>>64216579
Yes

>>64216579
Yes

>>64216579
easy peasy
musket effective range 300 yards
longbow effective range 60 yards

Yes.

>>64216579
Is OP retarded?

>>64216605
Yes

>>64216579
Russians in the age of gunpowder faced kipchaks and all kinds of steppe barbarians and Muslim mongolians, who were still wielding bows, and yet the Russians never decided to abandon muskets. Does that provide enough proof that bow doesnt beat musket?

>>64216579
Even if you don't take into account the difference in equipment, I imagine the Napoleonic army would be better at maneuvering and general discipline. Being a "trained longbowman" doesn't necessarily mean being a professional soldier.

>>64216579
yes, but not for the reasons these retards think:
>>64216581
>>64216595
>>64216601
Musketeers don't attack with the musket, they attack with the bayonet. They hold ground with the musket.

Musketeers are better equipped and drilled for close order shock combat, and they have muskets to deliver fires right before the charge

File: 1732320025561343.jpg (2.81 MB, 1998x1755)

2.81 MB JPG

>>64216609
Training a proficient longbowman takes far more time than it takes to train a musketeer. It's simply a question of logistics. For a man to be a competent archer, he needs to have archery as a hobby for many years. The English had to require it by law to ensure competence and ability.
For a musketeer to be competent to a level where he can fulfill his role, you need to drill him for some months. Napoleon famously could just replenish his armies freely from the common people, because he was a popular ruler and not a monarch.

>>64216642
>Musketeers are better equipped and drilled for close order shock combat,
Longbowmen would be trained likewise and were expected to take part in the battle once they ran out of arrows (almost always, according to historical records). Agincourt is probably the most famous example of this.

>>64216642
The longbowmen have big hammers or swords for melee

File: illustration-of-janissaries.jpg (86 KB, 800x693)

86 KB JPG

>>64216609
Better exmaple would Ottoman empire elite corps of Janissaries. They had no equal in professionalism and training, they had best bows and archery in teh world (primitive English sticks simply cant compare ) but as soon as arquebuse was invented they fully switched from bows to guns in teh beginning of the 16th century (and completely demolished outdated euro army during Battle of Mohács using this fresh straight out of scientific discovery guns wundervaffen)

>>64216654
>Longbowmen would be trained likewise
they weren't trained and they most definitely weren't DRILLED, because training was largely a private matter that commoners couldn't afford and drilling wasn't invented until about 2 centuries later with the emergence of the regimental system.
>equipped
yes, they typically carried swords or even some polearms for close combat. but they weren't a cohesive line infantry unit drilling day in and day out for fighting as a group. they were individuals contracted in small ad hoc groups with no persistent unit identity or structure.

nobody would expect longbowmen to hold up to a charge by a column of heavy infantry, that's why they were always deployed alongside dismounted men at arms and/or behind fieldworks

>>64216642
>Musketeers don't attack with the musket, they attack with the bayonet.
Total military history illiteracy.

File: unnamed(1).jpg (114 KB, 368x512)

114 KB JPG

>>64216579
Line infantries are capable of taking cover in loose formation when they are absolutely sure there is no cavalry threat unlike what absolute worth of space like yourself think.

>>64216654
>Musketeer training is easier
This meme is a lie perpetuated by redditors like yourself.
Nobody mentioned the ease of training when switching over to musket. In fact, they mentioned how training and discipline are important for musketeers.

>>64216654
>Training a proficient longbowman takes far more time than it takes to train a musketeer.
musketeers (arquebusiers) during gunpowder revolution (1485-1525) were much more trained than englsih longbowman.
"2 weeks peasant training musketeers" is complete victorian boomers bollocks. Gun users during this time were lifelong military professionals.
Spam of musketeer conscripts only started during Louis XIV Sun King reign 150 years latter.

File: longbowmen.jpg (357 KB, 1280x863)

357 KB JPG

>>64216670
>>64216654
also, the very idea of "longbowmen" is very ambiguous. there were longbowmen and there were longbowmen.

Specifically, the forces in France consisted of indentured contract soldiers, serving in groups of a few dozen up to a few hundred under aristocratic mercenary captains, and typically signing up year after year for as long a there was an active campaign on. But this force never numbered more than a few thousand strong. There were also the garrison troops of Calais and a couple other fortifications, contracted centrally by state in similar fashion. While these weren't really trained to fight in tactical units they could at least be expected to have some cohesion as an army and bring a decent standard of equipment, as some was typically provided by their employer.

But during the wars of the roses you'd have a large mass of volunteers raised through informal "livery" client-patron relationships and town/county commissions of array (essentially, national conscription). These could shoot the bow, as mandated by law, but they weren't soldiers. They weren't trained, and they'd probably break and flee the second they saw a charging infantry column.

The fact of the matter is that no matter which variety you go with, in order to move troops into close combat in close order you need to drill them, and musketeers are drilled while archers aren't. And no matter how good individually, no man will be able to stop a charging column of line infantry because they have such massive local numerical superiority. It's the cohesion and mass of musketeers that overwhelms the enemy when attacking, and it's also what prevents skirmish lines from holding advancing line infantry.

>>64216678
and they wouldn't do that or need to do that against longbowmen. they'd advance in close order to close the range disadvantage and sweep the ragged disorganized line of individually fighting archers off the field at bayonet point.

it takes a long time to learn how to shoot a bow, and that's what the English trained. what they did not train for was close order infantry combat in large units, so they'd get bumrushed.

every time the English faced the French they had their own dismounted men at arms to provide a solid line to pin the French advance, and typically the archers also had fieldworks to protect against cavalry attack.

File: 1730060863047686.jpg (414 KB, 1172x1541)

414 KB JPG

>>64216670
>they weren't trained
Archery was legally mandated for every able-bodied man in medieval England. You can't draw a proper warbow and use it repeatedly without significant training to begin with. It fundamentally requires training.
>and they most definitely weren't DRILLED, because training was largely a private matter that commoners couldn't afford
It's a bow and arrows and again, demanded by law. Most English military longbowmen were yeomen to begin with, free, most often landowning men.
>yes, they typically carried swords or even some polearms for close combat. but they weren't a cohesive line infantry unit drilling day in and day out for fighting as a group.
Neither were Napoleonic infantry in general, as the man himself took full advantage of conscription.
>nobody would expect longbowmen to hold up to a charge by a column of heavy infantry,
Neither would you expect musketeers. That's why you didn't often have protracted melees and why you would have specific shock troops like grenadiers.

>>64216700
Training and discipline are relatively easy and fast to impose on someone, since you don't need physical training and honing of a specific skill. Just repeat dumb drills over and over again. If you've been in a modern military, you've been through this yourself.

>>64216708
>musketeers (arquebusiers)
Line infantry (with muskets) then.
>"2 weeks peasant training musketeers" is complete victorian boomers bollocks. Gun users during this time were lifelong military professionals.
This time we are talking about is Napoleonic era, as stated in OP.

>>64216759
>This time we are talking about is Napoleonic era, as stated in OP.
Militaries very successful switched to guns when there was no logistical problems to train archers,
Like he is answering to this post >>64216609
>Russians
Russians introduced guns into age of the bow by creation of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streltsy
Who quickly became lifelong miltary professional completely mogging english bowmen in training and professionalism. And this Streltsy corps allowed Russians to overmatch horse archers of steppes and quickly expand into their lands, when before Russians didnt dare to enter there.

>>64216759
>Neither would you expect musketeers. That's why you didn't often have protracted melees and why you would have specific shock troops like grenadiers.
Retard. Napoleon's most famous tactic was to form regiments into columns and just throw them at the enemy line, relying on weight of numbers and bayonets to win. French infantry frequently didnt fire, they had the voltigeurs and other screening troops for that. The Brits famously stood up to this well by using volley fire and being well trained enough not to flee when the column hit them.

>>64216779
adding.
Everywhere you look during gunpowder revolution when bow lost 1485-1525 and war was completely transformed around gun. Everywhere arquebusiers were lifelong military professionals.
Jannisaries, Streltsy, Landsknecht. You would not find this "its easy tor train musketeers from peasants" bazinga then.

>>64216794
To be fair, in the early gunpowder era it was much more of a combined arms affair. The schok troops were still the pikes. And arquebusiers generally were only firing their guns to surpress or blunt advancing enemy formations so their guys could win the push of pike. They were less involved in the melee. By the time of Napoleon though, with bayonets replacing everything else, a conscript could be trained in a few weeks as he was not expected to be a good shot. Just a body to hold the line.

File: Terciosmarchando.jpg (2.25 MB, 2215x1623)

2.25 MB JPG

>>64216801
>To be fair, in the early gunpowder era it was much more of a combined arms affair. The schok troops were still the pikes.
This only makes professionalism and training requirements more stringent.
Because pike and shot formations and maneuver is a ballet on the battlefield.

>>64216579
Yes. A volley and bayonets OP.

>>64216829
Yeah that's what I am saying. An arquebusier was probably relatively better trained than a line infantryman from the Napoleonic wars.

>>64216794
if anything an arquebusier's manual of arms was more complicated than the line infantry of later eras and their (relative) standards for marksmanship higher as well
https://archive.org/details/gri_33125010852511/mode/1up

File: 1742852130981533.jpg (239 KB, 677x986)

239 KB JPG

>>64216779
>Militaries very successful switched to guns when there was no logistical problems to train archers,
The logistical problem is that it's faster and easier to train someone into a musketeer than it is to train someone into a competent and capable archer.

>>64216781
>Retard.
Medical records and bodies show far less bayonet action than would be expected of any kind of significant amount of melee combat. The charge and closing in on the enemy most importantly affects morale. It's not about killing the men there, but making them rout. Decisive victory comes from breaking the enemy's will to fight, not by attriting him down to the last man. This is the same reason why most casualties in historical warfare were always taken during the rout.
>Napoleon's most famous tactic was to form regiments into columns and just throw them at the enemy line, relying on weight of numbers and bayonets to win.
>and being well trained enough not to flee when the column hit them.
Yes, that's the thing. The troops regularly rout and flee when the battle threatens to turn into a melee, and if it does, it's quickly resolved through a collapse in morale. Napoleon's tactics worked specifically because you can't expect musketeers to stand their ground in a situation like that. If you could, then rapid advances into the enemy lines would not have been anything special. There would be no need for any real shock- or elite troops, as the average person could be expected to fulfill their role at will. Morale is the key factor. The average soldier does not have the morale needed. Even the ancient Greeks noted this.

Also, Napoleon relied far more on conscription than any tactical acumen. He just rebuilt his armies and allowed commoners to rise in ranks, where no foreign monarchy could accept a fully armed and trained population.

