Bows vs. Muskets

[CWL]

Gents and ladies,

We are talking about a period which spans roughly 200 years (1380-1580) in which firearms were introduced, competed with and then superceded bows/crossbows.

In the late 1300's firearms were in early form of handgonnes and hackbutts. These were crude, inaccurate and fired by dipping a hot wire into the touchhole.

1400-1450s introduced matches to firearms, where gunners used slow-burningmatches (twisted cord dipped in saltpeter) to ignite the touchhole of handguns. Best application of firearms was in static defense (siege)applications -or by the Hussites of Bohemia who would mount handgunners on wagons to fight armored knights.

Late 1480s-1530s introduction of arquebus (precursor to musket) & serpentine matchlock. First practical integrated firearm. French invasion of Italy and the beginning of the Valois/Hapsburg wars. Slow dominance of firearm over bows and crossbows. Massed pike & shot formation introduced. Decline & dissapearance of bows & crossbows during this period from the Continent (England keeps longbows until 1620s). Crossbows reserved for hunting purposes only. Bowcraft dissapears west of Hungary/Balkans.

1580-1630s. Religous wars, Dutch wars and 30-Years war. Destroyed much of Germany (cannibalism), France and Spanish Netherlands. Introduction of muskets, wheelocks, doglocks and flintlocks. Wars become so devastating that technology goes backwards and rough matchlocks are only weapons available. Scots mercenaries only remaining users of bows in Europe.

After 1650-1680's introduction of bayonet & national armies. Rise of professional armies. No archery weapons anywhere on continent.

-these were a rough 200 years, and firearms were rough and ready. 'gonnes' were sold as 30-pace weapons or 50-pace weapons and by no means accurate. They were cheap and easy to manufacture since accuracy was not the issue -especially since technology went backwards during much of this time. Also, since nations didn't really exist during this period, there were few national armories. Possibly one in France, one in Austria and several in Turkey.

Japan had armed itself with firearms since the 1540s when introduced by the Portuguese. By 1600, Japan had more firearms than all of Europe combined (spend $10 on Amazon and read "Giving up the Gun, by Noel Perrin). These 'tanegashimas/teppos' were made along European designs and derisively referred to as "noodle guns" by their users since the barrels were notoriously weak and inccurate. This did not prevent their application in in massed battles in Japan as well as Korea. Cheap as they were, they dethroned the Japanese longbow and allowed the unification of that country.

 

[Oleg Volk]

by the Hussites of Bohemia who would mount handgunners on wagons to fight armored knights.

First drive-by shootings?

 

[Mike Irwin]

I'm not even certian that American cultures were as advanced as the bronze age, Agricola. Elemental metals would be a better description of those cultures that were working metals other than gold or silver.

But I think the biggest reason why the Americas didn't develop advanced weapons and warfare is pretty simple -- location location location, otherwise known as isolation isolation isolation.

The Euroasian and even African landmasses have few natural barriers of any truly great difficulty. The Americas are, however, largely isolated by oceans. Crossing was possible, but generally extremely difficult, and the crossings that were made were in very small and isolated numbers, which tended to make an impact only locally.

In Euro-Asia, however, developments and ideas could spread relatively freely as the result of trade or conquest.

"How many 1000's of years would you have to go back to find an equal to the American Indian culture of 1800 AD?"

In Europe and Northern Africa, probably about 5,000 years or a little more, or around the time of "The Ice Man."

In Asia, probably closer to 6,000 to 7,000 years, and even then Chinese culture was coalescing at a frightening rate.


Sunray,

A large part of Pershing's obstinacy was due to the French and British wanting to break up the American army and us it in a "hole plugging" method. Pershing adamantly refused to allow this.


Cosmoline,

The use of iron in the North Western US and Canada can be attributed largely to one thing -- iron development in Siberia. The Bearing Straits are the one spot where regular trade between North American and Asia is routinely possible.

Trade is, however, a much slower way of introducing a new cultural development into a society, as you get the implements, but not the knowhow needed to make those implements. Conquest, on the other hand, is much quicker.

 

[Harold Mayo]

"...high rate of fire would frighten the Allied troops..." Nonsense.

