Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 3933631" data-attributes="member: 15538">It wasn't. Really, any new technology is usually less effective than the old until it's been refined. However, it had features the longbow didn't. It required minimal training to use, it had tremendous penetrating power, and could be used at a nearly horizontal level making it effective for massed defensive tactics. Under usual battlefield conditions, the longbows have better range. They can also reliably penetrate armor. They can be used to blanket areas with a high rate of fire. Ben Franklin actually proposed hiring longbowman for the revolutionary army. There were too problems; first, a relative lack of suitable wood for making quality bows in a traditional style, second, a lack of longbowmen. Longbowmen are expensive to hire because they take years of training; that is why at various times English law required men to learn and use the longbow, to create a talent pool for times of war. Thus, in the end, the revolutionary army went with guns, supplemented by mercenary cavalry. Guns don't actually become better than longbows for target shooting until you get to the era of rifles (late 18th century). They don't become fast until you have bolt action rifles (19th century). While the American Indians were outclassed in armaments, it's worth noting that throughout the 19th century, they were able to use archery credibly against rifle-toting settlers. Cannons were in use throughout the high medieval period. although an improvement on tension and lever weapons, a bombard is still a bombard.In short, gunpowder weapons were not revolutionary so much as evolutionary; over the centuries, rifles relentlessly stamped out medieval warfare. But it did not happen overnight.</blockquote>

Verification