>>64216850
>The logistical problem is that it's faster and easier to train someone into a musketeer than it is to train someone into a competent and capable archer.
This was no problem during gunpowder revolution 1485-1525 because range troops were lifelong professionals who could train bows as well. Only bows suck completely >>64216601

>>64216850
>Medical records and bodies show far less bayonet action than would be expected of any kind of significant amount of melee combat. The charge and closing in on the enemy most importantly affects morale. It's not about killing the men there, but making them rout. Decisive victory comes from breaking the enemy's will to fight, not by attriting him down to the last man. This is the same reason why most casualties in historical warfare were always taken during the rout.
Yes and? That only means most deaths werent from the bayonet. Might be a schok to you, but the biggest killer pre modern era of soldiers was actually disease. That doesnt mean the melee assault wasnt the preffered way to employ musketeers.

>>64216728
>they'd probably break and flee the second they saw a charging infantry column.

And yet they didn't when fully armored knights charged them on horses. Curious.

>>64216579
you can test this in Empire Earth, Rise of Nations, Civilization etc

File: 1736772620379610.jpg (1.15 MB, 3072x2304)

1.15 MB JPG

>>64216861
>That only means most deaths werent from the bayonet.
If melee assault is the preferred way of employing musketeers, and there aren't many deaths from bayonets, then the original claim of
>nobody would expect longbowmen to hold up to a charge by a column of heavy infantry,
>Neither would you expect musketeers.
logically holds. If they were capable of holding up to a charge, there would be significant amounts of bayonet deaths and wounds, in excess of gunshot casualties.
The cohesion of a drilled line infantry unit is not in its morale and ability to engage in decisive melee combat (especially as the defender), but more in its maneuverability itself. The unit moves as one, and so can be employed in effective maneuvers better than longbowmen.

>>64216885
>And yet they didn't when fully armored knights charged them on hor... ACK!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay

>>64216579
Infantry past the 16th century was trained to actively maneuver and attack in a coordinated fashion across multiple phases of battle.

The archers could only be expected to stand and use up their arrows.

>>64216894
British and Prussian line infantry did hold up to infantry charges frequently. But that's due to Kadaverdisciplin or it's British equivalent. Lashes and sodomy presumably. Soldiers were more afraid of the punishment for fleeing than the enemy.

>>64216579
Yes.

>>64216601
That would depend on the musket, generally you would top out at 100yds or so with a smoothbore gun, but with a rifled one you could very well go out to 300yds.

>>64216700
It's objectively true, faggot, becoming a good archer with a bow takes far more time and training.

File: typical french fantasy.png (5 KB, 458x115)

5 KB PNG

>>64216903
>This one time right at the end of the war when the archers were attacked unprepared
God, the French are insufferable. Those longbows really did a number on their psyche. 500 years later they're still bullshitting about them.

English longbowmen:
>We beat them using longbows, the arrows punched through their armor
French knights
>They beat us with longbows, the arrows punched right through our armor
Italian mercenaries
>They beat the French using longbows, the arrows punched right through the armor
French historians 500 years later:
>MON DIEU! ARROWS CANNOT PENETRATE ARMOR AND DIRTY PEASANTS CANNOT BEAT LE GLOIRE OF FRANCE! IT WAS THE MUD! NON IT WAS THE BILLMEN! NO ACTUALLY IT WAS THE PERFIDIOUS WOODEN STAKES! NON IT WAS THE MERDE DAMNED PERFIDIOUS TACTICS OF STANDING DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF US AND SNEAKILY NOT DOING ANYTHING ELSE! ANYTHING, ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING BUT THE LONGBOWS!

Why can't you just be normal? We don't bitch and moan and pretend that Napoleon wasn't a great general or whatever.

>>64216781
You're moving goalposts, musketeers weren't expected to withstand infantry attacks, and that's what you implied.

File: 1737737988888779.webm (226 KB, 240x240)

226 KB WEBM

>>64216937
Was it a success of their own discipline, or a failure on the attacker's part?

>>64216937
>it's British equivalent
Pay
The British Napoleonic Army was a paid professional army; Napoleon used conscripts

>>64216579
>Would a napoleonic or earlier army of musketeers beat an equally sized army of trained longbowmen?
I'm going to say NO
But mainly because you said
>trained longbowmen
Because >>64216654 is correct
>Training a proficient longbowman takes far more time than it takes to train a musketeer. It's simply a question of logistics
But you didn't cover that in your scenario

>>64216601
>musket effective range 300 yards
>longbow effective range 60 yards
Wrong
Napoleon's doctrine was to shoot at 100 yards, and the British regarded this range as the maximum effective musket range. They themselves generally preferred to volley at 50 yards.

On the flipside, 150lb draw longbows have consistently reached maximum ranges of 200 yards. Granted, that would only be effective against area targets of 4 or 5 square meters. However, with that accuracy, a hail of arrows against a Napoleonic style column will easily find many hits.

At 100 yards point shooting is easily possible. Even hobbyist archers today can hit head-sized targets at 100 yards within 2 or 3 shots.
At 75 yards, point shooting is eminently doable. That's Olympic archery distance.

The key to winning here is that firstly longbows can be shot at twice the speed of even the best drilled musketeers.

File: if only they knew.png (145 KB, 285x262)

145 KB PNG

>>64216985
The British were made to fight on the losing side of a french civil war.

Their ruling class has been french ever since and their kings were Dutch and German there after.

>>64217115
>Wrong
No its right. See the Scharnhorst musketry trials


>On the flipside, 150lb draw longbows have consistently reached maximum ranges of 200 yards. Granted, that would only be effective against area targets of 4 or 5 square meters. However, with that accuracy, a hail of arrows against a Napoleonic style column will easily find many hits.
At 60 yards you are looking for 20 feet holdover for longbow.
A 100 yards its 60 feet of holdover.
You arent hitting line target past 60 yards or so in field conditions.

File: images.jpg (10 KB, 300x168)

10 KB JPG

>>64216985
Funny how your longbow wunderwaffen suddenly completely stops working when there are no stakes, trenches and English dismounted knights to cover archers asses.
French knights vanguards just ROFLSTOMPED "medieval machine gunners"

>>64217115
>On the flipside, 150lb draw longbows have consistently reached maximum ranges of 200 yards.
Here's a man tossing arrows +250 yards with a 140lb longbow
https://youtu.be/av8WTx_Gl8g?t=135

File: lmao.jpg (269 KB, 936x1203)

269 KB JPG

>>64217165
>60 yards
Lmao, longbowmen in competitions today routinely hit targets at 80 to 100 yards with longbows as weak as 45 or 55 pounds draw. I've seen it myself. I've done it myself, for fun with someone else's bow even though I normally shoot a reeeeecurve.
A York round is firing at targets at 100 yards, 80 yards and 60 yards. And even those pissweak bows the 50+ boomers shoot will drive a pile 4-5 inches into a straw boss at those ranges.
What the actual fuck are you talking about?

>>64217224
>ANYTHING BUT THE LONGBOWS WAAAAAAAHHHHH!
What is wrong with you? Every contemporary source talks about the longbows killing knights.

>>64217244
He's a well-known lolcow

File: 1749803187664322.jpg (351 KB, 1440x250)

351 KB JPG

>>64217165
>You arent hitting line target past 60 yards or so in field conditions.
A hundred archers who were trained in shooting at the marks or artillery shooting, on the other hand absolutely would. If they're loosing 10 arrows per minute, you've got a 1000 arrows coming towards that marching line each minute.

>>64217237
>he doesn't know what is holdover
Why I should speak with you?

>>64217307
It's not a term I've heard in 20 years of doing archery. Explain why I should take you seriously.

>>64217318
You failed ballistic literacy test.
There is no point to discuss things with you.

>>64217329
>A quick google later
You don't really aim with a bow, you feel it. A combination of experience, nous and skill. Whatever you like really, but I've seen really good longbowmen hit that straw boss over and over again at 100 yards without problems.
It's hilarious how you are trying to throw out actual evidence in favor of your bullshitting, and you totally ignore this guy here >>64217225

File: 1752406182660882.png (982 KB, 805x707)

982 KB PNG

>>64217165
>A 100 yards its 60 feet of holdover.
Actual war archery involves far more elevation compensation than that. It's not a problem.

It's hilarious watching the anti-longbow faggot twist and turn and try to screech and lawyer his way out of this, when he's exposed as a retard. He'll probably just leave the thread now, or go " H-HA HA MERELY TROLLING"

>>64217338
>You don't really aim with a bow, you feel it. A combination of experience, nous and skill
Like I said you are illiterate so stop talking and start listening.

>and you totally ignore this guy here
And what guy missing everything and spreading arrows like over 40 yards range interval should prove? Longbows suck? They do.

>>64217367
>Actual war archery involves far more elevation compensation than that. It's not a problem.
See this bow clown >>64217225
throwing arrows everywhere. No consistency of holdovers at all.

It is the big problem on bow (and crossbow) that has no sights.

File: 1728773805117364.jpg (52 KB, 1434x530)

52 KB JPG

>>64217403
That video is specifically about maximizing range, not about accuracy. It also doesn't matter that much, because war archery is not a solo sport.
Agincourt for example had an estimated 5000 longbowmen involved. With 10 arrows a minute, you've got 50 000 arrows going down range each minute.

Do you know what a beaten zone is? The inaccuracy is not an issue when the amount of projectiles landing in the area is so large, statistically every single man is going to be hit.

>>64217416
See this bow clown firing entire quiver and falling to land a single arrow at proper range shooting at target
>>64217225
In combat he would miss muskets line completely witn all his arrows supply.

>>64217390
Yeah, how about you look at the scorecard I posted. A York round is 72 arrows at 100 yards, 48 at 80 and 24 at 60. To score over 300 on it, which is Master Bowman, a good archer but not an amazing one, you have to be routinely hitting the target. You need at least 100 hits in the black, which means you're never going to do it at the shorter ranges. You have to be able to consistently hit the target at 100 yards. That's the top 15% of longbowmen archers, at a time when archery is a very niche sport practised by very few.
This isn't me saying this, this is the official Archery GB guidelines for scoring.
An Elite Master Bowman needs to score 500+ over the round. You are never going to make those scores without being able to routinely hit the target over and over again at 100 yards.

>>64216654
>Longbowmen would be trained likewise and were expected to take part in the battle once they ran out of arrow
somehow you conveniently left out that they took part in the battle SUPPORTING a heavy infantry core of men at arms.

They were a supportive light infantry element, not a primary line troop. Like most light infantry throughout history was. The knights were the ones who held the actual battle line, the archers just shored up the flanks.

>>64216579
let's ask Napoleon's army
>The Memoirs of General the Baron de Marbot
>Our soldiers were not in the least alarmed at the sight of these semi-barbarous Asiatics, whom they nicknamed cupids, because of their bows and arrows
>these barbarians rapidly surrounded our squadrons, against which they launched thousands of arrows, which did very little damage
>nine-tenths of the arrows miss their target, and those that do arrive have used up in their ascent the impulse given to them by the bow, and fall only under their own weight, which is very small, so that they do not as a rule inflict any serious injuries. >In fact, the Baskirs, having no other arms, are undoubtedly the world's least dangerous troops
I am obviously just quoting the parts of the text that support my argument but the newer technology supplanted the older one for a reason impossible to argue with: bullets fuck.
Yeah the bow has a great rate of fire but the reason we say rate of fire instead of rate of pull is that bullets really fuck. When they hit you you just fucking die and history noticed that.

