I read somewhere, maybe this forum, that Ben Franklin wanted to use archers against the British but Washington was against it. Bows could be more deadly at farther distances thank a musket.
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Bow and arrow verses Flint Guns
- Thread starter M. De Land
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 9,335
- Reaction score
- 4,514
Eventually yes but during the flint gun era East of the Mississippi it was nip and tuck for the settlers for quite a few years until after the French and Indian wars that went on for some time if I remember correctly.
Psycho Mike
Free Cdn
In this neck of the woods, we didn't have the same sort of battles, so it wasn't quite the same.
Illness, greedy trading houses / traders and such were certainly significant factors....but...
The presence of those trading houses also brought First Nations who didn't tolerate each other together when they went to trade. Often times the Factors would close up the palisade wall, let those on the outside kill each other until the fighting stopped and then opened the doors to whomever was left...and that flamed the animosity between the First Nations, as did the competition to acquire items to trade, and sparked a bit of a subtle war of attrition in some areas, I'd say.
Illness, greedy trading houses / traders and such were certainly significant factors....but...
The presence of those trading houses also brought First Nations who didn't tolerate each other together when they went to trade. Often times the Factors would close up the palisade wall, let those on the outside kill each other until the fighting stopped and then opened the doors to whomever was left...and that flamed the animosity between the First Nations, as did the competition to acquire items to trade, and sparked a bit of a subtle war of attrition in some areas, I'd say.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2005
- Messages
- 5,208
- Reaction score
- 10,814
Hi M Deland,
What a wonderful question!!!! Oh boy, I love these. So, if bows and arrows were so effective against English and French colonists, why did native Americans desire firearms so aggressively? It was the same in Europe during the 16th century. If the English long bow was so effective, why didn't every European kingdom adopt it. Modern research answers the question quite clearly. The bow never had the killing power or shock value of firearms. In Europe, the long bow disappeared because it was not an effective weapon against tempered steel armor, but the musket was. Native Americans learned so fast because they just valued utility and realized the gun was much more powerful than the bow. The armor of English soldiers could deflect native arrows but not their bullets.
dave
What a wonderful question!!!! Oh boy, I love these. So, if bows and arrows were so effective against English and French colonists, why did native Americans desire firearms so aggressively? It was the same in Europe during the 16th century. If the English long bow was so effective, why didn't every European kingdom adopt it. Modern research answers the question quite clearly. The bow never had the killing power or shock value of firearms. In Europe, the long bow disappeared because it was not an effective weapon against tempered steel armor, but the musket was. Native Americans learned so fast because they just valued utility and realized the gun was much more powerful than the bow. The armor of English soldiers could deflect native arrows but not their bullets.
dave
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 9,335
- Reaction score
- 4,514
j
A flint tipped arrow will penetrate tough hide or heavy cloths better than most can believe and a flint blade will butcher an animal with great efficiency.
The long bow did a real job on the tempered French armor at Agincourt. Just saw a special on how the outnumbered Brit archers mowed down the French cavalry and foot soldiers. The Bodkin points could defeat all but the best french armor and would penetrate chain mail on demand.
The Comanche had no trouble driving a bone or flint tipped arrow through a buffalo brisket with their 45 lbs short bows from horse back, Eastern Indians also killed buffalo (Kentucky), deer and elk regularly with their white hard wood bows and where did you get the notion that colonist or colonial soldiers of any nation wore body armor of any kind other than buckskins , heavy wool over coats or buffalo robes.
A flint tipped arrow will penetrate tough hide or heavy cloths better than most can believe and a flint blade will butcher an animal with great efficiency.
The long bow did a real job on the tempered French armor at Agincourt. Just saw a special on how the outnumbered Brit archers mowed down the French cavalry and foot soldiers. The Bodkin points could defeat all but the best french armor and would penetrate chain mail on demand.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2010
- Messages
- 5,313
- Reaction score
- 5,041
I should have left out the last three paragraphs in my first response.
The book told of troopers struck by arrows, some survived, some didn't. I kind of got your topic and mine intermingled. i know you said flintlocks.
If the flintlock shooter got the drop on the native, was not seriously wounded, fought through the pain or was missed by the first arrow, they had a much better chance of survival. if attacked at home and the family had several firelocks a decent defense could be mustered. IIRC, both weapons were hampered by rain, maybe the bow a bit more. If you were alone and met with a scout party or group of young braves, you better have you insurance paid up.
I agree most Buffalo were probably taken with a 58 caliber musket with approximately 500gr minie ball, at about 1000fps. That's hard for any American animal to digest that huge chunk of lead.
I recently bought a Taylor's 56-50 Spencer carbine. The history of them are very impressive, that's why I went down That Rabbit Hole.
