waterloo

[lepers]

so would the british army at waterloo have been better off with longbows than muskets? i hear they only ever got to using muskets for the noise scare factor!

[ahasler]

I once did an archery course, and the instructor was keen on the history of archery. He said that the longbow was overtaken as a weapon because of the logistics of carrying tons (literally) of wooden arrows to the battlefront. Carrying the same number of 'shots' for guns was easier. He did quote some statistics about the number and weight of arrows used at Agincourt - can't remember the details but it certainly reinforced his point. Hope this helps!

[lepers]

yeah i guess thats a good reason. in terms of devestation to the enemy tho i think in terms of loosed arrows to shots fired plus accuracy the longbow is meant to b better :-s

[Chessman]

Another comparison question, (getting a bit popular), for the timeline, the Bow and Arrow can't compare with the Musket, unless possibly used by an expert on a special mission, where silence would be paramount. The British Army also used Rifles.

[Tatty Rollox]

...... and here we are at the battle of Waterloo ...

[jno]

you had to train constantly to use longbows (men aged 12-65 had to practise every Sunday) and bodies got terribly twisted. Firearms could be used by anyone without much training.

[Philtaz]

Arrows would only usually injure one person, two at best if the combatants were in very close proximity.

Musket balls were known to inflict serious injuries on up to 3 people(obvioulsy having passed through the other two) and the damage, devastation and subsequent sepsis that would have ensued for those injured would be far more severe than the injuries caused by a bodkin arrowhead, lethal though that was.

[lepers]

just the range of rapidity of longbow for would of been far greater then musket fire wouldn't it? they only managed about three shots a minute i thought.