>>64217497
>semi-barbarous Asiatics
Hardly a fair comparison to organized White men.

>>64217514
Those semi barbaric asiatics, or those like them conquered most of the known world a few hundred years before.

>>64217244
Killing individuals, but so will any weapon from a sling to a rifle when fired en mass by the sear dice roll of mathematics. what matters is if they break a formation (which they don't). What they did do is disrupt a formation enough to allow their own heavy units to actually do the breaking (a disrupted unit is easier to break then an ordered one).

>>64216728
>>64216654
>>64216759
>Le too hard to train bowmen, le firearms are easier, dats why
stupid.
You think that 14th century england could enforce longbow training but the much more stately cohesive 16th, 17th, or 18th century england or france couldnt? That places all the burden on the peasant families themselves instead of the government. While musketeers required a much more involved institution to create and supply en mass then bows. Yah sure it takes a while to loose 120 lb longbow, but thats against armor and shit, you can perfectly get some fit peasant to fire 80-100 pound bow enough for field work in 2 weeks. France had rules that every community had to have at least 1 man completely prepared for war by like 1450.

>>64217514
Sure but it's hard to find an example of European longbowmen fighting European musketmen because Europe was like 'oh this is better' and instantly adopted the new technology.
I would highly recommend the blog of bowvsmusket dot com who has collected every single scrap of historical writing on the subject.
Part of his collection is literally arguments from ye olde boomers saying Britain would conquer the world if they just used .45 inch longbow arrows like their forefathers did at agincourt instead of wasting a minute loading a matchlock.
And then rebuttal letters from mercenary captains who fought the wars of religion for 3 decades on the continent going...no...any dipshit can shoot a bow, half our recruits are poachers, do you have any idea how much time we spend drilling them on the steps to load a real weapon without blowing the powder up, because we need them to shoot effectual guns and not useless arrows?

>>64217639
>you can perfectly get some fit peasant
Oh I get it now. You're Russian. That's why you're seething at the bongs and trying to shit on their national heritage.
Don't even pretend you're not, that's some 100% Russian translation artifacts right there.

>You think that 14th century england could enforce longbow training but the much more stately cohesive 16th, 17th, or 18th century england or france couldnt?
They could, but that's expensive. And training musketeers is a lot simpler and cheaper. As a Russian you should be familiar with doing things cheaper but worse, for example RBMK reactors.

if longbows are so great how come no army has ever used the longbow as its primary weapon? basically every army until the invention of the gun was based around guys with pointy sticks or guys riding horses. if the longbow was so powerful you would think they would be more than one example in like 3000 years of recorded history of it beating what everyone else was doing. I mean if you can just stand 100 yards away and shoot thousands of arrows per minute how could any army with melee weapons possibly even get close?

>>64217678
>basically every army until the invention of the gun was based around guys with pointy sticks or guys riding horses
Pikes stuck around alongside guns for quite a while; they only got phased out as guns and powder improved further, and even then only because bayonets would turn those guns into more pointy sticks.

> In the reign of Queen Elizabeth Sir John Smith, a general of much experience, stated that the bow was the superior of the hand-gun, and although he was taken up sharply by Mr. W. Barwick, Gent, he stuck to his contention.
>" I will never doubt to adventure my life," he writes, " or many lives (if I had them), amongst 8,000 archers, complete, well chosen and appointed, and therewithal provided and furnished with great store of sheaves of arrows, as also a good overplus of bows and bow-strings, against 20,000 of the best harquebusiers and musketeers there are in Christendom."

>>64217695
but how could an army of pikemen possibly win against medieval machineguns shooting 50k arrows per minute like
>>64217416
says?

I would love to see Napoleonic combat, except everyone has a bow. Blocks of archers unloading on each other from 60 yards away. Battlefield absolutely littered with arrows.

>>64216579
yes
shotguns Vs bows
Shotguns win ask native americans

>>64217416
>With 10 arrows a minute, you've got 50 000 arrows going down range each minute.
Not true in the slightest

A longbowman might do 10 arrows a minute for a short burst, but half that prolonged. And arrows are not unlimited, do you think they just have one million arrows on-hand?

>>64217653
Your are historically illiterate Chud.
>>64216669
>>64216779

File: Capture.png (2.84 MB, 1271x843)

2.84 MB PNG

>>64217653
I have an Agincourt England army. I like England fine.

What I dont like is unsubstantiated and blown out of proportion myths. THe english longbow was good because the English had pretty fantastic institutions at the time. Not because the Longbow was particularly special in itself.

>>64216985
Why is it that longbowfags always bring up Crecy and Agincourt as though they were representative of the typical performance of longbows in the Hundred Years War, yet seethe this hard whenever someone brings up battle where longbowmen were thoroughly defeated?

>>64217774
It's hypocrisy and cope.

>>64217774
Because longbows and the whole idea of English compulsory militias are fucking cool, while continental inheritance-based knights with expensive armor are very lame.

>>64217784
nonces with bendy sticks were never cool. the real coolness were the landsknechts with their clown suits and floppy hats.

>>64217784
The english also had the inheritance based knights. they were just under more control of the English crown (as the longbow men were as well). What england had was consolidation and centralization. thats what made them so effective.

>>64217784
Knights are cool

>>64217801
In fact, the english were particularly known for thier expensive armors. Often very specifically crafted with foot combat in mind.

File: antonio-de-pereda-thirty-(...).jpg (1.84 MB, 3840x1920)

1.84 MB JPG

>>64216579
>napoleonic
this is unironically the worst era of warfare to pick from. this is the cutoff point for when armies started just being outright better generation after generation. like if you put some roman legion against some crusaders you probably have a pretty near-run thing on your hand. a difference of a millennia or more and i would still say the general makes more difference than all the technical change that had occured in that time. put an army from the thirty years war and the napoleonic age against one another? ill take whatever the napoleonic one almost every time, despite the difference only being a few short centuries.

File: lach beim essen.png (149 KB, 218x265)

149 KB PNG

>>64217755
>>64217801
>CENTALISATION!
>INSTITUTIONS!
>ANYTHING BUT THE LONGBOWS

Meanwhile actual french knights:
>Dude they're fucking murdering us with longbows!

Source:
> (we)“began to hold down their heads, especially those who had no shields, because of the violent force of the English arrows, which fell so heavily that no one dared raise his visor or look up… before they could come to close quarters, many of the French were disabled and wounded by the arrows.”
-Enguerrand de Monstrelet

>and ever still the Englishmen shot whereas they saw thickest press; the sharp arrows ran into the men of arms and into their horses, an many fell, horse and men,

-Jean Froissart

>The English, perceiving their weakness, began to shoot vigorously and without ceasing, wounding the French soldiers with bows and arrows, which they had quickly protected from the rain by putting the strings under their helmets. Thus the Genoese were soon put to flight, and trampled underfoot by the French. The English, however, shot the French as well, piercing their men-at-arms and horses, so that they fell on all sides in heaps.”
-Jean De Venette


>NOOOOO! NOOOOOO! ANYTHING BUT THE LONGBOW!
What causes this autism?

>>64217891
>before they came to close quarters
So they got there then the pivotle parts of the fight began
The full text of all of those quotes then goes on to describe the actual battle of the melee which were the pivotle parts which you conveniently left out.

Your vary quote talks about the shite french command and control where the french trampled thier own men.

Like I said institutions and centralization. THe english knew how to command a army, the french were unwieldy and did that part poorly.

>>64217891
Or if for some reason you don't like the ACTUAL FRENCH KNIGGITS who were actually there, here's some other primary sources and contemporary chroniclers

>The Genoese shot three volleys and the English shot three against them, and the Genoese fled. The English continued their shot right fiercely. The sharp arrows ran into the men-at-arms and into their horses; and many fell, both horse and men, for there was none so hardy but that feared the death of them
-Giovanni Villani

>“The arrows of the English were directed with such marvellous skill at the horsemen that their mounts refused to advance a step… some horses leapt backwards stung to madness, some reared hideously, some turned their hind quarters towards the enemy, others merely let themselves fall to the ground.
-Jean Le Bel

>“The English archers, placed in the van, began to shoot so strongly and so rapidly, that the men and horses of the French could not endure it and fell into great disorder.”
-Pedro Lopez de Ayala (Battle of Najera)

>And the English archers let fly such a quantity of arrows, that it seemed as if it snowed. The French could not withstand the shot, and many men-at-arms were slain and wounded before they could come to close combat.
-Jean De Wavrin

File: Napoleon shown a video of(...).jpg (30 KB, 342x352)

30 KB JPG

>>64217940
>ANYTHING! ANYTHING AT ALL BUT ADMIT THE LONGBOW IS EFFECTIVE! I'LL CALL MY NATION SHITTERS! I'LL SHIT ON THE ORIFLAMME! I'LL LET AN ARMY OF MOORS HAVE SEX WITH MY WIFE BUT PLEASE DON'T TELL ME THE LONGBOWS WERE EFFECTIVE! I KNOW BETTER THAN THE PEOPLE WHO WERE ACTUALLY THERE!
Again, what causes this autism?

>>64217967
They were effective though? Im not saying they weren't, just that they were effective as part of combined arms and with good leadership. THe same could have been done with crossbows.

I literally posted models of them that I bought and painted. I like longbows, I just dont think they are wonderweapons.

Why are you sperging?

>>64217956
weird, if arrows just cut through knights consistantly its kinda weird that people even wore armor at all, lol. you sure if by "many" were slain its a comparritive thing, like 1 in 100 arrows shot made it through some chink somewhere compared to like 1 in 500?

>>64216579
The fact that muskets rendered long bows and crossbows almost completely ineffective 250 years before at the Napoleonic wars should be your answer.

It is amazing that amid the social upheaval of the Revolution, the conscription and training system was able to function and create a powerful Army.

>>64218485
Bows were in use up until the spread of the repeating rifle though. You had archers in the American Civil War.

>>64218553
And there's fuckers still with spears somewhere out there. This argument is nonsensical.

>>64217784
>while continental inheritance-based knights with expensive armor are very lame.
>he doesn't know that English knights armor was more expensive and effective
https://youtube.com/watch?v=5tgLeMS30j8
https://youtube.com/watch?v=4ldx0231RdI
https://youtube.com/watch?v=UM4zl7bXxJk
Lame

>>64217678
>longbows are so great how come no army has ever used the longbow as its primary weapon?
Horse archers based armies used bows as primary weapons.
But this the point. Bows arent effective enough to stop enemy in a single engagement so they don't work for foot troops as a single weapon, enemy reached you and it's over for foot archers.
But horse archers have mobility and can shoot in the move and kite. Sure they can't defeat enemy in a single engagement but they can kite enemy and defeat them in a prolonged combat.

While guns (muskets) were effective enough for foot troops to build tactics around guns, what happened with reign of linear warfare.

