/kloc-why did Europe use guns in the 0/9th century? Compared with bows and arrows and crossbows, muskets at that time did not seem to have any advantages.

This paper discusses the power of crossbows and early muskets and the reasons why muskets replace crossbows. I just read some books about modern warfare. No matter in the east or the west,16th century was a crucial time for muskets to replace crossbows.

2. T.N. Dupuy's discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of muskets and crossbows.

Among all the Chinese works and discussions I have seen about the advantages and disadvantages of muskets and crossbows, the most representative one is China's version of The Evolution of Weapons and War (author: T.N. Dupuy). In addition, other works or discussions, to some extent, are nothing more than the repetition, demonstration or development of their views.

Early muskets had low hit rate, short range and slow firing rate, and were very clumsy to use. Table 1 lists the relative lethality of various weapons in various historical periods. As can be seen from the table, the lethality of the early muskets is actually not as good as the longbow and crossbow of the times. But the use of muskets is relatively simple, and infantry can quickly master them after short-term training. On the contrary, it takes months of practice to use crossbows effectively, and years of hard training to really master crossbows. "

Accordingly, Dupuy gave the "theoretical lethality index" of weapons. According to the range, firing rate, accuracy and reliability of weapons, the theoretical lethality indexes of crossbows and muskets are as follows:

Ordinary bow: 2 1

Longbow: 36

Crossbow: 33

Matchrope (16th century): 10

17th century musket: 19

18th century flintlock: 43

As a "war technical analysis school", T.N. Dupuy's data is undoubtedly of considerable value. It can be seen that the "theoretical killing index" of muskets in16th century and muskets in17th century is lower than that of crossbows. However, in the16th century, Spain, France and the Holy Roman Empire, the major European military powers, basically completed the transformation of muskets instead of crossbows. Dupuy's explanation is that "the use of muskets is relatively simple".

In this regard, while agreeing with his basic point of view, the author thinks that if you want to know the whole truth of this little fact, you should also ask the parties who made these decisions. As the saying goes, "If a man drinks water, he thinks of the source", or "sentient beings are reasonable"./kloc-The commanders and rulers in the 6th century decided to use muskets instead of crossbows, which naturally had their own considerations. This replacement process lasted for 100 years, during which wars continued, and the participating countries were often mainly muskets and crossbows, so the advantages and disadvantages of various weapons can be tested through actual combat. For example, in the early days of the Italian War (1495- 1525), although France had the strongest artillery in Europe and pioneered the use of field artillery in human history, its individual shooting weapon was crossbow. After several contests with the Spanish army with muskets as the main force, it quickly embarked on the road of replacing crossbows with muskets, which is undoubtedly the result of actual combat experience analysis. Here, the author intends to use muskets instead of longbows as an example to illustrate this problem.

3. The position of longbow in cold weapon individual shooting weapon and the reason for choosing it.

The reason for choosing longbow is simple, because it is the most powerful individual shooting weapon (or at least one of them) in the cold weapon era. At the expense of the archer's spine deformation, the longbow has achieved a range similar to that of a strong crossbow, and its firing rate is five times that of a strong crossbow. In addition, the legendary longbow has the accuracy of "shooting three arrows in succession, taking high, medium and low trajectories and hitting the same target at the same time". On the war stage in Europe, the prestige of longbow exceeds the other three main individual shooting weapons, namely crossbow, crossbow and compound bow. Among them, the crossbow uses waist and leg strength to open the bow, while the heavier Albalest uses a winch-ratchet bow opener similar to the crossbow gun. In fact, crossbows and Arbalest can be used in many cases, which may be related to the detachable winch-ratchet bow opener. Open the bow slowly with a winch if the strength is not strong enough, and open the bow directly with waist strength if the strength is strong enough. The compound bow can be represented by a large Turkish compound bow. Modern research shows that it has similar shape and strength to Mongolian compound bow. In fact, they are related.