Harder to train archers than riflemen. Hard to tote as many arrows as you can round balls with powder. Never saw a bayonet mounted to a bow.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 9,335
- Reaction score
- 4,514
The tomahawk was the bayonet for the bow and arrow. Lots of frontiersman carried them as well.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 9,335
- Reaction score
- 4,514
The Redman grew up with a bow in their had from adolescence and when one has to feed and defend themselves with archery I'm quite sure most were better than average in the accuracy dept.
The Patterson and Walker revolvers are what settled the Comanche's hash.
Last edited:
Short answer; attrition .
Weapons of the time had very little to do with it. One of the main factors not often discussed is that many of the tribes had been fighting and killing each other for decades before the Europeans ever arrived. This lack of unity among the tribes was likely the biggest factor to native peoples downfall. Had all the tribes in North America been united towards the single goal of destroying the Europeans it may have turned out differently.
Weapons of the time had very little to do with it. One of the main factors not often discussed is that many of the tribes had been fighting and killing each other for decades before the Europeans ever arrived. This lack of unity among the tribes was likely the biggest factor to native peoples downfall. Had all the tribes in North America been united towards the single goal of destroying the Europeans it may have turned out differently.
Traditional bows are very quiet and deadly in the right hands. When people are out and about to cause you harm, you can still feed your family with a bow without drawing attention to your location with a gunshot. It’s been verified on many occasions that a Native American could shoot a half dozen arrows accurately in under a minute.
The problem for the NATIVE archers was that they could not carry and unlimited numbers of arrows. Once they were out of arrows they retreated or resulted to hand to hand combat.
Even though I have spent most of my time and life on this earth with a primitive bow in my hands, in a fight no matter the distance, I would take the flintlock.
The problem for the NATIVE archers was that they could not carry and unlimited numbers of arrows. Once they were out of arrows they retreated or resulted to hand to hand combat.
Even though I have spent most of my time and life on this earth with a primitive bow in my hands, in a fight no matter the distance, I would take the flintlock.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2021
- Messages
- 2,748
- Reaction score
- 5,829
Dave Person's has this exactly right, it is a fact that Native Americans were more than eager to give up their bows for trade guns, everything else is modern speculation.
The British aligned Iroquois confederacy was started by the natives themselves (with approval from the whites who benefitted as well) in order to control the fur trade for their monetary benefit and that was accomplished by the slaughter of the Native Americans aligned with the French who were competing for the fur trade, sometimes the members of the confederacy would travel great distances into enemy territory to do just that. There had always been tribal warfare, yes, but it increased exponentially, and they used trade guns against tribes armed with bows very successfully.
There were atrocities committed by both sides, it was war, hatred by some was carried to the extreme, there was no Geneva Convention. Trying to put modern moral standards to 200-year-old atrocities is pointless.
The British aligned Iroquois confederacy was started by the natives themselves (with approval from the whites who benefitted as well) in order to control the fur trade for their monetary benefit and that was accomplished by the slaughter of the Native Americans aligned with the French who were competing for the fur trade, sometimes the members of the confederacy would travel great distances into enemy territory to do just that. There had always been tribal warfare, yes, but it increased exponentially, and they used trade guns against tribes armed with bows very successfully.
There were atrocities committed by both sides, it was war, hatred by some was carried to the extreme, there was no Geneva Convention. Trying to put modern moral standards to 200-year-old atrocities is pointless.
Technology and disease primarily brought the downfall. Short on dialogue on this.
Thagomizer
40 Cal
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2019
- Messages
- 229
- Reaction score
- 192
I have read everything that I can lay my hands on about the Ohio valley Indian conflicts and see little reference to bows and arrows.
Siege of several forts in Kentucky all mention firearms and close quarter weapons.
Same with the Wabash campaigns.
The only reference was at Boonesborough where apparently fire arrows were used to try to burn the fort.
Siege of several forts in Kentucky all mention firearms and close quarter weapons.
Same with the Wabash campaigns.
The only reference was at Boonesborough where apparently fire arrows were used to try to burn the fort.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2019
- Messages
- 477
- Reaction score
- 369
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2017
- Messages
- 344
- Reaction score
- 856
In Texas the defeat of the Comanche was aided in large part by the assistance to the Texas Rangers by the Tonkawa who hated the Comanche. One of their chiefs Placido was admired and honored by the Rangers.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2021
- Messages
- 2,644
- Reaction score
- 4,878
- Location
- Far Away Downs Queensland Australia.
And Candy, Flour; Iron and Tin goods; Gurns and Gunpowder; Coffee; Canvas shelters etc....how dare the white man intrude on their idealistic "noble savage" lifestyle
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2021
- Messages
- 2,644
- Reaction score
- 4,878
- Location
- Far Away Downs Queensland Australia.
And Indian Arrows contaminated with shite that fatally poisoned anyone who was hit with one.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2018
- Messages
- 666
- Reaction score
- 1,617
A war of attrition. There were more whites than Indians.
They had to run out sometime.
They had to run out sometime.
Similar threads
