Quote:
Suggested but averted by Benjamin Franklin during the American Revolution. The Battle of Bunker Hill ended with them being driven off when they ran out of ammunition. Franklin suggested that if they had used bows and arrows, they could have held out longer and fired off volleys more rapidly. It may be possible that this referred more to the fact that at the start of the Revolution, the colonists were desperately short of gunpowder. At one point, there were literally only a few dozen barrels left for the entire army, which would have been just enough for one pitched battle without artillery. The situation did improve later on, when France became heavily involved in the war and started sending over regular supplies of the stuff.
English officers had been proposing this on and off throughout the 18th century. Trained longbowmen couldn't be beaten for sheer volume of fire until the introduction of breach-loading mechanisms and metallic cartridges; the catch is the "trained" part.
|
I'd put the tipping point at the widespread switch to rifled muskets in the 19th century, but otherwise agree with that assessment -- weapons like the long bow or traditional Japanese bows outperform gunpowder weapons in a lot of ways for a couple centuries after matchlocks and then flintlocks become common place on the battlefield. The two edges firearms have is the noted comparative ease of getting good with them and that I believe there's something that inherently appeals to human being's inner monkey about being able to unleash thunder and lightning on our enemies.