>>64217967
>Longbows are effe ....ACK!
>>64216903

>>64217967
I suppose the longbow was so effective it was replaced by the gun in the name of fairness

>>64218094
>weird, if arrows just didn't cut through knights consistantly its kinda weird that people even wore heavier and heavier armor over the centuries, lol

>>64218975
>Bows arent effective enough to stop enemy in a single engagement so they don't work for foot troops as a single weapon,
but the other poster in the thread is saying they can accurately kill you from 100 yards away and shoot 10 times per minute. how is that not going to completely decimate any kind of formation?

>>64219095
a very well trained archer who has been shooting for years to the point his shoulder bones are all kinds of fucked up could do that.
meanwhile you can take a farm boy of his daddies fields and have him fully drilled and trained in under a month.

>>64219102
why would you not invest in the archer when it's such a superior weapon? america spends like a million dollars per missile just to blow up a few brown people. you're telling me that countries knew about these robin hood giga chads but only used them for like 2 famous battles and then gave up because they were too expensive?

>>64216670
>drilling wasn't invented until about 2 centuries later
Nigga the Romans drilled their troops and we're not even certain if they invented the practice (they might have just been the first to write it down)

>>64219112
you can't compare a modern state with a historical one.
the US can spend a million because it takes in trillions in taxes.
the US revolted because there was (if I remember correctly) a 2% tax on paper and tea
no early states couldn't afford to keep 50 k gigantic chads loitering around.
keep in mind that armies at that time also had peacetime duties where a longbowman would have sucked at

File: 1754263673350880.webm (1.47 MB, 1920x1080)

1.47 MB WEBM

>>64216579
it's an easy question to answer
effective range of bows vs effective range of musket
shots per minute of bows vs shots per minute of musket
aaaand well would you look at that, bows win in both categories
lethality doesn't really matter because either soldier will be out of the fight if his opposing enemy hits him pretty much anywhere with an arrow or musket ball

>>64216579
Depends.
Longbow, depending on the arrow used can fire out to 250 - 300 metres, assuming a 150lb bow, although those are going to be really light shafts falling under their own weight at that range. The common misconception of them only having 60 metres range as >>64216601 gives them comes from the use of heavy shafts designed to be fired directly at point blank.
Now, the longbow men can keep up a better rate of fire, 3 times that if the musketeers but need to get slightly closer to be effective. It all comes down to whether the terrain, objectives, and leaders let that happen.

File: 1706245442_837_Battle-of-(...).jpg (113 KB, 529x378)

113 KB JPG

>>64216885
>>64216903
There were several battles in the Hundred years war where the French outnumbered the English and had more heavy calvary, yet the archers held positions and the English won.
The Longbow doesn't even penetrate plate armour but stil caused enough issues that the French couldn't get enough mass and cohesion to smash though the lines (combined with sound tactical decisions from the English)
So I'm to believe a completely unarmoured column of musketeers, who have short rane, inaccurate muskets who aren't even trained to shoot independently properly are going to advance on an equal number of Longbow men and be fine about having no protection from the constant rain of arrows?
Musket infantry worked alongside cavalry and artillery and in larger numbers than any medieval army could hope to muster. 1 for 1 on a even battlefield they don't have huge advantages over a force of Longbow men at their peak.

>>64219219
>equal number
just go be gay somewhere else
>but muh vikings vs. ninjas
git

>>64219102
once again, this is ultimately correct
but that's not OP's proposition

>>64219219
>The Longbow doesn't even penetrate plate armour
it could probably penetrate earlier (cheaper) forms at medium and short range, and definitely did enter joints even on the best modern plate
in the early 1400s we see a distinct shift from flatter plates to rounder plates so it's obvious that armourers figured out that rounder armour could deflect strikes better
corollary; it's equally obvious that arrows were making it through flatter plates

Tod's reconstruction is at what looks like 25 yards against a stationary target of best mid-15th Milanese shape plate; this is an acceptable analogue for a longer range target in motion, such as an approaching knight, mounted or on foot, which would increase the momentum on impact
the arrow is making it easily through to bone on flatter and thinner (1.6mm) arm pieces, but skipping off rounder bascinets and rounder, thicker (2.5mm) cuirass chests

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ds-Ev5msyzo

this mid-15th century Milanese armour aka Churbourg armour is the EARLIEST we have a good artifact of, and it's AFTER the heyday of the longbow, which was the 14th century. this is what was designed to defeat the longbow, in other words. earlier armour such as the Hirchstein suit is not in good quality, but so far as we can tell, is thinner and flatter.

it's clear therefore that the longbow IS going to cut through that.

>>64219397
my favourite part of tod's testing is how easily it showed arrows piercing through mail and gambeson like they were nothing. now imagine hitting musketeers wearing nothing but pantaloons and skivvies

>>64219397
>25yards
>flat trajectory
>clear shot on a stationary target
>a high quality bodkin arrow
and how often did those things line up?

>>64219397
Butbutbutbut what if the longbowmen were in AH-64 Apache attack helicopter equipped with the AN/APG-78 Longbow fire control radar (FCR), which provides enhanced target detection and tracking capabilities, allowing it to detect, classify, and prioritize threats quickly and effectively, even in adverse conditions. What then, Napoleon Dynamitetards????

File: file.png (193 KB, 476x460)

193 KB PNG

>>64219411
>high quality bodkin
easily
picrel: far left is a typical bodkin for piercing mail, more common in the 11th and 12th centuries, made of regular iron
however by the mid-13th century it was understood that hardened steel arrowheads improved penetration
middle is a heavy compact 14th century arrowhead for plate-cutting, most artifacts analysed were made of medieval steel
>clear shot
clear enough when they're coming towards you
>on a stationary target
rarely, because as I said, they would be advancing TOWARDS the archers, which increases their effective range or penetration. simple conservation of momentum

>>64219404
>now imagine hitting musketeers wearing nothing but pantaloons and skivvies
yep, which increases the effective combat range of longbows so that they're competitive against muskets

once again: the longbows in OP's proposition only stand a chance of victory because he specified
>trained longbowmen
muskets beat all this because you could grab a bunch of farmers and drill them bong-style for a couple of months and they would at least match longbowmen who'd been trained since childhood
which is exactly how Wellington turned around the Peninsular War using Portuguese troops
you don't need to be Lanchester to work out that this ultimately favours the musket way way more in the grand scheme of things, even if the longbowmen defeat the first army of musketeers

>64219441
lmao
the preponderance of evidence was too much for him to cope, he's gone off the rails

>>64219449
that gets you one shot with one row of men, then it's a melee.
provided none of your men missed or any of the men they are shooting at blocked the shot comming at them with a shield. or that there where any of your's in the way waiting to receive the charge
the long bow was a good weapon but it only won two battles at best and lost many times more

>>64219485
>that gets you one shot
not in the 14th and earlier centuries where thinner plate and more mail means more consistent penetration
>provided
oh, you can draw up formations which favour the armoured man-at-arms the most however you like, and I can draw up formations which favour the bowmen too

p.s.
there's also the further point that archers were commonly placed on the flanks, and side plates are less protected than the central piece of breastplates (even the side pieces of breastplates thinned out), so arrows hitting from the flanks would be even more likely to penetrate

>lost many times more
look, insofar as the mid-15th century onwards I agree the longbow was obsolescent, but you have to get over your cope over the first three quarters of the Hundred Years War where the longbow reigned

I seem to recall an article about Wellington saying more than once he would really have used a unit of well trained Welsh archers. He also often complained about how inaccurate the muskets and volley fire were, saying it required the weight of a an enemy soldier in lead to kill him

>>64219234
>Would a napoleonic or earlier army of musketeers beat an equally sized army of trained longbowmen?

Is OPs exact post you illiterate faggot

File: EVERY FUCKING TIME.jpg (231 KB, 957x1254)

231 KB JPG

>>64219411
>a high quality bodkin arrow
During the hundred years war, England practically turned itself into an arrow making machine. Villages and towns had quotas of arrows they needed to produce, and it kind of became a cottage industry. Poor families would sit around at night fletching arrows to make some extra cash, blacksmiths would be making bodkin tips in their spare time.
And this is another reason for muskets taking over by the way, because all this activity is a net economic drag. You pour all this activity into making arrows which are fired and then lost, broken, degrade over time etc. And it's a pain in the ass to do, you gotta go round and make sure that everyone is practicing with the longbow every week and not skiving off to hump buxom peasant girls with hairy pussies and long athletic legs, that Mrs. Jenkins has produced her 20 arrows for the week, the lazy bitch, that the smith, Mr. Smith, isn't slacking off on bodkins to do more lucrative scrolling work for the next landowner over. And then the next level up has to go round checking on the checkers, making sure they're actually policing things and not taking bribes and so and so on. And this is all time that could be spent being economically productive.
Muskets are a worse tactical weapon, but a vastly better weapon strategically and economically and it's retarded that people don't see this and it has to be explained every fucking thread, which is why I decided to subject you lazy ill conceived niggers to my sordid peasant fucking fantasies while I explained it, because you made me explain it again.
Seriously why do we have to have this discussion every fucking time? Why is is so hard for /k/ to understand that weapons can have multiple dimensions beyond the battlefield that make them good or bad?

>>64216579
Equal size? Probably not. The reality is you can muster many times more musketmen than longbowmen as longbowmen require specific training and muscles.

>>64217678
because only the English could master the art of the longbow.
I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine longbow in England for 14,836 pounds (that's about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even shoot through slabs of solid steel with my longbow.

English bowmakers spend years working on a single longbow and season it up to a million times to produce the finest bows known to mankind.

Longbows are thrice as accurate as muskets and has thrice the range for that matter too. Anything a normal bow can shoot through, a longbow can shoot through better. I'm pretty sure a longbow could easily shoot straight through a knight wearing full plate.

Ever wonder why medieval France never bothered conquering England? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Yeomen and their longbows of destruction. Even in World War II, German soldiers targeted the men with the longbows first because their killing power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? Longbows are simply the best bow that the world has ever seen. This is a fact and you can't deny it.

