Walter Bright wrote:
Steve Teale wrote:
Walter, I think you understate the arrow. Often they had barbs, and
they were not as well sterilized as a bullet that had been propelled
by hot gas, so getting them out and surviving was non-trivial.
Perhaps I do. I am no expert on either guns or archery, not even close.
But I can point out that in practically every case, expert archers were
eager to replace them with guns, any guns, even primitive
muzzle-loaders. In battles of guns vs archers, the guns nearly always
won even when heavily outnumbered.
As I understand it, the Persian composite longbow was technologically
superior to later bows, eg, the English longbow. (I was told that by a
professor who was an expert on ancient technology, but it could
nevertheless be incorrect). It was cited as one of those examples (like
the Roman's use of concrete) which was a technology which was lost and
wasn't matched again until relatively modern times.
With the Persian longbow, experts were quick enough to fire 6 arrows
before the first hit the ground. I don't think firearms reached a
similar firing rate for a long time (for what that's worth -- I'd think
I'd rather be hit by several arrows than by one cannonball <g>).
