Bow and arrow verses Flint Guns

[longcruise]

and trade blankets infected with smallpox.

Some of that is generated by modern instigators. Ward Churchill the disgraced CU professor made that claim. The journal of the clerk at the trading post where it supposedly was done wrote about the smallpox outbreak. His wife was NA and they had children. He mentions nothing about it being intentional. It was claimed by Churchill that the blankets were distributed by the US army but there was no US military presence in that area at the time.

And in todays world, they gave us carbohydrates.

Yes, probably killed more NAs than anything.

Many of Custers men were killed by arrows. A few of the Indians had lever guns but many more had bows. And to compound the problem the cavalry was armed with Springfield trapdoors and defective ammunition. The cases were soft and would be damaged by the extractors and leave the soldiers with disabled weapons.

 

[longcruise]

I wonder how the spread of smallpox could be accomplished by distributing blankets without infecting the distributors?

After the Civil War Sherman was put in charge of dealing with the "Indian problem" in the west. Sherman told president grant that eliminating the Buffalo was the solution and it became official policy.

 

[waksupi]

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.

There WERE bow lances.

 

[SOLANCO]

There WERE bow lances.
View attachment 330435
View attachment 330434

Thank you! Love learning something new!!!!

 

[SPQR70AD]

most of the talk about the noble indian fighter was all anti white bullcrap. I went to the museum of natural history in NYC and saw the bows the indians made and a 5 years old drunk European could make a better bow and arrows. indians dug pits to have animals fall in while raiding other indians and steal their food. they drove herds of cliffs where at the bottom the bones are 8 ft deep.
Mark Twain ripped the myth of the indians "special" talents in a funny writ. the commanches the best warriors who drove the apaches into messico. quite a feat. they were beaten by real texas rangers with the patterson pistol first then the walker. Col Walker one of the bravest best american

 

[Gordoncourtney]

Some of that is generated by modern instigators. Ward Churchill the disgraced CU professor made that claim. The journal of the clerk at the trading post where it supposedly was done wrote about the smallpox outbreak. His wife was NA and they had children. He mentions nothing about it being intentional. It was claimed by Churchill that the blankets were distributed by the US army but there was no US military presence in that area at the time.


Yes, probably killed more NAs than anything.

Many of Custers men were killed by arrows. A few of the Indians had lever guns but many more had bows. And to compound the problem the cavalry was armed with Springfield trapdoors and defective ammunition. The cases were soft and would be damaged by the extractors and leave the soldiers with disabled weapons.

They were a shambles they should have carried Roman shields to protect from arrows the french at Agincourt had slow loading crossbows, like a muzzle loader. Say 1000 English arrows let off into the sky, every few seconds just destroyed the French.

Yrs big hefty arrows with forged iron tips,

at forty yards I would use my bow every time. Ml loaders are for distance shooting?, unless you have 100 plus archers that’s where the snipers came in , probably first designed with a small bore 10, 5mm. ML in 1853. Regardless bow or gun. , if a 1000 savages came upon you, you would have to fight for your life,

 

[Reno]

They thought we would keep our word.

 

[longcruise]

They were a shambles they should have carried Roman shields to protect from arrows the french at Agincourt had slow loading crossbows, like a muzzle loader. Say 1000 English arrows let off into the sky, every few seconds just destroyed the French.

I read that nearly a full generation of French nobility was killed at Agincourt. They were on horseback and therefore easily identified as targets.

So many differences between the NA uses of bows and their use in organized warfare as done by the English with their 100# plus plus warbows and those heavy arrows and the mandatory weekly practice sessions required of all able-bodied men. Imagine only 50 or 100 Indians with the English style bows and arrows setting up and launching a constant bombardment against an even larger camp of us soldiers. I think that within 15 minutes most men and horses would be dead, dieing or disabled.

 

[dave_person]

Hi M.De land,
Agincourt was won because the French knights fought dismounted and got stuck in the mud. Crecy was a better demonstration of the bow and they were ineffective at Poiters because the French locked shields and advanced rapidy on the archers. By the late 1400s, an arrow from a long bow could not effectively pierce the hardened and tempered steel armor worn over padding. You need to read Strickland and Hardy (2005) "The Great Longbow from Hastings to the Mary Rose" and M. Bane (2006) "English Longbow Testing Against Various Armor Circa 1400s". The upshot is by the late 1400s, English enemies no longer feared the longbow very much. Moreover, modern testing always fires arrows at the armor at close range and such that the arrow hits dead on. The vast majority of arrow hits in battle were at longer ranges and deflecting blows, not dead on.

