OK Tellner, let's do the math. 1000 musketeers v. 1000 archers.
Say this was a battle >1630s after introduction of volley-fire tactics & flint (snaphance) muskets:
Musketeers fought in ranks of 5-10 (let's say 5 ranks of 200 men each) with 2ranks able to fire each volley 2X200 = 400 musketballs per volley. Firing by introduction or reduction, all ranks would be able to fire in about 1 minute (only very highly trained soldiers, say the Swedes). Total musketballs first minute = 1000. Each musketeer typically carried 13 measured rounds of ball+ammo on his bandolier. So maximum available firepower per battle = 13,000 musketballs.
Archers fought in ranks of 5-10 and every rank would fire using overhead fire. Asiatic archers carried up to 4 quivers into battle of ~20 arrows per quiver. Each volley =1000 arrows. Rate of fire using unaimed overhead fire ~ 10-20/minute. Total loosed arrows in one minute ~10,000-20,000. Total arrows launched per battle: 20-40,000 arrows.
Lead musketballs were more debilitating & could penetrate ranks, but sheer numbers of arrows would make a difference.
As for accuracy, aimed bowfire was by far more accurate than smoothbore muskets of the 1500-1850's. In terms of range, Imperial battle bows of China had draws of over 220lbs. The farthest recorded travel distance of composite bow arrows were over 800-yards in Turkey.
This is why Asiatic armies were late to adopt firearms.
The real advantage of muskets v. archers is that a good archer took a lifetime to create & maintain. They had to be trained from childhood, and any stoppage would destroy a lifetimes worth of training. During a campaign, the efficiency of archers would drop drastically due to tiredness, sickness, bad food, etc. Bows were also expensive.
Musketeers were cheap, draft any peasant, drill him for 2 weeks and he had rudimentary musketry skills for life. His skills could actually improve over the course of a campaign. Besides, muskets were cheap to manufacture.
It was a matter of economics that firearms superceded bowcraft.
Say this was a battle >1630s after introduction of volley-fire tactics & flint (snaphance) muskets:
Musketeers fought in ranks of 5-10 (let's say 5 ranks of 200 men each) with 2ranks able to fire each volley 2X200 = 400 musketballs per volley. Firing by introduction or reduction, all ranks would be able to fire in about 1 minute (only very highly trained soldiers, say the Swedes). Total musketballs first minute = 1000. Each musketeer typically carried 13 measured rounds of ball+ammo on his bandolier. So maximum available firepower per battle = 13,000 musketballs.
Archers fought in ranks of 5-10 and every rank would fire using overhead fire. Asiatic archers carried up to 4 quivers into battle of ~20 arrows per quiver. Each volley =1000 arrows. Rate of fire using unaimed overhead fire ~ 10-20/minute. Total loosed arrows in one minute ~10,000-20,000. Total arrows launched per battle: 20-40,000 arrows.
Lead musketballs were more debilitating & could penetrate ranks, but sheer numbers of arrows would make a difference.
As for accuracy, aimed bowfire was by far more accurate than smoothbore muskets of the 1500-1850's. In terms of range, Imperial battle bows of China had draws of over 220lbs. The farthest recorded travel distance of composite bow arrows were over 800-yards in Turkey.
This is why Asiatic armies were late to adopt firearms.
The real advantage of muskets v. archers is that a good archer took a lifetime to create & maintain. They had to be trained from childhood, and any stoppage would destroy a lifetimes worth of training. During a campaign, the efficiency of archers would drop drastically due to tiredness, sickness, bad food, etc. Bows were also expensive.
Musketeers were cheap, draft any peasant, drill him for 2 weeks and he had rudimentary musketry skills for life. His skills could actually improve over the course of a campaign. Besides, muskets were cheap to manufacture.
It was a matter of economics that firearms superceded bowcraft.
. Here is a wiki with some info about Korea 