1. It took years to train a bowmen, but only a small number (I've even read one) of weeks to train a crossbowmen.
2. Dude, matchlockers were REALLY cumbersome, certainly as much as crossbows.

Aiming a crossbow is more difficult than aiming a matchlock.

A matchlock is also a LOT lighter than a crossbow.

how the hell are you drawing this experience? Also I'm sorry but that is bs, the first matchlock muskets were so freaking heavy and unweildy you had to carry a freakking stand to aim them on. And how do you draw the conclusion they are easier to aim, I doubt you've shot a matchlock and every text I've ever read on early modern warfare (a significant number) states that muskets were less accurate then crossbow.

The crossbow did not come with a bayonet which was the real killing end of the early muskets. Tactics dictated that a few volleys followed by a bayonet charge were quite effective.

As with all military weapons, R&D testing took place out in the field and improvements were developed from those live tests. Look at the difficulty with the first cannons, two shots a day if they were lucky.

You're kidding right? The Musket was used extensively as early as the 1500's. whereas a practical (socket) bayonet was not invented until the very late 1600's, whereas the much less useful plug bayonet still wasn't invented until the mid-late 1600's. How can you possibly say that it was the main killing end of early muskets when it wasn't widely used for over 100 years after the musket first was widely used. The tactics you are thinking of are those of the 1700's and early 1800's. Not the early time of the musket (the 1500-1600's) Also, it's just as easy to put a bayonet on a crossbow.

Do not throw a time-line at me when I did not reference one. I know the history and still have my history of weapons books. But, I can see where you might draw your conclusion.

Did you ever notice that the military likes to use the most-modern weapon regardless of its effectiveness?

You said early muskets, I usually assume after something like a weapon is over 200 years old it would be past it's "early" stages is all, which was about when the bayonet came into wide usage. (no sarcasm is in this sentence, sorry if it sounds that way)

What are you talking about, the military is always overly skeptical of every accepting new ideas, hence why at first they didn't want breech loaders, then they said the garand would be bad, then they forced the entire world to use the 7.62x51 cartridge whose time as a main rifle cartridge was over and attempted to develop the idiocy that was the M14 of the more modern M16. And even back a long time ago, the greeks at first didn't even like the ballista saying it would "end valor" And our military completely refused to use the gatling gun when it could put out an enormous amount of fire, the world also even continued using lances into the late 1800's and frigging curassiers in the beggining of world war I. I'm confused as to how this shows a want for the newest weapos.
But you do have a point the military's descisions in matters of ordinance seldom seem to make much sense (cough) militruse (cough).

Oh, you are qualified on both the M-14 and M-16 as I was? Do you understand weapons development and testing? Remember, most everyone hates change of some sort or another. You are reading books again which do not give the whole picture that experience can.

I might add that the reasons behind the military members who dislike new weapons never seem to stop their introduction by higher authorities who are also in the military. Rank seems to count.

Also, never make assumptions about what I say because it is often cause form unnecessary word exchanges such as the one in which we are engaged. Remember the club took thousands of years to develop into the sophisticated weapon that we know today and call the night stick. It still does the same thing.

Besides being condescending and rude, what are you trying to tell me here?

How about F-off candy ass. Is that direct enough for you?

Describing his friend, the man said, "He knows so little and knows it so fluently!"

ANOM

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

That blatant ad-hominem attack was rude and completely unwarrented and unless you apologize I will contact the administrator about this. I am simply having a discussion about the effectiveness of early firearms and you start throwing insults. That's not right. Especially because you're proving that you obviously don't know enough about the subject to carry on an argument so you resort to base insults.

Would you like me to use smaller words Harry?

Well, according to what i've heard and noticed(i only red the first reply and what hyperion said though) It was about training. It didnt take long to shove a matchlock in the hands of some kid and teach him to stand in a group of guns, point it at the enemy and volley fire. And most of the training is reloading and formation. A crossbow plus, is more physically exerting to reload and such. it took alot more work to get good crossbowmen, and also dont forgot how much wood was needed back then. You could get gunpowder pretty easy. Plus, people might say "Gunpowder doesnt work when it rains" and we all know that, but as an afterthought, dont crossbows have some messups after being exposed to rain? Guns = inexpensive and easily trained, not to mention it takes a while to make a bow or arrow, and archers were mainly trained from the age of a kid

havent u seen also, the pictures of people reloading crossbows? just a glance shows that u cant reload prone or crouched. Plus, seige warfare. A crossbow bolt hits the wall your taking cover behind. You laugh and dont care. A gunshot hits in front of you. You hit the deck and curse the ball sending shrapnel from the rock around you. Now imagine a volley of 20 men firing balls at you and your pals behind that, and seeing that effect

1. Actually one of the great advantages of crossbows was that they COULD be reloaded prone or crouched whereas MUSKETS could not.
2. Actually it was about as easy to train someone with a gun as it was to a crossbow, it's fair to say in order to gain good proficiency with either a week or so is needed.
3. The only point I can possibly see is the expense of crossbows, which were very expensive, but I still don't understand why they were phased out all together. Also guns of the time were expensive as well.

well, i dont know about the crossbows vs muskets training thing cause i dont care bout it much anymore, but remember----- its all about money money money. Cant blow your entire military budget on one weapon can you(I know that thats not how expensive crossbows are, but you get my point)

plus, maybe some smartass saw some potential in gunpowder and decided it might be something great one day. And imagine a platoon of about 30 riflemen aim thier muskets and 10 cavalry men in plate or chain mail armor, and 20 infantry men following and theres about 15 swordsmen in front of the arquiseberssagsfas(i gave up on spelling that right) and all 30 musketmen open fire. Not very encouraging is it?

Well the main thing I see wrong here is the assumption that crossbows wouldn't be much farther along than they were today if research had been focused on them as opposed to guns.

They wouldnt. the most powerful thing that can be considered a crossbow after all this time if they researched it, was a crossbow with a grenade instead of a regualar bolt thing. other wise, the guns done everything and everything better then a crossbow could do with the amount of time we spent improving the gun on it