Current Events > 300 longbowmen vs 300 musketeers in open ground

(+) Yeah! (+)

Who wins
---

If they are well trained the longbow men.
---

Before or after balance patch
---

I dunno, but it's going to be a huge mess.

Alteres posted...

If they are well trained the longbow men.

Also depends on if the musketeers have extra loaded muskets to swap out, cause otherwise they are only getting one shot off.
---

What formation are both sides in?
---

Alteres posted...

If they are well trained the longbow men.

---

Depends entirely on range.
---

Depends on how badly the musketmen's initial volley hurts the longbowmen. If they largely miss, and the longbowmen don't run, then I'd give it to the longbowmen for the added time it takes to reload the muskets. Some of the early muskets can take like a minute or so to reload, during which time the longbowmen can loose around 10 arrows.
---

Musketeers, no question. This had already happened during Henry VII's invasion of France. According to both the English and French the longbowmen were being outgunned by French troops armed with arquebuses. According to a French officer the French had an initial healty respect for the English but that went away as they carried "arms of little reach".

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLfWP68g92U" data-time="

A single arquebus shot takes out 2 Indian chiefs. Shots from the treeline sends them running and the battle is over. Mostly the same outcome in New World battles. Firearms were more effective than arrows.

Also look at the Imjin War. The Japanese absolutely shell shocked the Koreans with their muskets.
---

If they fight in lines, musketeers

---

HannibalBarca3 posted...

Musketeers, no question. This had already happened during Henry VII's invasion of France. According to both the English and French the longbowmen were being outgunned by French troops armed with arquebuses. According to a French officer the French had an initial healty respect for the English but that went away as they carried "arms of little reach".

Guide posted...

Depends entirely on range.

Yeah, these are good points. I was thinking the engagement starts off close together, but if the musketmen are outside of the archers range, this would make it clearly in their favor.

Oh yeah, also, if the musketmen get bayonets, they could charge the archers after their initial volley. Even if the archers have swords as sidearms, spear generally beats sword.
---

Its a myth that bows and arrows outraged muskets. This probably started because conscripts were poorly trained and bad shots. There really isn't any historical accounts were musketeers could not return fire because they were not in range. But in fact, there are accounts where arrows could not hit/reach musketeers. Also, longbows could not be used on horseback, so there's also that.
---

Even an average gunman from the modern age would demolish a master swordsman. I believe the same principle applies with musketeers vs bowmen
---

Alteres posted...

If they are well trained the longbow men.

You could say the same about the musketeers, and if we're talking rifled or smooth bore muskets.
---

Kolibri X posted...

Its a myth that bows and arrows outraged muskets. This probably started because conscripts were poorly trained and bad shots. There really isn't any historical accounts were musketeers could not return fire because they were not in range. But in fact, there are accounts where arrows could not hit/reach musketeers. Also, longbows could not be used on horseback, so there's also that.

I think pop culture plays a big role. In films blackpowder firearms are often depicted as weapons for the untrained masses, they're super inaccurate, slow and they're only good at very close ranges. Meanwhile the bow has figures like Legolas who can throw out a million accurate arrows a minute.

But that's not only it. During the French War of Religion protestant infantry carried a great deal of firearms but despite this they were beaten by pikemen. During the American Civil War the combat ranges remained the same more or less, rifled muskets didn't change much in that regard. French officer Ardant du Picq tried to find out why breech loading rifles were inaccurate at longer ranges following the Franco-Prussian War.

But that's not because the weapons were inaccurate. You had men like Master Jean sniping officers with early firearms, the Spaniards used their arquebuses to snipe Mexica officers during the Aztec Conquest. Humphrey Barwick, English mercenary who fought at the lowlands, wrote that he felt confident he was a better shot than any longbowmen back in England with his arquebus in only months of usage. What caused accuracy to plummet at longer ranges during mass battle was the stress caused by battlefield conditions. Most men aren't going to be able to keep their cool when you hear people dying all around you, there's smoke everywhere and there's people trying to kill you. This is why armies tended to engage at shorter ranges.

---

Tropicalwood posted...

Alteres posted...

If they are well trained the longbow men.

You could say the same about the musketeers, and if we're talking rifled or smooth bore muskets.

I said that it depends on range because were originally smoothbore, with rifling being a later treatment. With rifling, accuracy is maintained at range, and the bowmen lose their main advantage.
---

The Bows might have the advantage at medium range (between 100-200 meters) because of their higher rate of fire.

---