Not nonsense. There were Army training films that explained it to trainees and exercises that demonstrated it. Proven, irrefutable fact.

 

[agricola]

CWL,

Cheap as they were, they dethroned the Japanese longbow and allowed the unification of that country.

I'd disagree with this point. At Nagashino the bow found itself in (an admittedly) a support role to the teppo-ashigaru, but the role was vital to cover the reloading time, along with spearmen. At that time the dominant force in Japanese warfare was the cavalryman, and Nagashino represents the overthrow of the mounted man by the firearm-wielding soldier. That said, prior to the invasion of Korea, one would be able to argue with some confidence that, in terms of military strength on land, Japan was the most powerful state in the world.

Mike,

By "Bronze Age" one meant an overall level of cultural development - the Mexica and Inca score points for their architecture, development of a proto-written language, city development and supply, trading systems, the development and idea of tribute and relationship to the state and so on, as well as artistic achievements.

In addition to isolation from the rest of the world, I'd also add isolation from the native peoples themselves and the general availabilty of land. There has in the Old World never been enough land or resources and so people have always fought over them, which accelerated development of arms, tactics, and the social structures necessary to support the state in gaining and defending land and resources. Aside from one or two examples, this is absent in the Americas - I (admittedly my reading isnt the best on the area) can only think of the Tlaxcala and the Tarascans.

 

[telewinz]

One of the german weapons that US troops were terrified of (and rightly so IMHO) was the MG42 with its very high rate of fire (1500 rpm?). A US WW2 training film WAS made and shown to the troops to ease this fear. The film goes on to state "it's bark (the MG42's) is worse than its bite".

The North America continent offers all the raw materials that a stone age civilization would require to progress as quickly as any other land mass, but it can't supply motivation. This land of abundance was also a curse for Native Americans, they refused to make life better for themselves and their children, why bother when the next meal is just an hour's hunt away. And if hunting is poor, make war against the next tribe and pick up a few slaves and captives for entertainment.

 

[CWL]

Hey Agricola,

At Nagashino, the arquebusiers were arrayed behind bamboo palisades for protection. Longbowmen and spearmen were very secondary.

What it meant to every feudal lord in Japan was that, cheap peasant-based (ashigaru) armies of arquebusiers could and would defeat expensive well-trained and disciplined forces of samurai. Cavalry or longbowmen aside, the training & expenses put into professional troops meant nothing compared to inexpensive shooters.

The Shingen army stood in the way of reunification for decades, Nobunaga removed this bother in one day with one application of firearms.

in terms of military strength on land, Japan was the most powerful state in the world.

I'd have to qualify this by stating that Japan was the most well-armed country in the world, but since it wasn't unified, it was not the most powerful. China or Turkey would probably be better examples.

 

[gun-fucious]

how do you stop a Samurai archer?
Show gun!

 

[Silver Bullet]

isolation from the native peoples themselves and the general availabilty of land

I can add some perspective to this. In the early 60s I read that in the contiguous 48 states there were never more than one million Native Americans living at any one time, which is a very low population density.

I can't vouch for the source because it was so long ago, but at least I didn't read it on the Internet.

 

[telomerase]

>In the early 60s I read that in the contiguous 48 states there were never more than one million Native Americans living at any one time, which is a very low population density.

Your memory is correct but recent estimates are much higher. Smallpox killed millions of Indians before Europeans came into contact with them; the huge abadoned villages along the Mississippi, for example.

 

[gun-fucious]

i have also read that the hardened leather shields of the American Indian were effective against the early blackpower matchlocks

 

[Mike Irwin]

Agricola,

Ah, one's gotcha. One wasn't certain what one meant, but one decided to error on the side of one's apparent literalism in one's message. Upon review, one does agree with one...

Oh, and one couldn't resist oneself...


Silver,

Quite frankly, the experts simply don't agree on how many NA were here in pre-Columbian times. I've seen estimates ranging from high six figures to well into the mid eight figures.

Personally I think high seven to low eight is a very plausible figure.

Why?

Cultural diversity.

