[OT] [I mean totally OT] Re: What can you "new"

[Don]

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>).