could be stopped by armor while bullets couldn't pretty strongly argues archery was essentially uncompetitive with guns. What others said about archers training makes sense too, I'm just saying the ...


3

An important aspect that seems to be neglected in many of the answers here is that while technical aspects cannot be completely dismissed, they are secondary to other concerns. To be specific, the primary weapon of heavy cavalry is its momentum, while heavy infantry (among which musketeers from 18th century onward are counted) relies on its discipline in ...


3

While there are various differences between the tactical properties of bows, crossbows, and 18th Century firearms, I would say that they were not clear enough that anyone contemplated training large units of archers as a military alternative. However, I think that your thinking that there were certain advantages of archery at some point is theoretically ...


2

"What gave soldiers with bayonets (and muskets) their effectiveness?" I'd say the main reason they were more effective against circa-18th Century cavalry, than typical pole-armed footmen were against mounted knights, was the lighter armor of the cavalry, and the attitudes and training of the time. Medieval knights were a dedicated warrior class with heavy ...


2

For a case study reference, this may be relevant. This is from Battle of Waterloo, when Ney assaulted Wellington's centre in the French cavalary charge ""Initially Milhaud's reserve cavalry corps of cuirassiers and Lefebvre-Desnoëttes' light cavalry division of the Imperial Guard, some 4,800 sabres, were committed. When these were repulsed, Kellermann's ...


1

There was one man who carried a longbow into battle in World War II. Jack Churchill once shot an enemy German soldier with his longbow. He was also known to carry a Scottish broadsword into battle. Have a read of the Wikipedia article.


1

Short answer: The bayonet wasn't really a "secondary" weapon, even though it "followed" the musket. A musket with a bayonet was approximately the same length and weight as a spear, and could function in that capacity. Except that these "spears" could also shoot. Bayonets gave musketeers a decisive advantage on open ground over other users of missile weapons ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible