Now I was looking at warfare during the early modern period and I can't for the life of me figure out why matchlock muskets and arquebusses were able to replace crossbows, which were quieter, safer, could be fired (and in some models reloaded) prone, they could be used effectively at night (no match), and in the rain, and they had a faster rate of fire and were more accurate. So, WHY would anyone replace that with such an inferior weapon as the matchlock? Anybody know?

Geez, this would be akin to bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Range. Bullets go farther than arrows, yes even with early muskets. Matchlock really refers to the type of firing mechanism involved. Arquebuses were really hand held and fired cannons or very early shotguns.

Ever shoot an arrow, even a cross bow? As with bullets, the further out the arrow flys the less velovity or force it has when it reached the target. But with early black powder weapons, more powder equaled more force and range.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: thegunny,

Ok I don't know where you're getting this.
1. I KNOW what matchlock is.
2. Now I don't know about the overall range, but the EFFECTIVE range was considerably shorter because of it's obscenely bad accuracy. It was said that you had to be VERY unlucky indeed to be hit by one at 150 yards and that the average musketeer can hit something around 80-100 yards. That was if the musket was properely bored, didn't not work because of wet powder, or explode in your hand, all of which had a fair change of happening. A crossbow on the other hand, I've seen effective ranges averaging about 250 yards, so i'm sorry the range thing just isn't true.
3. I mostly chalk it up to people being stupid (guns are flashier) just like the idiocy of the caracole.

Hmmm, I have black powder weapons that will kill you at 300 yards. I have a black powder pistol that will kill you at 200 yards and thats with a smooth bore.

Tell you what, I'll bring my black powder weapon, you bring your bows an arrows and we'll see who gets the first hit on each other.

Dude, you have MODERN black powder weapons, not old matchlock ones, dude pistol's of the day have been tested and they're accurate to about 25-30 meters tops. You obviously haven't read any account of war back then.
PS. Not BOW, CROSSBOW, massive different, especially with an arbalest.

Your making assumptions about what I have read and what I have experienced and what I own. Nice to know you can determine all of this via a keyboard.

Perhaps I was too hastey to judge, I made to many assumptions, let me correct myself. It is doubtful you have a working matchlock or wheelock musket or pistol, especially as the specifications of what your weapons can do far exceed what a contemperary weapon could do. And mayhap you have read things about that time, but apparently didn't read enough about the specifcations of the weapons I am reffering to.

Hmmmm, one the one hand you correct yourself, and then go right back into making more assumptions. Have you ever even held a weapon such as what you are going on about? Have you ever even shot a crossbow? These are questions back to you to answer.

I own two of them and use them to hunt javalina's every year. Javalina's are small and very, very fast. They ain't paper targets. I bag my quota every year.

And for your information, there is absolutely no way to test using actual matchlocks as the only ones around are museum pieces. Even museums wouldn't consider firing them. So what are you basing your information on? Manuscripts written way back then? Or something written more recently? By who and where did it show his test results that you are placing so much faith in?

I answered your original question with a valid answer, and just because it doesn't fit your ideas, doesn't make my response wrong, any more than it makes your thoughts right. I asked you specific questions yet you don't answer them, but take off on a different tangent. If all you are going to do in here is ask questions and then debate with opposing answer to friggin everything, then you'll soon run out of folks that will respond or have any respect for you. I am more than willing to hold meaningful dialog with you, but have little tolerence for that. I am a fully qualified Marine Corps Expert on weapons. Through open sights, I can produce a headshot at better than a thousand meters and do it repeatedly. Geez...I have expended more government gunpowder in one weekend than you weigh. I used to be in arty and the regulars here know what I'm taking about.

I answered you based on personel experience, and your response is based on things you have read. Catch my drift here?