>>64217678
>if longbows are so great how come no army has ever used the longbow as its primary weapon?
because combined arms beats autistically (whatever)-maxxing, every era
>I mean if you can just stand 100 yards away and shoot thousands of arrows per minute how could any army with melee weapons possibly even get close?
terrain, weather, defeat in detail, lack of discipline/morale

you could just as easily argue the reverse: if longbows are so shit how come no army ever defeated the world by melee-maxxing? welp, just ask Crassus

>>64217717
>how could an army of pikemen possibly win
they wouldn't, which is why pike-**AND-SHOT** is a thing

File: file.png (44 KB, 478x356)

44 KB PNG

>64219581
>completely
>utterly
>OFF THE RAILS
real time meltdown lmao

good game mate

>>64219499
>cope
>first 3/4
the simple reality is that ranged weapons weren't a battle winner in medieval warfare. which makes the few examples where they where decisive stand out all the more.
you can keep sperging about plate thickness all you want but no war was won by that bow or the system behind it.
It couldn't get men to brake and it couldn't stop the from getting in close.
the two battles it won it won due to having OP terrain.
it is the same as saying that the battle of the golden spurs proves that stick with pointy end OP, armor is useless and cavalry is dead, in 1302

File: 1756953254372188.jpg (71 KB, 504x360)

71 KB JPG

>>64219531
>OP isn't a faggot

>>64219537
the longbow isn't a wonder weapon and it wouldn't win against muskets because it lost to earlier, cruder and in every way imaginable inferior firearms
all you do is wallow in a pitiable pool of shallow romanticism
>but wellington said
would have lost if it wasn't for Blucher

>>64217338
The straw puppet isnt a moving target. Even if a block of infantry is big, it's still a moving target and you need to correct for that.

here's how it would go
line regiments detach their skirmishers who go forward with some aide de camps following behind them.
skirmishers aren't really affected by volley fire due to how dispersed they are and after on or two vollies those stop. aide de camps report volly fire to their commanders who order two lines of three ranks each. both lines are as litte as 2 yards deep.
the archers don't really get a choice as to how they deploy, it takes about 2 square yards for them to wield their bows. so they have to form up in staggered lines two deep and shooting past the line in front of you has a decent chance of hitting your own. so only the front most line can engage individual targets the men behind them have to lob their shots in vollies.
skirmishers engage the front line of longbowmen between 100-150 yards. they will take what cover they can or go prone. loading and firing a musket prone is a shit job and takes longer. but as skirmishers they have been trained to do even the linemen can do so if required but they aren't as trained at it.
the archers stop shooting back after a bit, hitting a prone man is hard at that range and archers only brought a sheaf of about a dozen arrows each, no point waisting them. if they are any smart they and the next lines go prone aswell.
the skimishers carry about two dozen shots on them and might have been given more from the line men. so they can keep up the fire but would save their last shots to support the advance

>>64219847
continued
at this point the front line would be waiting shy of where the first volley fell with the second line about 50-75 yards behind them.
once the firing dies down the order to advance would be given. both lines advance at once. the archers get back up to start firing, the front lines of theirs get harassed by the skirmishers. the rest have to volly fire to fire over their own. most of those arrows simply plunk into the dirt in front of or between the lines. those that find their mark start thinning out the first line but not enough to break it. the first line closes to a hundred yards having lost about a third of it's men. they start firing by rank. behind them the second line forms columns in order to charge. columns are the ideal target for volley fire, but most of the dozen or so arrows per archer have been shot by now. as the columns go from the double quick to the charge the remaining archers haven't the arrows left to put enough hurt into the columns to blunt their charge. the archers route before the charge even hits home.
result a bloody victory for the musketeers but a victory none the less.
the longbow loses due to it's limited flexibility, the space it takes to wield it and how cumbersome it's munition is

>>64219152
And yet they were dumped world wide in favor of muskets. Seems like they sucked pretty hard don't you think?

>>64219581
>>64219587
>>64219590
>>64219679
>>64219697
>>64219720
>>64219847
>>64219856
OP samefagging his gay thread.

File: Capture.jpg (210 KB, 1349x696)

210 KB JPG

>>64219916
>Bows
>And yet they were dumped world wide in favor of muskets. Seems like they sucked pretty hard don't you think?
Not quite. England didn't retire the bow from service until the very end of the 16th century. Also, 172 longbow were found on the Mary Rose which sank in 1545

File: 75196490_1021537524991540(...).jpg (131 KB, 1500x477)

131 KB JPG

>>64220168

The evolution of artillery went from archers to cannon. Anyone who thinks archers are more effective than cannon is an idiot. Spearmen became musketeers. And obviously a musket with bayonet is more effective than just a spear.

>>64219697
What caused the longbow to be phased out was a combination of:
>Suitable yew staves becoming hard to get
>Armour improvements invalidated many impacts, an arrow will shatter before penetrating 16th century plate
>Ammunition (arrows) where expensive and difficult to make in comparison to firearms where the only expense was setting up the powder mill
>It was easier to train men to use guns which where more effective and cheaper to supply
By the Napoleonics though, armour is pretty much gone bar from a few elite cavalry units, and most targets are unarmoured. Assuming that Ammunition is not an issue and the men are trained, the longbow has the advantage for this one fight.

>>64220491
>he thinks archers were artillery


>>64220530
>he thinks a trained blacksmitsh producing muskets with an entire supply chain down to iron ore is cheaper than a bow made out of fucking wood
>he thinks ammunition is free all you need is a powder mill bro

>>64219977
My guy I’ve posted like twice in this thread other than the OP

>>64219856
>>64219847
>Here's how it would go down
>In this scenario I've made up
>Where the archers have almost no ammunition
>And are statistically missing 200% more shots than they did in real life
>And are entirely made up of brittle cowards
>Whilst the musketeers have l33t hax never missing muskets
>And are psychologically tempered ultra disciplined unbreakable super men completely unaffected by little things like 1 in 3 losses in the space of a minute
>This is why the musket wins and is better

>>64220610
Actually, I am a trained bowyer. I make bows. Your 'just wood brah" nonsense us an insult. A stave has to be cut, checked for flaws, dried for at least a year, checked again for cracks, then the bowline found and the wood cut to a basic shape. Then it has to be slowly carved and tillered to a point that it can shoot effectively with the correct draw and power. It's a process that can take days, even a week, after you have cured the wood, and at any point a stave can be rendered useless by a hidden flaw or accident. Tillering itself is a precise art of flex and timing, do it wrong and you lose power due to a follow, or the bow is a ticking bomb that will snap suddenly under strain. 3 is the maximum number of staves a man can work at once.
Even with an industry behind it, the process is long and labrous.
Compare this to a gun, which is a tube made from an iron rod coiled around a former and welded and hammer welded, with a simple spring mechanism at one end.
Or arrows, that need to be taken from straight sticks, cut to length, battoned, then formed, then have feathers cut to size and shape and glued then tied on, then have an arrow head that needs to be smithed out attached to a powder mill where you pour in ingredients in the correct ratio at one end and powder comes out at the other, or bullets where lead is poured into a mould and cooled.

You know nothing, you seething turd worlder. I wish we had wiped whatever shitstain nation you come from off of the map.

File: file.png (40 KB, 281x208)

40 KB PNG

>>64219977
seethe and cope

>>64220728
This is OP baiting again.

>>64220610
>archers were artillery
Yes, they were. If you don't understand that simple reality then you are a lost cause.

>>64220767
Mayhaps. I wish we could exterminate the verminous blight that is the Indians. They contribute nothing of worth and less of intellect.

File: Wall of fire- the rifle a(...).png (657 KB, 6106x3447)

657 KB PNG

>>64216579
>Would a napoleonic or earlier army of musketeers beat an equally sized army of trained longbowmen?
Yes, guns have such higher leathlity and range that longbows just cant compete.


>>64219040
>kinda weird that people even wore heavier and heavier armor over the centuries, lol
Less to do with arrows and more to do with guns. Once you start wearing 1.6 to 2mm armor that is of decent or medium quaility then arrows stop being a problem (in the context of" OH GOD IT HIT MY LUNG" versus "fuck my arm got stinged by arrow head that penetrated 4-7mm into my arm" )

Guns however will blow straight through 2mm of plate armor, demanding thicker plates 4-6mm or even 8-10mm thick plates to stop gun fire.

>>64220728
>It's a process that can take days, even a week,
it takes that long just to make the barrel of a gun, never mind the stock which is made out of wood and follows the same process of making a bow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTy3uQFsirk

>>64220896
>Talks about muskets
>Posts a source about rifles, a technology developed a hundred years later
The kind of bullshit OP has been doing all thread.

>>64220896
>1.6
>fuck my arm got stinged by arrow head that penetrated 4-7mm into my arm
try 5cm

>Once you start wearing 1.6 to 2mm armor that is of decent or medium quaility then
you're already in the mid 15th century and longbows are obsolete
but longbows still ruled in the preceding centuries

File: 1428010396202.jpg (53 KB, 682x494)

53 KB JPG

>>64220685
>In this scenario I've made up
OP made up
>Where the archers have almost no ammunition
for the 1415 campaign, not not just the one battle
each archer was issues 24 arrows, they would carry about half of those on their person and the rest would be in the baggage train
since the line infantry doesn't get it's artillery that is in the baggage train the archers don't get their extra arrows
>And are statistically missing 200% more shots than they did in real life
I'd really love to see your sources on how accurate archers are
I'm going with arrow head finds on battle fields
they aren't found clumped up or on a line as if engaging just the front ranks of the enemy but all over. why? because most arrows are being shot indirectly into the mass of the enemy
a line formation offers a much smaller target to indirect fire than a mass of troops. you squeeze more men into a smaller area.
Due to the area longbow men need to wield their bows most of the archers are going to have to be in back ranks and thus not able to fire directly but have to lob their shots. this why they would be of limited use
>And are entirely made up of brittle cowards
the historical record shows that nearly all bayonet charges didn't make contact with the enemy, the charge was blunted or the receiving party ran.
This is where the much tighter formation muskets where employed in matter. a musket is much slower to load, but a formation could put out a lot more shots because you could have more men fire giving you more punch for the same frontage.
>Whilst the musketeers have l33t hax never missing muskets
if they did there would be no need for a charge
>And are psychologically tempered ultra disciplined unbreakable super men completely unaffected by little things like 1 in 3 losses in the space of a minute
losing 1/3 you men and not breaking was something line infantry did again and again during the napoleonic wars

>>64220914
Lmao, seething French turdie.
I've a friend whom is a smith, gun barrels take a couple if hours to make. Likewise, the wood only needs to be carved and the only things you need to watch for are cracks and rot. Don't try to talk about that which you don't know.

File: armor did it work chapter(...).png (1.16 MB, 3709x5961)

1.16 MB PNG

>>64220924
Are you blind? There are two examples of the french testing smoothbore muskets. Rifled muskets did exist in the napoleonic war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuTlO_VyAiY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2LLK6Cyx8M

>>64220947
>try 5cm
The 1mm thick arm protection in todd workshop Arrows vs Amour 2 test didn't get penetrated 5cm deep, however that armor was indeed high quality
>you're already in the mid 15th century and longbows are obsolete
>but longbows still ruled in the preceding centuries
Point taken.

>>64221029
And then armour vanished again, so by the napoleonic period you lack any form of protection to prevent the arrow from punching a few inches into you.

>>64221029
Forgot to add:
Line infantry used smoothbores, rifles where used exclusively by trained specialist infantry. So you don't get rifles, you get smoothbores turdy.

>>64220956
Losing 1 in 3 over an hour because musket accuracy was that bad? Yeah, no biggy. Losing 1 in 3 in 2 minutes to near constant volleys that are tearing holes in your ranks? As the Franco-Prussian war proved, units break at far fewer casualties at those loss rates.

>>64221048
The russians and Ottomans fielded bow wielding troops during the gunpowder era. And yet they were absolutely btfo and were nothing more than a curiosity to Western armies. Explain that.

