"Guns proliferated in spite of themselves..."

[Cosmoline]

Another problem with bows was the lack of technological improvements possible at the time. While firearms and black powder got better and better all the time, bows didn't really see that kind of improvement. Had mass produced compound bows with razor-tipped arrows been technologically possible in the 18th century bows might have had more of a following.

How well would a rifle squad of WW2 era U.S. G.I.'s (or their later Vietnam era counterparts) do against a dark age army (Granted those G.I.'s would have twice the ammo loadout as usual)?

Which dark ages army? If you're talking formal Carolingian Frankish army mustered in the field, pretty darn good. If you're talking about getting bushwhacked at point blank range by angry Vikings, maybe not so good. It's hard to aim a rifle when some huge guy in full berserkergang is hacking your arm off.

 

[parsimonious_instead]

Pfletch, Cosmoline:

Read this month's Wired magazine article about a fellow who began writing a story called RomeSweeRome about a battalion of Marines finding themselves suddenly in Ancient Rome. Apparently this writer is no slouch, for as he posted serialized bits of his tale on Reddit, his readership grew exponentially and attracted the attention of some production companies, resulting in advance payment for a full length screenplay and eventually a movie version.

 

[Millwright]

There are several crucial factors in your supposition, TD !

First, it take a long time - and a lot of money - to train longbowmen. Likewise, there's considerable expense in crafting the bows and arrows. Skilled bowmen can put 3-5 volley fire arrows in the air at one time. That means a logistics train that can supply tens of thousand of arrows to the battlefield to keep a 1000 archers in ammo.

The more parsimonious governments soon adopted the crossbow because it was far easier to train troops to shoot them effectively and the much shorter bolts weren't as hard to craft in quantity. (You've got to think in terms of "cottage industry" not mass production by machines.)

Second, even the "cloth yard" english arrow with a bodkin point - essentially a small spear with a needle point - wasn't all that effective against armored knights or horses . And knights were the "tanks" of the medieval era battle field !

Third, even the crude "hande gonnes" -which were more akin to a shoulder arm - of the era could penetrate a knight's armor ! This led to an early "arms race" as armor makers and gunmakers strove to defeat the opposition !

But it was not until the advent of the "snaphaunce" style of ignition that personal arms became even mildly popular among the rich. >MW

 

[BaltimoreBoy]

Another thought on this interesting topic.

The "Queen of Battle" of European military power during the middle ages was heavy cavalry.

Heavy cavalry is VERY expensive. The Musket and Pike formations can defeat them far more cost effectively. Archery is more expensive than musket and pike and only so-so on effectiveness.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

But it was not until the advent of the "snaphaunce" style of ignition that personal arms became even mildly popular among the rich.

Actually, the wheellock, which preceeded the snaphaunce ("snapping hen") lock was very popular among the rich.

The wars of that era were really between the middle class and the hereditary aristocracy. The middle class, who lived in cities, drilled with the pike. Well-trained infantrymen, armed with pikes and protected with helmets and breast plates could defeat armored cavalry.

The cavalry response was the wheellock pistol -- they would gallop up and fire in the faces of the pike-armed infantry, then gallop away to reload (this tactic was called the "Caracol.") So wheellock pistols were eagerly sought by the aristocratic armored cavalrymen.

The infantry response was to station men with matchlock muskets in their ranks.

Ultimately two developments -- the bayonet and the flintlock (a simplified Snaphaunce) shifted the tactical advantage permanently to the infantry.

 

[throdgrain]

Heavy cavalry is VERY expensive. The Musket and Pike formations can defeat them far more cost effectively. Archery is more expensive than musket and pike and only so-so on effectiveness

Quite right, but the archers ruined the French cavalrys day at Agincourt

 

[JRH6856]

Quite right, but the archers ruined the French cavalrys day at Agincourt

At Agincourt, the cavalry was crowded into a narrow defile and the pressure from the rear ranks prevented the front ranks from retreating. Kind of like Wal-Mart shoppers on black friday. It was a perfect situation for the archers and not truly representative. Crecy was perhaps a better example.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

That's the English story. The French say it was raining and their horses slipped in the mud.

 

[JRH6856]

The French say it was raining and their horses slipped in the mud.

Then they should have been riding ducks....or frogs.

 

[throdgrain]

heheheh

 

[JRH6856]

Of note is that at Crecy (1346) and Poitiers (1356) the English archers fought from prepared positions protected from cavalry charge by pits. At Agincourt (1415), the archers were protected by sharpened stakes facing outward and the archers could not be reached by cavalry charge. At Patay (1429), the French cavalry attacked before the English archers could place the stakes, the English cavalry fled and the English infantry and archers were overwhelmed and massacred.

 

[TxState101]

One of our greatest heroes of all time I reckon, the victory at Trafalgar ensured our domination of the seas for another hundred years, saved our country from possible invasion by the Frenchies and defeated a fleet twice as big as our own

Nelson could have hidden out the way during the battle, but stood there like a great big shiny target for everyone to see. He developed a new strategy too -



Or something like that

Sharpe's Trafalgar is a pretty entertaining read, too.

Nelson was one bad dude. As a one eyed man myself, this is one of my favorite quotes of his

"To leave off action"? Well, damn me if I do! You know, Foley, I have only one eye,— I have a right to be blind sometimes . . . I really do not see the signal!

Life of Nelson (Ch. 7): At the battle of Copenhagen, Ignoring Admiral Parker's signal to retreat, holding his telescope up to his blind eye, and proceeding to victory against the Danish fleet. (2 April 1801)

 

[Cosmoline]

I've also read that the lethality of the longbow's projectile has been overstated. Absent special conditions it was not a field-sweeping weapon, just a means of indirect fire to soften up the target. Unlike soldiers with flintlocks the archers couldn't actually take or hold ground.

RomeSweeRome about a battalion of Marines finding themselves suddenly in Ancient Rome.

Looks interesting but a lot of Marine officers have a pretty good knowledge of the classics and Roman military history. I doubt they'd be dumb enough to just slug it out until they ran out of ammo and fuel.

 

[JRH6856]

I doubt they'd be dumb enough to just slug it out until they ran out of ammo and fuel.

In real estate it is Location, Location, Location. In war it is Logistics, Logistics, Logistics.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I've also read that the lethality of the longbow's projectile has been overstated. Absent special conditions it was not a field-sweeping weapon, just a means of indirect fire to soften up the target.

For some strange reason, people who know little or nothing about tactics assume the longbow was a flat-trajectory weapon, like a machinegun. You hear people talking about "firing" an arrow (how do you do that?) or about "cross fire" from arrows.

In fact, it was a high-trajectory weapon that came down from above -- in fact, the "salad bowl" helmit with it's broad brim was designed to deal with arrows. The brim gave extra protection, since the arrow with its downward trajectory would hit the brim before hitting other parts of the armor, where there might be a crevice or opening.

 

[JRH6856]

In fact, it was a high-trajectory weapon that came down from above

The French were correct. It was raining at Agincourt.