As for the crossbow in the east, if we don't look at the surprising, contradictory and vague data in ancient books, we can only analyze it from the perspective of energy. Then, it can probably be considered as an arm bow, a stretching crossbow, a waist-pulling crossbow, etc. The use of waist and leg force, taking the maximum waist/leg force of human body as the upper limit, is at the same level as the crossbow with the same waist force, and may be slightly weaker than Arbalest equipped with winch-ratchet bow opener. At the same time, judging from the same shape and power of Mongolian compound bow and Turkish compound bow, it may be considered that the power of oriental compound bow is at the same level as that of Turkish compound bow. Furthermore, it can be inferred from the fact that the compound bow and individual crossbow in the East are quite equal to those in the West for a long time. At that time, the crossbow level in the East and the West reached a similar level. In classical times, the crossbow of the East was undoubtedly superior to that of the West, but with the exchange of trade and technology, the West made great progress. In addition to the blood relationship between Mongolian compound bow and Turkish compound bow, the crossbow may also be technically influenced by the Arab crossbow, which undoubtedly comes from the East in appearance.

The author has no intention to discuss this problem in detail, but made an inference with low accuracy. The significance of this inference is that, based on the comparison and substitution analysis of western crossbows and muskets, they can also be used in the East, just as western crossbows are influenced by the East, and the muskets in China in the16-17th century are also imitations of western products.

4. 1595 English longbow termination act and Smith-Barwick debate.

As mentioned earlier, by the end of the Italian War in the 161920s, the major countries in continental Europe had used matchlock as their main shooting weapon. However, in Britain, the longbow exits the stage much more slowly. In the Northern Uprising of 1569, only 60 musketeers were among the 2,000 soldiers summoned by the Earl of Sussex in Yorkshire. At 1588, soldiers in many counties such as Cambridge, Huntington and London are composed of spearmen and musketeers. Only two counties (Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire) have more longbowmen than musketeers.

1595, the British Parliament passed the "Termination of Longbow Act", demanding that "longbows should no longer be regarded as qualified weapons in the army recruited in the future. This standard applies to anyone in any region. All shooting units must be equipped with matchsticks or muskets. " This is not only the end of the longbow, but also basically means the end of the cold weapon era and the beginning of the hot weapon era in Europe.

As the national pride of England, a European power for 300 years, there are naturally many conservatives who support Longbow and oppose reform. Under the background of Renaissance, conservatives and reformists had a lot of arguments and debates in public places and publications. If the reformists want to destroy the longbow, they should not only convince people by reasoning, but also let the Congress, which does not know much about military affairs, understand their own views and use simple reasons to win. And the above "ending the longbow method" is the final result of this big debate. One of the most wonderful scenes is the classic battle between Sir John Smith, the representative of Longbow School, and his opponent Humphrey Barwick. This is one of the most wonderful debates I have ever seen, especially when Humphrey Barwick retorted one by one. Among them, we can see the representative views of military strategists at the end of 16 on the advantages and disadvantages between muskets and crossbows.

Now let's analyze it. The first and sixth items are the main advantages of longbow, namely accuracy and firing rate. In this regard, Barwyck pointed out in the first rebuttal that long archers need hard training to achieve theoretical accuracy, but long archers at the end of16th century generally could not achieve this technology. This is actually the advantage of musketeers' easy training in resistance. Sir roger williams, a famous British soldier at that time, gave a clearer explanation. The general said that he "would rather lead 500 well-trained musketeers to the battlefield than lead 1500 longbowmen" because "the level of longbowmen is uneven now, and only about 1500 out of 5,000 people can shoot strong crossbows". The second and third items are very exciting. It can be said that Baywyck completely refuted his opponent's point of view. The fourth is Baywyck's sophistry to some extent.

The most important thing is Article 5, because it reveals a place neglected by many people: the energy source of longbowmen (actually including all crossbowmen) is their own physical strength, which has great limitations, not only being more susceptible to the influence of external environment, but also lacking in sustained combat capability on the battlefield. The energy source of musket is the chemical energy of gunpowder, which not only requires less physical strength and energy consumption of shooter, but also has more room for improvement. Barwyck's statement in article 6 about taking a long-term view is reasonable. At this point, Sir roger williams also pointed out that after three months of winter fighting (or colder autumn or spring), "one in ten archers can't keep the vitality of his propeller. At the age of 12 or 14, there is little or no serious injury. The musketeers "will shoot as before, as long as the soldier has enough strength to trigger his gun".

