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

[Steve Teale]

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.

Longer range of course. It's more comfortable farther away from the enemy, and if he has bows, you can start killing him before he starts killing you. But it must have been a close run thing with the earlier guns. Archers could fire quite quickly. But I think field artillery was the real change in the way battles were fought.