File: file.png (881 KB, 1172x572)

881 KB PNG

>>64221029
>The 1mm thick arm protection in todd workshop Arrows vs Amour 2 test didn't get penetrated 5cm deep
if they built the arm according to the same spec as the Churbourg suit like they did with the cuirass, the arm plate would be 1.6mm thick
>two inches, bit more actually, going in
>and that's gone through steel, mail, and padding

>>64221070
Not longbow men, and poorly disciplined. Iirc they had short recurves. Your ignorance shows again, rajesh

>>64221080
First reply in this thread, retard. Longbowmen would be cut to shreads by artillery before ever getting into range, the only reason the Ziggers and Ottomans thought they could try it was mobility. These were cavalry archers. And they still failed to inflict notable casualties to unarmoured infantry.

>>64221070
>Ottomans
a shadow of a tinpot kingdom by this time
oh sorry that might be non-P.C.
a tinpot sultanate
>Russians
were probably glorified hunters and hardly the cream of the country's military at this time if they were using bows, right?
they'd scatter at a whiff of grapeshot

and if you think that's nuts, certain Napoleonic troops fired at nothing and panicked THEMSELVES into a rout

File: capture-1.gif (63 KB, 902x697)

63 KB GIF

>>64219916
The gateway drug into history can be found in simple statements like that
>musket better than longbow
Didn't happen in a vacuum and the longbow fell out of use as Governments and Societies changed the way they organised, feudalism and the medieval period ended and the modern era began.
Armies and the way they were equipped and organised reflected society at the time.
Remember professional standing armies in Europe mostly disappeared with the Western Roman Empire and wouldn't be seen again for over 1000 years. Its hard to imagine in todays era of progress of a regression so hard that society is still trying to get back to where it was a millenia ago in terms of civil and social conditions.

>>64221064
all light infantry had skirmishers organic to the unit those where when practicable armed with rifled muskets
>As the Franco-Prussian war proved
the Prussians where able to put a out a lot more fire from the same frontage per minute than archers could.
A man with a musket needs just a little more then his shoulder in with to work his piece and two ranks would fire over each other standing, 3 if the front man knelt, 4 if the front man went prone and the second rank knelt.
that's 4 muskets firing for every 80 cm of front, 16 shots per minute per 80 cm of front or 19 shots per minute for 1 meter
An archer needs more space over meter and a half and can only fire in two ranks
so 12 shots for 1.5 meters or 8 shots per minute for a 1 meter front
so longbow men can put out less than half of what the Prussians could over the same frontage.
even when firing 4 ranks deep the Prussians frequently had to resort to the bayonet to move the french of objectives.

also if the longbow was so good a piercing armor and so good at breaking units. why did it always get down to the melee?
all the battles won by the longbow saw the english and the french get into a melee. the longbow on it's own never had the firepower to break the french on it's own
so did it fail to penetrate the armor or did it simply not put out enough arrows for the given frontage to break them

>>64221064
also thank you for conceding every point but the rate of casualties that line infantry can take
the archers would still have gone trough their 12 arrows to break the first line
leaving them unprotected fodder the second line second line to pick of at their leisure
never mind having to form columns to charge them
now let's see those longbow men mount bayonets

>>64216892
I remember my spearman in civ 3 taking out a tank.

>>64221008
>gun barrels take a couple if hours to make
unlike bows gun barrels aren't supposed to have a bend in them

>>64221096
The op question is if longbowmen can fight an equal number if musket armed line infantry. I am sorry your reading comprehension is so low rajesh, it must hurt to come from a country whose average iq is only 6 points above the retard line.

>>64221149
Actually no, many light units only carried smoothbores. Only the British and, iirc, Prussians seriously invested in rifle units, and those where dedicated formations in their own right.

Archers can also fire indirectly, and the archers are also hammering a compact formation whilst, by your own admonition, being relatively dispersed, thus making them a poor target for musket volleys.

>>64221149
>also if the longbow was so good a piercing armor and so good at breaking units. why did it always get down to the melee?
Because armies of the day pushed into each other. The French especially had a sense of aggression, and would push on regardless.
Killing via shooting takes time, note the packed Russian squares at Borodino stood for over 2 hours under direct fire from the French army and bombardment from the French guns, and only suffered heavy casualties. Linear engagements could see formations firing at each other for hours before one unit withdraws or decides the enemy is weakened enough to chance an assault, and a push would be able to get into contact often before more than two volleys of musket fire could hit them.
You literally know nothing.

>>64221166
Archers where resupplied with fresh arrows through the battle, and often carried more than your giving them allowance for. Stop embarrassing yourself.

>>64221245
Bows are supposed to be completely straight when unstrung, a bend indicates a follow, which is a fault and a failure.
A gun barrel is formed around a former, making it easy to hammer out straight. Stop speaking, your so retarded it hurts.

>>64221258
>the mandrel was straight so that means the bore is straight

>>64221149
>franco Prussian war
Utterly irrelevant, they were using breach loading rifles

>>64221166
>12 arrows
standard English sheaf was 24, fucknugget

ok so what I am getting from this thread is that the longbow was a true super weapon better than anything before the invention of the rifle, capable of decimating any advancing enemy before they even got to melee range, except for all the times when it didn't, and the only reason they stopped using it was because longbowmen were simply too elite and couldn't be maintained even as armies became more professional over time.

>64221313
seething lmao

>>64221313
You forgot to mention that all armour was useless against the mighty longbow until the 1500s. Shields? Mobility? Never heard of them.

File: 1419406443198.jpg (107 KB, 518x827)

107 KB JPG

>>64221250
it's nice that you say that I know nothing
but mister knows all here can't counter my arguments so I guess this here numb nuts knows more than you
>resupply
but annon it's archer vs. musketeers
if the musketeers don't get their support units the archers don't get theirs
now if they did have their support units, I'd love to see your counter to 12 pounders giving the longbow men a taste of grape shot at 800 yards and 6 pounders at 400 yards
or how about we ditch these silly confines and put a longbow heavy English army against a single division of the grande armée, about 8000 each
let's take I st division VII corp
1 light regiment, 3 line regiments 8 guns all 6 pounds or over
against 6400 longbow men and 1600 men at arms

>>64221341
>how about we ditch these silly confines
how about you make your own thread

>>64221347
well great just the men and what they carry then, no reloads from the baggage train
just as OP said
>>64221281
I didn't bring it up nor did my disposition of how the battle goes depend on the fire power of the musket. much as period commanders saw it it was the bayonet that won the day so I go with what they would do a bayonet charge
>>64221296
my bad, it takes them longer to finish off their arrows and the first line gets mauled more
but they still run out before the second line comes into play due to inherent inaccuracy of indirect fire without proper observation

>>64221393
>my bad
>without proper observation
man you just keep stacking them up

>>64221459
go on, correct me
I'm all ears and eager to learn

>>64216985
Had me til the end angloid. I r8 4/8

>Musket army realizes it goes against longbow army
>Equips its first line troops with simple munitions plate
>Longbows suddenly at barely 1/4 the effectiveness

>>64221341
>"If I say I'm winning then I am because... I just AM okay?"

>>64221393
The first line takes 6 volleys and halts to give a ragged volley, 2 to 3 more arrow volleys slam in and the line breaks, fleeing back through the second line and unnerving the men of it whom then advance into the teeth of the arrow maelstrom and also break after firing one ineffectual volley.
Because they are a tightly packed group of unarmoured men, the perfect target for archers, and they are firing at, at best, 1/3 the fire rate at a target that's dispersed enough that more shot than usual is wasted.

>>64221275
Surprise surprise, early barrels did not have precision measurements to endure they are within a zillionth of a degree of straight, they had the smiths eye, and a roll on a flat surface.
Which was surprisingly accurate, again read up on the subject before crying.

>>64221495
>you can just bang your iron billet around a mandrel and it will have a straight bore no work required only takes a few hours

>>64219688
Wow thats an old one lol

File: 100 yards target.png (492 KB, 1166x497)

492 KB PNG

>>64221468
at the typical Napoleonic engagement range of a hundred-odd yards they're not shooting "indirect" at all, they're shooting at a target that is perfectly visible

i.e. about sixty of these targets more or less shoulder to shoulder, ten deep

>>64221495
>The first line takes 6 volleys and halts to give a ragged volley, 2 to 3 more arrow volleys slam in and the line breaks, fleeing back through the second line and unnerving the men of it whom then advance into the teeth of the arrow maelstrom and also break after firing one ineffectual volley
something like that, yes

based on firsthand accounts, in these head-on Napoleonic column-vs-line battles, three volleys can absolutely wreck the attacker

like I said earlier, the main advantage here is that the longbow shoots at virtually the same effective range as the Napoleonic smoothbore musket, against an unarmoured opponent, but at twice the rate of fire, minimum. all else being equal the longbowmen win.

oh, and they carried 2x to 3x the number of arrows that typical Napoleonic musketeers carried too.

imagine if only the longbow hadn't been lost to history for being too powerful it would have only taken one coalition to beat napoleon instead of 7

File: file.png (15 KB, 150x150)

15 KB PNG

<- t. >>64221637

if the confederates had longbows they could have won at gettysburg and rap music wouldn't exist today

>>64221664
>rap music
>music

File: 2nd arm that did not pen.jpg (222 KB, 1280x720)

222 KB JPG

>>64221048
>>64221064
Correct, while the longbowman get dropped by muskets tearing just 1 big hole straight through his body.

If we look at this silly youtube video
https://youtu.be/BiTjj-Jz4eM?t=585
>1 shots with a musket from 100 yards
>1 hit on man sized target on first try
>3 arrows at 100 yards from a novice user (only 1 year of experience)
>no hits
>later man that cant even use the longbow and 0 experience with a musket
>2 shots with musket 100 yards
>1 hit
The musket is inherently more accurate instinctively speaking even from this very small example.

You are arguing as if the napoleonic musket army are going to walk in like automatons and fire at the normal range they did against other musket armies against the time traveling longbow army.

There is nothing to stop the hypothetical 1000 musketeers to begig firing at the hypothetical 1000 longbowmen at longer range. There is nothing stopping the skirmishers infront of the line armed with muskets to begin firing at longbowmen at long range.

On the other hand there is nothing stopping the longbowmen to simply dig a trench and then lob arrows from it and so on. Or spreading out, disperse and try skirmishing (which the musketeers could also do)

There are so many different scenarios and variable to consider that there is no clear "I win answer" without any attempt at simulating it. Is there any video game/war game where you could do the "longbowmen vs musket" scenario and play it out?


>>64221077
https://youtu.be/ds-Ev5msyzo?t=303
He says the arms are 1mm thick but he could have misspoken or that could have been the average thickness while some areas it is 1.6mm, I dunno.
>The only time the plate armor failed is on the arm hit that hit the spot where the plates overlap
>All other arrow failed to pen the plate armor
>All arrows that hit the mail penned
If anything this proves that anyone too poor to afford plate armor are gona get slaughtered like animals by longbows at the tested range.