I want to say a few words about this. In fact, this energy source is also the main limit of crossbow power. The maximum tension of eastern crossbows and western crossbows opened by waist force is limited by the strength of human waist and legs. Winch-ratchet can be used for more power at the cost of longer bow opening time or more bow openers. On the other hand, after a certain physical consumption, the shooter's physical decline will affect the next battle (whether melee or shooting). In short, what human resources can do in a certain period of time is limited. If you want to gain benefits on the one hand, other aspects will pay the price. Even if a few brave soldiers can open a strong bow, it is of little significance to the whole army.

6. Analysis of longbow armor-piercing ability

After reading the British ideas at the end of 16, the author wants to add a point, that is, the influence of European smelting technology innovation on armor technology since 15 and the fate of longbow. Let's use a few examples to illustrate the relationship between the killing effect of longbow and the development of armor. The specific campaign process is skipped, and only the killing effect of longbow on armor in different periods is emphasized.

1298 Falkirk Battle

On both sides of the war, the commander of the Scottish army is william wallace, with 500 cavalry, 8,000 spearmen and 0/500 archers/kloc. The commander of the English army is King Edward I of England, with 2,250 cavalry (heavy cavalry and 100 crossbowmen), 5,500 longbowmen, 7,000 spearmen and 400 crossbowmen. The main target of longbow is Scottish lancers, equipped with 12- 14-foot spears, arranged in a dense phalanx. Except for a few people who may own chain mail, others have only rudimentary armor. Its protection is very low. Longbow has made remarkable achievements. Under the attack of the longbow, the Scottish spearmen suffered heavy losses. "They fell like a blow when the fruit was ripe in the orchard." In the end, the tight Scottish spear array was riddled with holes and fell apart under the attack of British cavalry.

The Battle of keresey in 1346

This is a well-known battle. Longbow defeated the Genoese crossbowman in the first volley, and then the main opponent was the French heavy cavalry in chain mail. Most of the horses of the French cavalry have no armor. The actual combat results show that the longbow is lethal to both men and women, especially to war horses, so that many war horses even refuse to move forward. As Jean Le Bell said, "The British arrows shot at the cavalry with such magical skills that their mounts refused to take a step forward". Longbow has once again become the decisive factor in the success or failure of the campaign.

14 15 Battle of Ginkul.

70 years later, the longbow encountered the French army again, and this time the armor changed. Chain mail, which ruled Europe for thousands of years, began to give way to stronger and lighter plate armour (with the same defense). Longbow's first opponent was French knights equipped with plate armour, including Willian's 150 cavalry of Savius, 300 cavalry of Saint Remy and 160 cavalry of Krinette de Breban. It is very difficult to charge on muddy land. According to Remy's description, William, who used sparingly, encouraged his knights to stake directly in front of English archers, because the land was soft and many stakes fell to the ground. His 150 French knights all retreated, except three, including the commander William who was rescued. At this time, "British archers began to shoot at their retreating enemy, driving the horse crazy with arrow wounds." No matter what the truth of this chaotic description is, we can at least find that there is no record of any French knight wearing heavy Kay being seriously injured by a longbow. In fact, no one fell (three fell when hitting the stake) until the 150 knight in Willian rushed to the stake of the longbowman, but the unlucky horse became a victim when retreating. Obviously, the protection of horses can't be compared with that of knights.

After that, Longbow's opponent was about 8,000 French knights dismounted, all equipped with plate armour. There is no record that the longbow caused serious injury to the French knight, but there is a record that the advancing French knight was "the rain of arrows forced everyone to bow their heads, fearing that an arrow might penetrate the eye slide in his helmet." According to common sense, if the arrow can penetrate the plate armor of the French knight, then no one will care about lowering his head to avoid being stabbed in the eye observation window. Although some scholars believe that the Bodkin arrow equipped by the British army can penetrate the plate armor of French knights at close range. However, the author has seen the experiment of the replica of the arrow and plate armor excavated by the University of Edinburgh in Ginkul, and the conclusion is that even Bodkin can't penetrate the 2mm plate armor. In fact, the arrow bends or breaks directly after impact. Of course, the thickness of plate armor is different in different parts, and 2 mm is the most important frontal defense of chest and abdomen. In any case, it is no problem to say that the effect of longbow on plate armour in 14 15 is extremely limited.

