| A related question, which has always fascinated me, is why did muskets eventually replace the fast loading bow? The 2 obvious answers are a) they could penetrate armour more effectively and b) the noise has a greater psychological effect on the enemy, especially one not used to firearms. However, the role of armour then gradually reduces because of its lack of protection and its needless weight, but then the bow becomes useful again!
It seems this is like one of those evolutionary problems which biologists try to model which oscillates then settles down to a steady state, so we should arrive at an optimum solution with a certain mixture of both muskets, bows and armour, but that didn’t happen. Armour largely disappeared, perhaps with the exception of helmets (and ignoring modern protection).
It seems to me that if either the French or the Allies at Waterloo were trained and equipped with quick firing bows, perhaps supported with some musketry, then they would have won easily. Imagine the sort of volley the French suffered at the hands of the English at Crecy or Agincourt, but on totally unprotected troops. Alternately, perhaps I am treating it too simplistically and ignoring the effect of other weapons such as artillery and grenade shrapnel present in the armoury of later centuries.
Another advantage of arrows is that the heads can be used to carry infectious material either by doping them with poison or simply placing them in the mud. It seems this would be most effective for hit and run type tactics such as that used by the Mongols intent on inflicting long-term wounds on the enemy. In contrast, modern bullets might be sterilised by the heat of firing, thereby minimising injury, although subsequent infection could still set in from dirty clothing etc. |