On the other hand, the cross-bow was decidedly a more convenient weapon on horseback than the long-bow.
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.