Battle of Floden

Before this battle, the author intends to briefly introduce the16th century war. /kloc-wars in the 0/5th century and17th century are well known, such as the centenary war in15th century and the thirty-year war led by Gustav of Sweden in17th century. The difference between them is so obvious that they are completely two different forms. This great transformation was completed in16th century. /kloc-the biggest war in the 6th century was 1494 to 1559, which started with the Italian war. On the one hand, the Habsburg-ruled Spanish and Holy Roman Empire and Du Ze-ruled Britain, on the other hand, the powerful and enduring French and later de facto ally Ottoman Turkey. This was the first hegemonic battle that swept Europe in 1000 after the fall of the Roman Empire. Since then, this kind of war has never stopped, including the well-known 30-year war, the 7-year war, the Napoleonic War and the two world wars.

Tactically, infantry dominated the battlefield in16th century, and field guns began to appear. As early as the Hundred Years' War, knights began to use horses as their main mode of combat. In the16th century, all the armies basically took full-time infantry as the core, among which the most famous were the Swiss phalanx with spears, the Landsknechts of Germany, and the most powerful force in16th century-the Spanish musket-phalanx (Tercios). In most battles, cavalry only accounts for 10-20% of the total force, and more than half of the cavalry are various light cavalry. An army of about 10,000 people usually has only about 500 heavily armored cavalry. While the heavy cavalry is declining, we see that infantry, especially those responsible for melee rifles, are generally equipped with heavy armor. It is usually a steel plate breastplate, made of steel with some steel armor, which is used to protect legs and arms. Basically, the protection of heavy infantry in16th century is not worse than that of knights with full body armor. This is the result of great progress in western smelting technology since A.D. 1400, which makes it possible to manufacture steel plate armor with simple and superior protection on a large scale. The Battle of Floden is such a battle between infantry.

There are about 30,000-40,000 Scottish troops under the command of King James of Scotland. The main force is the phalanx of spears armed according to European standards, and the musketeers are the main force of shooting, just like other armies in the European continent at the same time. The main force of British King Surrey's army is the traditional British halberd-longbow combination, namely Bill and Bow. In this battle, the longbow, which once made the Scots suffer a lot, can no longer play a decisive role, because Scotland's long gunmen are wearing heavy armor that is "the most sure to control". "It is announced that they shot the most dangerous arrow, but they didn't hurt them except hitting some bare places." After the battle ended 10 days, Bishop Russell also wrote, "They were wearing armor and the arrows didn't hurt them."

To sum up, we can see that the progress of western smelting technology in 1400 years has led to the great development of plate armour and caused a fatal blow to longbow. Falkirk (1298) and Floden (15 13) also faced the ill-equipped Scottish spearmen in the European army, and the role of the longbow changed greatly. The arms race between long-range weapons and armor continued in the16th century, but the competitors of long-range weapons were replaced by muskets and some abnormal super crossbows. As mentioned above, the super crossbow relying on manpower can only get enough energy by increasing the number of people or increasing the time for launching and winding, and finally it has reached a dead end.

7. Conclusion

To sum up, in the16th century, the advantages of western muskets over crossbows include not only the convenience of training, but also the physical requirements and less consumption and lethality of new plate armor. If we try to extend this conclusion to the East in the same period, we may find a possible reason for the slow progress of replacing crossbows with muskets in the East, that is, the demand for the huge penetration advantage of muskets in the East armor technology is not the same as that in the West in the same period. Although many people blame the backwardness of China muskets on the Qing rulers' infatuation with their ancestors' riding and shooting traditions, we should not forget that the British people are equally obsessed with longbows. No matter how much you love England's proud longbow, it may be time to change when it can't even cope with Scots who used to eat easily.