In the simplest terms, some claim that a baseline reference for population can be determined from examining the distinct cultures in any given area, the number of outposts, and their duration in years. From that, and a lot of other factors, a rough guesstimate can be made as to the relative size of the population that followed those cultural traditions at a given point in time.

For example, if you've got 85 separate Anasazi sites in an area of the Southwest, each dating roughly to the same time period, you can survey things like known food crops, climactic conditions, number of people each site could comfortably support, etc., etc., etc., and arrive at a rough population estimate.

Some scientists point to the vast array of document cultural traditions in North America coexisting at roughly the same time as another indication of rough population.

In simplest terms, in order for a culture to be measurable hundreds, or even thousands of years later, it has to have time for its traditions to set, usually quite a few generations. For this to happen successfully, the population of the group practicing those cultural traditions has to be self-supporting.

Too few members, and the culture, and its traditions, die out before they can leave a distinct cultural memory, while too large and too far flung, the culture beings to disintegrate at the edges, where groups begin their own, new, cultural traditions, and possibly become linked, but distinct, cultures in their own rights.

 

[Orthonym]

What about New Zealand?

Did the Maoris have bows? I think they were a Stone Age culture when the white folks arrived, but are famous for having given a VERY good account of themselves against firearms.

 

[fallingblock]

Maoris? Now you're talkin'!

The Maoris were truly a stone-age culture when the first whalers and missionaries arrived in the late 18th century. No bows, no wheels, no written language...yet within a few years the tribes were selling their women for muskets and powder

The Maori culture was a great example of a warrior culture....from a few canoes of settlers they filled all the habitable land of New Zealand in only a few hundred years. The Moas and other large flightless birds were exterminated and non-marine protein became scarce as the human population continued to increase. In short, if you and your tribe wanted to survive, you had to fight others much of the time for that priviledge..
Failure meant slavery and/or providing some protein for the victors.

The warrior culture produced a savageness that shocked the early missionaries, but it also produced quick-thinking tacticians who appreciated superior weapons and tactics and were well-versed in the assessment of these Aeoteoroan necessities of life

By the mid-1830's (less than fifty years following first European contact), the Maoris were killing each other with new-found efficiency, and had learned to reinforce their fortified villages (Pa) with earthworks to defend against musketry and British cannon. No European could assume a victory in any engagement even remotely equal in numbers with the Maori, and the warfare flared and subsided for several years.

Summary: The preconditions of organized warfare and intense competition for resources existed in Maori culture and when superior weaponry came along it was adapted as immediately as was possible for stone age economic conditions. The Maori were overwhelmed by sheer numbers of Europeans, new diseases, and their own tribal rivalry, but their example of appreciation of new weapons technology is a testament to the adaptability of the human condition.

 

[Orthonym]

Right, they didn't have bows? (trying to stay on-topic here )

Edit: failed to read previous post thoroughly;didn't see "no bows".

 

[Sean Smith]

Nice to see that the nonsense quotient remains high here...

 

[KMKeller]

Why they didn't develope advanced weapons of warfare escapes me, they had as much motivation as any other culture.

The native american culture took great pride in their abilities as warriors. Most fighting was done hand to hand and was considered a measure of their stature within the tribes. Using a bow to dispatch an enemy wasn't commonplace. There was no honor in that.

Bows were used mainly for feeding the tribe.

 

[Stoker]

With reference to the ease or otherwise of using a longbow, I believe that recent excavations of medieval burial sites in France have revealed some remakable skeletons. They date from the hundred years war and seem to be those of archers.

Without exception they display an exceptional, and even excessive, development of the shoulder girdle. This is believed to have been caused by regular and extensive archery practice from boyhood. These men would have looked something like the Amazing Hulk.

It would seem that such men became harder and harder to find.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Such development has been noted in skeletons before. The bones in a knight's weapon arm tend to show two things -- evidence of thickening of the bones, which is an indication of increased muscle development from swinging the weapon, and wearing of the joints and bones consistent with the kind of eliptical weapons handling one would expect from someone wielding a sword.

 

[CWL]

From excavations of 15th-18th century graves, the wrists of sword & bucklermen and rapier fencers have been noted to be twice the size of their weak hand.