COMPARATIVE MERITS BETWEEN BOWS AND EARLY FIRE-ARMS.
The invention of gunpowder, and its application to artillery and small arms, did not produce that sudden change in the art of war, or in weapons, that might, on a first consideration, have been expected. Many of the old soldiers were much divided in their opinion of the superiority of fire-arms, nor does it appear that the government of those days were decided upon it, as the strongest statutes for enforcing the practice of archery were enacted after their introduction.
Long-bow preferred in Edward III.
Joshua Barnes, in his life of Edward III., observes, that “without all question, the guns which are used now-a-days, are neither so terrible in battle nor do such execution nor work such confusion as arrows can do; for bullets, being not seen, only hurt where they hit, but arrows enrage the horse, and break the array, and terrify all that behold them in the bodies of their neighbours. Not to say that every archer can shoot thrice to a gunner’s once, and that whole squadrons of bows may let fly at one time, when only one or two files of musqueteers can discharge at once. Also, that whereas guns are useless when your pikes join, because they only do execution point-blank, the arrows which will kill at random may do good service even behind your men of arms.”
Long-bow the favourite in Henry VIII.
Although fire-arms had attained no inconsiderable degree of perfection in the reign of Henry VIII., yet the long-bow was still the favourite weapon.
Merits balanced in Queen Mary’s reign.
So indifferent were the ministers of Queen Mary respecting them, that in her ordinance respecting armour and weapons, the alternative is left to the choice of the people, whether they should find a long-bow and sheaf of arrows, or a haquebutt, in every case where they were by law charged with the latter.
The lighter ammunition of the harquebus an advantage.
In the reign of Elizabeth, the musket was so slow to charge and discharge that the bow was considered superior by many; and Mons. de Bellay states that if archers and cross-bowmen could carry their arrows, &c., as easy as harquebusiers do their ammunition, he would prefer the former weapon over the latter.
Arrows make more severe wounds than bullets.
The effects of arrows sticking in horses, are said to have been frightful. This can be easily imagined. A fire-arm bullet can be shot quite through a horse without causing the animal to show one sign of anguish. He goes steadily on his previous course, and makes no sign. However fatal of necessity, a fire-arm bullet gives no immediate pain. Not so the arrow. Planted never so lightly in a horse’s neck or flank, the animal grew furious. Starting off into a wild gallop to escape the barbed sting, the animal had no respite for his agony. The wilder the pace, the greater the pain. Far from the serried squadrons where he fain would be, sore against his will, rushed the mail-clad knight. Plunging and rearing, the steed would throw him at last, amidst the dead and dying; himself to die.
Though comparatively few men or horses were killed by arrow wounds at once, few, nevertheless, recovered. The barbed arrow-head was immeasurably more dangerous, imbedded in the flesh, than a mere lump of lead. Hundreds of men, hale and well to-day, have had fire-arm bullets imbedded in their flesh for years. Not so in the time of archery. The arrow-head must be extracted, or mortification came on, and soon a cruel death. Neither was the surgical process of extraction often happy in the results. It would not be easy to extract a barbed arrow-head even now, with all the appliances of modern surgery at hand.
Arrow wounds more fatal.
Another fatal consequence of arrow wounds on the field of battle was this: men wounded thus were rarely taken prisoners. Arrows were expensive ammunition. The battle over, detachments were sent out to collect them; and the collection was not done too tenderly. To regain an arrow seemed a far more meritorious act than to save the life of an enemy. The throat of many a wounded wretch was mercilessly cut, that he might be quiet whilst the arrow was being extracted.
Bows useless in wind.
The defects of archery were these:—the ammunition was expensive, and when lost, not easily replaced. The flight of arrows is never correct on a windy day, from whatever direction the wind may blow. In rain.Rain relaxes the bow and bowstring, so that archery then is of little use. All these are serious defects; but there was another of more importance still. When the archer’s ammunition was all expended, he was nearly powerless. A sword, indeed, he carried, for close fighting; and each archer stuck into the ground before him a sharp pointed stake as a protection against cavalry.
Hand-gun most penetration.
Silent discharge in favor of bows.
The great advantage of the hand-gun was from its penetration, as no armour could keep out balls, but the silent discharge of the cross-bow rendered it superior in the pursuit of timid animals, and the prodd has continued in use to the present day, for the purpose of killing deer, rooks, and rabbits.
Note.—The articles on ancient Engines of War, and upon the Bow, are principally taken from the following works, viz:—“Military Antiquities,” by F. Grose, Esq.; “A Critical Inquiry into Ancient Armour,” by Sir S. R. Meyrick; “Ancient Armour and Weapons in Europe,” by John Hewitt; “Projectile Weapons of War,” and “Report of the Rifle Match at Wimbledon Common,” by J. Scoffern, M. B.; “Engines of War,” by H. Wilkinson, and “The Long-Bow of the Past and the Rifle for the Future,” by H. Britannicus.