>>64221495
>>"If I say I'm winning then I am because... I just AM okay?"
well it would help if you gave a reason as to why they wouldn't aside from "it is know, you are stupid"
>The first line takes 6 volleys
first of you are ignoring the skirmishers going straight to the first line
but okay let's go with that
if it takes 6 volleys to close the gap you are talking about a minute and a line on the double quick could cover about 150yards
so the archers start shooting at 250 yards
at that range the archers are very inaccurate
volleys were given as to create a beaten zone, that beaten zone would be crossed well before they have taken 3 full volleys
the archers commanders would then have to get them to shift their beaten zone. something they didn't do much as attested by sources not mentioning it changing and the dispersal of arrowheads recovered from battle fields. They are found in patches with fewer found in between so the fire didn't follow the formations of men at arms coming in aside from the front line of archers
so the archers aren't getting 6 full volleys in and most of those are at their extreme range the dispersal of those arrows coming down at that range would be pretty wild and remember that line of men is just 2 yards deep not the mass of infantry they would usually shoot at so the vast bulk of arrows wouldn't hit anything

line halts, gives a more than ragged volley of their own
the archers behind the front rows shift their aim point and cut down the rest of the front line.
cont.

>>64221718
*correction. The 2nd arm shot did technically speaking make a hole but it was not big enough to allow the arrow pass 5cm in. Instead it bounced out of the hole it made.

It would not have been as serious/lethal as the first arm hit.

cont.
congrats the second line is right behind them
they give it the good old fire by rank and then charge
giving the archers the good old fear of God that guns put into every civilization that hasn't faced them before
they are at a hundred yards and now you can at best get 4 volleys in before impact
given that the first line didn't break under 6 volleys I don't see them breaking in 4
>but the frightened men from the first line
lines advanced past retreating lines all the time only for them to charge home

>dispersed enough that more shot than usual is wasted.
it's good that you recognize that the archers are dispersed
because that limits the amount of fire they can bring to bear against the advancing infantry
dispersed formations are also pretty shit at standing against bayonet charges so it ups the chances that they run and if they run the second line doesn't even need to eat those 4 volleys

>but they would just adjust their volleys on the go
they are used to firing into masses of infantry not at lines advancing on them, they can't see that behind the first line there's a gap before the second line.
but line infantry was used to advancing in separate lines in order to avoid ricochets and over shots from solid shot
>>64221576
>at the typical Napoleonic engagement range of a hundred-odd yards they're not shooting "indirect" at all
the first rank sure, never said they aren't
but those guys are two ranks deep and take over a meter and a half of front on their own.
it would take a line 12 times as long (2 to 1 in front taken, 3 to 2 ranks, two lines instead of one) as the line infantry to get them all into one line
that would put the vast majority of them out of range to engage the line infantry
if you put them several lines deep now the lines behind the first one have to fire over the heads of the first line or risk hitting their own men
the further back you go the less they can see and the harder it becomes for them to shoot accurately

>>64221751
>if it takes 6 volleys
it doesn't; other anon was being unduly pessimistic
musketeers don't have armour. they're going to be slaughtered from the first volley

>a line on the double quick could cover about 150yards
in historical assaults they took at least a minute, maybe more, because hey it turns out people aren't in fact that eager to rush to their deaths

>...
>so the archers aren't getting 6 full volleys in and most of those are at their extreme range
that's a very silly line of reasoning that can be altogether disposed of by simply having the bowmen fight logically instead of robotically following what you assume to be their tactics
>they volleyed indirectly sometimes, therefore I assume they only know how to volley indirectly ALL the time
come on, mate

oh, and they're shooting at least 6 aimed shots per minute, by the way, as many as 10 rapid fire

> that line of men is just 2 yards deep
oh brilliant
this means the enemy is attacking in line formation, not column, 3 deep and ~2-300 across
they're facing the same number of bowmen too, who are shooting at a line of point targets a hundred yards away
it'll be a bloody massacre

>>64221788
>given that the first line didn't break under 6 volleys I don't see them breaking in 4
in historical accounts, more than once French battalions broke in three (3) volleys

>take over a meter and a half of front on their own.
>it would take a line 12 times as long
what is this schizo maths
bowmen can easily stand shoulder to shoulder the same as musketeers

>>64221878
>slaughtered from the first volley
yes because everyone is going to hit at 250 yards, with a bow
>in historical assaults they took at least a minute, maybe more
and there are historical cases where they didn't pause at all not even a quick pause to redress ranks and carried home the charge
>that can be altogether disposed of by simply having the bowmen fight logically instead of robotically following what you assume to be their tactics
annon those men don't know how line infantry fights
as far as they are aware they are the same as any other mass of infantry they have faced
I'm simply going by how they fought their battles as attested to in the sources and what historical evidence we have
>therefore I assume they only know how to volley indirectly ALL the time
it's more that the rear lines can't see let alone fire trough the men in front of them, so they HAVE to shoot over them
>by the way, as many as 10 rapid fire
>who are shooting at a line of point targets a hundred yards away
well it's one or the other
>in historical accounts, more than once French battalions broke in three (3) volleys
and there are others where they took dozens and wouldn't budge
>bowmen can easily stand
stand, yes
use their bow to get of those 6-10 shots a minute, no
and it's not schitzo maths it's what historical reenactors concluded
you need about a 1.5m square to use your bow unobstructed
trying to fire more than two deep risks friendly fire because your arms are moving around pulling the bow string back and so is your torso when you go to take you next staked out arrow
so the next line has to fire over the first

the long bow has restriction and those restrictions dictate what tactics you can use with them
the musket is much more flexible and allows for more ways to employ your men such as with skirmishers who can go prone
something the other annons chose to ignore because they can't figure out how to deal with them

>>64221942
>250 yards
WHY
THE
FUCK
ARE
THEY
SHOOTING
AT
250
YARDS
YOU
RETARD
WHEN
THEY
CAN
EASILY
HOLD
THEIR
FIRE
AND
SHOOT
AT
100
YARDS
FAR
MORE
EFFECTIVELY
YOU
DUMB
MOTHERFUCKER
DO
YOU
EVEN
FUCKING
READ
WHAT
YOU'RE
FUCKING
REPLYING
TO
BEFORE
FUCKING
POSTING
??????

there really is no point in writing any rebuttals to a moron who refuses to read, so goodbye all

>>64221977
at a hundred yards the musketeers shoot back
the whole point of the hur durr longbows win is range and rate of fire
at a hundred yards you've already given up their range advantage
if anything letting the archers open up at 250 yards is the worst case scenario for the line infantry because it means they are under fire the longest

>>64219916
yes they did suck in comparison to real world application but the OPs question was a "who would win" and not "what is more practical"

File: lead musket ball bouncing(...).jpg (341 KB, 1280x720)

341 KB JPG

>Longbow
>100 yards
>250 yards
Is there any data on the maximum lethal range of the longbow?

https://youtu.be/EOVJ1RCDQ4M?t=566
Capandball did some testing with a 17th centuary matchlock and he came to the conclustion that the maxium range a musketball could not turn a man into a casualty was a range beyond 550 meters (601 yards), a lead ball simulating a hit at 596 meters with the impact energy of 69 J could not wound a man (pig skin with ribs and meat was not penetrated).


What is the range where a man with no armor would be safe from an arrow that hit him?

File: Minie ball.jpg (672 KB, 2575x2100)

672 KB JPG

>>64216579
Why did it take so long for someone to think of the Minie ball? And even longer for it to become widely adopted? The Minie ball even works out of smoothbore barrels, look at Foster slug in modern shotguns, it uses drag stabilization, and rifled slugs spin just enough to stabilize better. Cannons can even use scaled up rifled foster slugs.

File: Elements of Field Fortifi(...).jpg (352 KB, 686x1146)

352 KB JPG

>>64221986
Why would the musketeers shoot back at only 100 yards?
Unless they are armored, like the harquebusiers of Blaise de Montluc during the italian wars which only opened fire when they were in range of the enemy archers, they have no reason to do so.

>>64222253
>Is there any data on the maximum lethal range of the longbow?
I can't think of any but it might be worth looking at the nips for that.
Anthony J. Bryant, in The Samurai 1550-1600, states an effective range of 200m for muskets and 80m for bows during the period.
Iirc war yumi commonly went up to the 110lbs range with some even going up to the 180s.

>>64222270
The general answer to anything like this is "because it was hard/expensive to make"

>>64222270
1) It wasn't the first. The Pritchett slug comes to mind. There were many minor problems which moderns tend to ignore because they only arise with the actual tech of the time.
2) it didn't solve the low velocity of blackpowder; therefore actually using its improved range was only possible through a large and expensive national effort at training good shots - not a cheap thing at the time.
3) even if you did build a good slug and invest in the men needed to use it, what do you really get? about 3 more good volleys. that ends the threat of cavalry, but it doesn't give a tactical solution to the need for shock, in fact it blunts infantry's ability to supply it because now you take more casualties before closing to bayonet range. you've gotten a minor low-level improvement at the cost of ruining your key top-end tactics.

tl;dr think FPVs today. the Minie ball made war gay.

>>64222736
you've got minie balls

>>64222253
>Is there any data on the maximum lethal range of the longbow?
There is a tale (note) of a French General in the Napoleonic Wars who took a square hit from an arrow and it didn't penetrate his uniform. So it's possible.

Tod has tested maximum range in high wind conditions at ~400 yards with a 160lb bow. His CEP appeared to be 5 or 6 yards. But, tellingly, he couldn't find his other arrows. Accuracy drops off significantly.

But there's not much point to volleying arrows at extreme range in battle really.

File: Japanese arquebus range v(...).png (691 KB, 1036x1376)

691 KB PNG

>>64222694
>Anthony J. Bryant, in The Samurai 1550-1600, states an effective range of 200m for muskets and 80m for bows during the period.
I found an image of said range statement and holy damn, no wonder the koreans stated the japanese outranged them during the invasion of korea by japans samurai armies.


According to Stephen R Turnbull book "Samurai warfare"

>The efficiency and accuracy of the matchlock musket have recently been assessed in a series of practical experiments carried out in Japan, using Japanese arquebuses made at the beginning of the Edo Period.

>The first test was an assessment of the gun's range. Five bullets, each of 8mm calibre, were fired at a target in the shape of an armoured samurai from distances of 30 metres and 50 metres respectively by an experienced matchlock user. At 30 metres each of the five bullets hit the target area of the chest, but only one out of the five struck the chest area at 50 metres.

>Even at 50 metres, however, a bullet that
struck home on a man could do considerable
damage, as shown by the results of the second
experiment. Bullets of 9mm calibre were fired using a charge of 3 grams of powder at ranges of 30 and 50 metres against the following materials:
>a. 24mm wooden board;
>b. 48mm wooden board;
>c. 1mm iron plate;
>d. 2mm iron plate.
>At 30 metres each was pierced cleanly. At 50 metres a. and c. were again pierced through. The bullet entered the 48mm board for threequarters of its depth, and also entered the 2mm iron plate, causing a dent on the inside, but not passing through.
>As the iron scales of a typical do-maru armour of the Sengoku Period were about 0.8mm thick, the armour could be holed by a bullet fired at 50 metres.

>>64223942
>But there's not much point to volleying arrows at extreme range in battle really.
Didn't the british fire some few long range arrows at the french just to annoy and provoke them to attack in one medieval battle?

