   Would bow and arrows have won the Revolutionary War quicker?
  I remember reading an article a long time ago about this. The gist of it was that if the colonies had used bow and arrows instead of muskets, then the War would have ended sooner and the colonies would have still won.I wonder how true it is. Given that muskets had a range of 50 to 70 yards, weren't exactly accurate and had a tendency to backfire in one's face, I think bows and arrows would have be, at least, a safer alternative. Also english longbows had a range of at least 180 yards, but were hard to string.   
  Up until I think around or just before the American civil war with the advent of rifling and repeating firearms their primary advantage was it takes a lot less time to train someone to effectively use them than a bow. Same with crossbows and spear like weapons when used in phalanx or shiltron formation. Not necessarily the best weapons if you look at the numbers but you can quickly raise a peasant army instead of needing people who have trained their entire lives like with swords or bows.   ;  I don't think that's true at all and that the person who wrote that article wasn't aware of The French and Indian War which lasted from 1754 to 1763. The name refers to the two main enemies of the British: the royal French forces and the various Native American forces allied with them. In that war the side armed with bow and arrows lost. There's no reason to think that ten years later bow and arrow would defeat the side that won the earlier war. The American Revolutionary War lasted from 1775–1783. That's one less year than the French and Indian War. So, it's more likely that bow and arrow would have made the revolutionary war last longer rather than shorten it.   ;  Skilled bowmen who are well trained and make use of hit and run tactics will slaughter most early fire arms.That is, until they run out of arrows.Ease of training, density of ammunition, and reduction in required skill to produce are the key things that made the bullet king over the arrow.Arrows are actually a very hard thing to make that take a fair bit of skill to do well. And a good bow wasn't something that you just pull out of a tree in an hour or two, the investment from material harvest to finished product is usually a few years. Guns could be a few days from mine to battlefield.2 dozen arrows could be fired off in 3 minutes of battle, but in the same space you can pack enough powder and shot to last an hour or more. Not to mention that with your friendly little bayonet you get a pole arm and ranged weapon in one! (Just watch your hands if you have one of the few rare types that had a sharp edge on both sides of the bayonet. Actually, always watch your hands while using firearms of any kind.)   ;  They wouldn't have been able to field enough able bowmen to counter the British. The battles fought at that time were large set pieces of mass infantry with cannons, calvary and musketeers, bowmen have no advantage in those cases (no chance to ambush and their range in mass volley isn't as far as a musketeers). Also using the same weapons as the invaders, the colonist can scavenge ammo and guns from the defeated forces, which if they were a bowman heavy force wouldn't be possible. So all in all, using bows and arrows wouldn't have shorten if anything it would have guaranteed the colonist lost.-ddn   ;Quote:Original post by TalrothAnd a good bow wasn't something that you just pull out of a tree in an hour or two, the investment from material harvest to finished product is usually a few years.I watched a How it's Made on long bows and it only took the professional like a day using not even modern equipment.   ;Quote:Original post by TalrothSkilled bowmen who are well trained and make use of hit and run tactics will slaughter most early fire arms.Indeed. And if fortified inside city walls on top of a hill alongside some spearmen, they'll last right up to Airflight. ;  In theory, a bow and arrow is far more effective a weapon due to rate of fire and complexity. Rather than firing 4 rounds per minute a trained archer can fire 20. A longbow is also capable of a far greater range than an early firearm. But there is an important factor to consider about the firearm: its loud. There is also the issue of accuracy. A musket is far less accurate than a longbow and it means that technically, a soldier is not directly responsible for the deaths the volleys cause. Most of us are incapable of explicitly killing somebody, especially when we can see their faces; we just freeze and cant do it. While the longbow is more accurate, it does mean you have to target an individual at close range, you see the projectile, and you then have to deal with the consequences. This is the main reason that a lot of modern armies consist of a small standing army of full time soldiers, rather than large numbers of conscripts (another important reason is the logistics); most people despite their training simply cannot kill. The reason that soldiers create potentially racist nicknames for their enemies is to avoid having to think about killing another human being.Check out some of the shooting stances these chaps are using; their use of guns is not so much a military attack as an outpouring of anger. Nobody here is attempting to explicitly kill somebody, rather, they want to shoot at "over there" where the enemy are. (the comments are a bit tasteless, I'm referring to the images) Liberian militia ;  It is very untrue that you have to 'target' an individual with a bow at close range. If the opponent is at 'close' range, you have already failed in your primary role of an Archer: Keep the opponent at range.At long range the art of aiming an arrow or a ball is about the same. "Let loose in their general direction"The idea that archers pick out a single target out of a massed line at more than 20 yards is a myth. The goal always is to get the arrows within the mass of men, not within a single man.   ;Quote:Original post by SirisianI watched a How it's Made on long bows and it only took the professional like a day using not even modern equipment.They are quick to make but take a lot of training and practice to use. I believe that at one time Englishmen were required by law to practice the longbow in times of peace. Of course that doesn't matter because the First Nations didn't use the Longbow.  Quote:Original post by LessBreadI don't think that's true at all and that the person who wrote that article wasn't aware of The French and Indian War which lasted from 1754 to 1763.A very different war from the Revolutionary War. It was much more of a guerrilla war, which the French and their native allies were winning (or certainly not losing) until the English developed the ability to take the fight to the French in the interior. I read an interesting book on one of the key figures in the war Robert Rogers who founded the ranger force that went into the interior. An interesting read, it's called "War on the Run" by John F. Ross. 