1. I have shot a bow yes, sorry I missed your question the first time. And I haven't shot a crossbow or Matchlock musket.
2. Why is this a tangent? You talked about range, and I made a counterpoint. I debated the answer because it contradicts everything I have read on the subject, not just to make arguments or something. I AM trying to hold a meaningful dialogue.
3. First off one quote I have about the accuracy of the musket as late as the revolutionary war. By the British Major George Hanger of the British Army, "A soldiers musket, if not exceedingly ill bored (as many were), will strike the figure of a man at 80 yards, it may even at 100, but a soldier must be very unfortunate indeed." A contemporary quote.
4. Contemperary tests show that there was an 85% chance of hitting a man sized target at 30 yards with a wheelock pistol. Modern tests by the authors of the book "Fighting Techniques of the Early Modern World" showed accuracy at around 20 yards.

Hyperion.... I reckon your not reading what I have written then, I own these weapons that I'm referring to. I use these weapons. I have hunted with these weapons successfully. I don't place alot of stock with what someone, wrote as these are just someone else's opinion and you should be able to tell by now what I think of opinions....

Do you honestly think that the soldiers that this British Major was referring to were trained before getting tossed into battle? These guy's were friggin conscripted into service. The only real training they received was how to march in rank and how to load the darn things. You need to understand that in the vast majority of battles, these guys loaded and fired as fast as they could and most simply pointed it in the direction of the enemy when firing it. They were not well aimed rounds. They also fired in vollies hoping that the bullets found thier mark. Most attackers took thier que from the guy yelling ready, aim, fire and dropped to the ground upon hearing the word fire, then get back up and charge the ranks.

I have no doubt that certain weapons had the limited range referred to in that last reference. They only tested a sampling of weapons, and shouldn't be held up as all weapons from that day and age performed exactly alike. Might be they were on the ultra conservative side in charging the weapon for fear of thier own safety, hence the dismal results you are referring to as gospel? Think about it for a second, your in a foreign land with some screaming maniac charging your position, do you really take the time out to measure the powder grain by grain? Hell no, you dump what powder you can get into the barrel, patch a ball, ram it home, point an shoot, all the time hoping that you hit him!

1. I know very well the british soildiers training in that century, and while no, much of the British army during most of the 18th century were proffession soldiers, not conscripts. Though you are right that they were not trained to aim at all simply to fire in the direction of the enemy, This is fair measure of how accurate these weapons were, not to mention the quote reffered to the WEAPON not the soldier.
2. I can obviously see whatever I say won't change your mind as you obvioiusly don't care for anything that is not your own experience so I am going to stop trying to argue with you now.

Hmmmm, the little light bulb finally lites up. This is just my personality your bumping into. You are wrong that I don't care though. I do care, I just don't happen to agree with you or your premise regardless of all the references you can find. I am one of those that values exerience over books and the opinions of those that wrote them. Ain't no one in those books can truely tell much of anything except that it is thier considered opinion, yadda, yadda....because they weren't there way back when, were they?

1. You weren't back then either so in that respect you have no more experience.
2. You say that it is their opinions, when it is no such thing. They did tests and showed results. That's not an opinion sorry. Also how do you know that they have no experience with these things. This is an inncorrect assumption based off pride and stubborness (or possibly ignorance)

Hmmmm, looks to me that yer just as stubborn as I.

Lets just agree to disagree with each other and leave it at that. Unless you wish to continue on in vain?

Which one requires more skill and training? A bow of any kind takes more skill according to what I have read. The mass training of troops is a consideration.

Well harry, a Matchlock was actually fairly complicated to use, and while you are right a bow takes quite a bit of practice, a crossbow is about on par with an early gun. Those things were friggen hard to load.

Long bows where more accurate, faster shooting, and deadly but it took someone to shoot them that started when very young to ever have any skill.

Any fool can aim and shoot a powder weapon.

Harry

In any century, there has never been a shortage of.....you guessed it! FOOLS

That's correct Harry, longbows did take massive amounts of traing, crossbows on the other hand, did not and were as easy, and in some ways easier to use and train with than powder weapons (no risk of blowing up always helps)
Also gunny, I entirely agree.

I read somewhere that it only took a few months or weeks to train a musketeer, while it took years to train a decent bowman or crossbowman. It was also easier to carry a matchlock around than a huge, heavy crossbow.

Not to mention, it was cheaper to produce matchlocks than crossbows.