>>64223981
>Didn't the british fire some few long range arrows at the french just to annoy and provoke them to attack in one medieval battle?
Maybe
Lots of shit happens across a hundred years of war, I imagine

Considering what we know now of effective tactical ranges, perhaps that's why historians said it was a "provocation". Because it wasn't so much as a random kill here or there, but more like "nyeh nyeh you don't dare move nyeh nyeh" taunting. Cause I doubt it killed anyone.

>>64223981
they opened fire at about 300 yards at Agincourt
>>64222694
I know they can shoot and hit further, but I'm going with how line infantry of the Napoleonic era would be used. not on how they could be best used against longbow men.

>>64224591
>they can shoot and hit further
in theory, but in practice, they couldn't
typical Napoleonic infantry engagement ranges weren't 100-150 yards for shits and giggles
credit both sides with knowing full well exactly how effective their battalions were at what ranges

>>64224628
true, at longer ranges you are throwing the dice with every shot
linemen also weren't trained engage at their maximum range
skirmishers could do so with better results but still not very great
here the form factor and weight of the munition and the ability to load and fire in separate movements and to do so while prone becomes important. they could use cover much better then the archers and even without cover simply going prone makes them a hard target to hit
the form factor and weight of the munition also comes into play here since a skirmisher armed with a musket could carry a lot more shots then the archer
so if the line regiments simply detach skirmishers and let the skirmishers take their time they would trade favorably with the archers

>>64224823
Your giving line infantry all the best of their potential training and ability while assuming the longbow men were all retards that are incapable of doing anything other than standing in a line and taking it. At Crecy they were detached and concealed in flanking woodlands to give enfilading fire on the French in the center, at Agincourt they entered the melee on the flanks when arrows were spent.

>>64224881
I'm merely speculating as per OP's gay rules because a Napoleonic force would never be composed of just line infantry and a English army never be just longbow men. since no terrain was given we must assume that it's an open level field. For every terrain advantage you can think of for the archers I can think of one for the line infantry.
longbow men on their own did not stand and take charges. every time that a force of just longbow men, unsupported by men at arms, was charged upon they routed
their job wasn't to get stuck into the melee they where there to break the charge and then harass the enemy engaged with the English men at arms. their job wasn't to get stuck in it very much so was a line infantryman's job to get stuck in
as to them joining the melee at Agincourt, it stand out that sources mentioned them joining as if it was something worth mentioning while other sources about other battles with longbow men present don't
this hints that their behavior at Agincourt was a deviation from the norm
sadly we don't have much information on how the longbow men where commanded in practice beyond that a noble would be given command so a men at arms commanded them and this isn't a combined arms force as per OP so no men at arms
we do know how line infantry command worked because we have the manuals, journals ect. their command was organic with clear ranks and rules on seniority
if you take a number of line regiments without their divisional command staff they would figure out command and control on their own
that is why I give the line infantry an advantage in the command and control department

I think it's really a question of how many men the longbowmen would lose before they got into close quarters combat.

Professional longbowmen would fuck musketeers up in melee that's for sure. They would be decently armoured and probably a lot stronger. Yes they would have had slightly inferior weaponry but the difference isn't that big desu.

If I was the general for the longbowmen, I would loose as many arrows as possible in volleys and then charge once the musketeers were within firing range.

>>64216579
Victory for the longbow is certainly more possible than most posters are willing to accept. Much like with Katanas in the 90s, longbows were talked up so much that now retards are bandwaggoning ultra hard in the other direction.

Bows were abandoned because creating and arming a longbowman with a super high draw bow was absurdly expensive compared to guns, which were like ten times more effective against armor and cavalry to boot.

Pitting an equal number of longbowmen (ignoring expense and logistics) against huge columns of unarmored infantry (increasing effective range by a factor of five) is removing all the things that limited the range and effectiveness of bows.

>>64225018
I don't think they would fuck up musketeers "for sure". I would much rather be in the musketeer formation behind a wall of bayonets than be on the other side trying to fight my way into their formation with a gambeson and arming sword. I mean a musket with bayonet is basically a polearm, that's why the whole pike and shot method of warfare became obsolete, because your shooters can be pikemen too. Yes the archers might have mail shirts but bayonets at this time were basically a triangular spike, they would have been ideal for breaking through mail.

>>64217224
So what? Ever heard of combined arms?

>>64216579
It's wrong to look at the customary ranges of bows against huge numbers of armored infantry when talking about them firing at a column of unarmored musket troops. Even the simplest armor dramatically reduced the effectiveness of all bows. "Plunging" or high angle fire was less common than movies would have you believe mostly because of this limitation, but a bow, especially a bow with a draw over 140 pounds firing a heavy arrow, would wound or kill even at extreme range, and an infantry column would be particularly vulnerable to that kind of fire, being both packed together and quite deep in formation. Many ranks of archers firing was generally a waste historically for anything other than harassment, but in this case could be far, far more effective.
The historical cases of muskets going up against bowmen were never this kind of RTS magical scenario with equal numbers and super high draw bows being fired from a mass of men.
In this specific impossible scenario the Longbows have all the unnatural rules going in their favor, and it would not be impossible for them to win.
Thin linear formations and skirmish formations diminish the extremely situational advantages of the bow, and it was actually somewhat common for columns to, when it was deemed appropriately, reorganize into lines.

>>64228357
> I mean a musket with bayonet is basically a polearm
Just worse in every conceivable way. The one place the archers would spank the musket troops would be in a melee, it wouldn't even be close, they'd completely fucking annihilate them.

File: Screenshot_20250907_08301(...).jpg (633 KB, 1080x2400)

633 KB JPG

>>64228322
>Bows were abandoned because creating and arming a longbowman with a super high draw bow was absurdly expensive compared to guns, which were like ten times more effective against armor and cavalry to boot.

Army sizes were tiny in the middle ages, even compared to what the Romans would field 1000 yesr earlier.
Army sizes swelling in the modern era and developments in manufacturing and social organisation is what leads to Muskets being widely adopted (Muskets, not Arquebus's which were mixed with pikemen) hundreds of years after the peak of Longbow use.

>>64228784
What part of what you said do you think relates to what you quoted?

File: 793355768.jpg (64 KB, 500x500)

64 KB JPG

>>64216579
no, they'd all be massacred
history clearly shows that muskets were a deadend, thats why everyone still uses longbows to this very day

>>64228878
It's not a realistic comparison because of the difference in cost and their effectiveness against different things.

>>64216601
Henry VIII drilled his bowmen at 220 yards.

>>64228910
thats great, anon
maybe if the OP asked "whats logistically superior during [said] timeframe", a more nuanced answer would have been given
but alas, /k/ is an archery board, isn't it?

>>64217860
>general makes more difference than all the technical change that had occured in that time
the difference in blade metallurgy alone would win the day. Romans with 18 inch Stabbing shortswords would stand no chance against the specifically armor piercing long blades of the Norman crusaders. the thrust of a norman sword or spear would go right through roman armor od any type and the norman would know it cus half the people he ever fought would have been using some sort of roman period cast off designs for lack of their own advancements. Like the Legionary is going to trust his Lorica against a blow and a norman lance is gonna go right through it AFTER punching through his tower shield.

>>64224970
>army never be just longbow men.
So how would musketeers deal with men at arms in plate, if on the assault.

>>64229037
just stop and shoot them
how would the longbow men deal with 12 pounders giving canister at twice the range a longbow can shoot?

>>64228870
It's just expanding on it. Longbows were possible in a feudal system where you could enforce weekly archery practice and draw on a population of longbowmen either hired as mercenaries or carrying out their military obligations.
This goes out the window in the Modern era where social organisation changes, large standing armies start to come back and firearms become smaller and more useful. The Longbow didn't stop being useful overnight, but the systems that enabled it changed.

File: English_gun_used_at_Crecy.jpg (33 KB, 600x290)

33 KB JPG

>>64229231
And the musket didn't replace the Longbow directly anyway, there was a couple hundred years of Pike and Shot between them as weapons and tactics developed.
Cannons were on the field at Crecy, but they were very rudimentary. Bring it forward to the English Civil three hundred years later and you see the sorts of cannon that would be familiar to Napoleon.

>>64228780
troops armed with musket and bayonet routinely bulldozed thirdies who had swords, shields and armor. and bows for that matter. a cohesive unit for musketeers can charge over a band of warriors even in melee.

File: Islamic_Gunpowder_Empires(2).jpg (144 KB, 912x549)

144 KB JPG

>>64229283
>a cohesive unit for musketeers can can shoot bands of warriors into small bits
Fixed for you

>>64229231
Boomer bollocks >>64216708

>>64222253
Commenting on this test.
During use if muskets it was extremely common for soldiers to receive non penetrating musket wounds. Such wounds were called "concussion by bullet". Such type of injuries points out that during battles musketers routinely shoot and hit targets at ranges more than 500-600 meters where bullets stop penetrating human skin.

These concussions by bullet still can be dangerous even without penetration. For context initial velocity of light (30 grams) long range roman sling bullets were about 70-90 m/s.

File: MV5BZWViOTc4MzYtZTY1Yi00Z(...).jpg (305 KB, 1920x1080)

305 KB JPG

>>64216579
3 shots in a minute, yeah, they fuck

>>64229516
What is?
>>64229231
Is pretty straightforward history. Everything happens because of everything else around it and things progress. The Chinese had gunpowder for centuries before the Europeans and did fuck all with it because their society wasn't conductive to developing it.

>>64216642
Absolute textbook example of Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.

>>64216579
idk what's the fucking terrain like you shitdick? is it rolling hills and rocks where the long range and power of a musket along with its combinations of line fire and formations kinda fail and archers can fire without line of sight? or is it a flat field where they can literally outrange their enemy the entire time

>>64216708
>"2 weeks peasant training musketeers" is complete victorian boomers bollocks
we have actual surviving accounts from the Napoleonic Wars of soldiers receiving that much training and then going into battle, retard

>>64230494
>we have actual surviving accounts from the Napoleonic Wars of soldiers receiving that much training and then going into battle,
May I see them?

As a counterpoint:
>The recruits will receive their muskets on the first day of training, ready to start immediately with the first movements of charging arms. These will be continued un the following days, and, being the main focus of exercise, will be continued daily, so that after 14 days they can move on to firing, first with blanks, and then at a practice target. Instruction in other movements will have but little time devoted, and should be left completely until the men are sure in the movements of charging their arms. Instruction on skirmishing, including their signals, and the details of daily service will also start on the first day, to be followed within the first eight days by instruction in field service. Training in marching, including the movements, is to be used only for variety and should not have much time invested in it; the time spent on their way to the army shall be used for this instruction.
>When the recruits, who have been trained in such a hasty manenr, are integrated into the rank and file, they should be placed in the middle files of the Sektionen, regardless of their height, and the flank files of Sektionen and Züge should be filled with men who have served for a longer time.
>t. Max von Busse, offcier in the 11. Reserve-Infanterie-Regiment, on training recruits during wartime
Salsa: Prussian Regular Infantryman 1808-15, Oliver Schmidt, Osprey Publishing