As far as early colonists wearing armor, please go here.

https://historicjamestowne.org/collections/artifacts/category/arms-armor/

and here:
https://historicjamestowne.org/collections/artifacts/category/arms-armor/


dave

 

[Daveboone]

I had read a fascinating article years ago....I do not remember where....That one on one, usually the indigenous/ locals owned the fight. Modern tactics/ weapons held complete superiority in larger group battles, generally. My guess is simple trained discipline went a long way there.

 

[Notchy Bob]

I appreciate the posts submitted by @Eterry and @dave_person , likely because I agree with them.

I interpreted the original question as concerning guns versus bows and arrows. Except for direct hits to the spine, arrows kill by inducing hemorrhaging, which may take a little time. Bowhunters expect a fatally shot deer to move off, and if left undisturbed, he will bleed out and collapse. Bullets, on the other hand, hit with more force and induce hydraulic shock. Even a non-fatal hit with a big old lead “punkin ball” might put someone out of the fight, whereas someone hit with an arrow could have some fight left in him.

There was also the “shock & awe” created by the noise and concussion of firearms. Before guns, Indian battles would have involved a good deal of yelling, but the twang of bowstrings, the muffled thuds of people being hit with arrows and clubs, and the crackling of homes afire would have been relatively quiet, compared to a fight with muskets.

Costs were also a factor. While actual costs varied, acquisition of firearms would have involved trading skins, hides, robes, or furs collected by the men but processed by the womenfolk. One buckskin might get you four to six charges of powder with an equivalent number of balls. Bows, on the other hand, were made by the men. If you have ever made one, especially with primitive tools, you know it takes a great expenditure of labor. When I was about fifteen, I made a hickory bow with a jack knife, a hatchet, and a coffee can full of broken glass shards that I used as scrapers. No bandsaw, sanders, vise… it took forever to finish. Imagine making a sinew-backed bow, which was worth a trained buffalo pony, or a sheephorn bow… jeez..

Arrows were another matter. They could be re-used, but they were expensive to “buy” and labor intensive to make. A few here have made arrows from natural materials. I have, way back in the dim past. Finding shaft material may involve time and travel, and it should be cut at the right time of year. Then you have feathers and heads… first you have to get the materials, then process them, them assemble everything into arrows. There was no Bowhunter’s Warehouse with spined Port Orford shafts, die-cut feathers, Duco Cement, or Black Diamond broadheads, all ready for the arrowmaker to assemble. Running a few balls over the campfire was easy by comparison.

It may only be peripheral to this discussion, but if you have not studied the Fetterman Fight of December, 1866, it would be worth looking up. It was a total disaster for the US Army. A lot of people don’t realize that about two-thirds of Fetterman’s men were infantry… foot soldiers, not mounted… and they were armed with muzzle-loading Springfield rifle muskets. Captain Marcy ((who was not involved, but wrote about frontier Army life in general terms) said a lot of recruits did not know they were supposed to put the powder in before the ball. Live-fire practice was considered extravagant and wasteful. The result was very poorly trained men armed with near-obsolete weaponry that they probably didn’t know how to use properly. There were a few cavalrymen present, I think twenty or so, armed with Spencers and Colt (percussion) revolvers, and there were also a few civilian “scouts” there, carrying Henry repeaters. However, Andrew Garcia, in Tough Trip Through Paradise, said Spencers and Henrys were considered popguns by the Indians, who preferred rifles with more knock-down power. Garcia did a brisk trade in surplus fifty-caliber Springfields and cartridges with his Blackfoot and Pend d’Oreille customers. Anyway, the Indians in the Fetterman fight had a variety of weapons and they knew how to use them. Needless to say, the Indians won the day.

The tables were turned eight months later, in the Wagon Box Fight of August, 1867. Fetterman’s defeat got the attention of the Army brass, and the frontier soldiers were subsequently issued the relatively new trapdoor Springfields. I don’t know if the rifles used in that fight were chambered for the original .58 caliber rimfire cartridges or the new .50-70 rounds. In any event, the increased rate of fire and ease of loading those trapdoor rifles saved the day for the men huddled behind tipped-over wagons. The casualty rate among the Indians, who were used to fighting men with muzzle-loaders, was terrible.

Notchy Bob

 

[Deavertex]

The big picture with diseases and dependency on trade items is one thing but the original question about flintlock or even percussion muzzleloaders for that matter vs. bows in close range fighting is a valid one. I've wondered the same thing. Later when revolvers and breech loaders became available is easy to understand.

I guess one partial explanation could be that loading for fighting would be different than we load today. By that I mean the first shot was with a patched ball but follow up shots could and were done by pouring powder and spitting a ball down the bore without a patch. Tom Tobin did that when he killed the Espinosa's. He had put some balls in his mouth and was ready to fire faster. Buffalo hunters on horseback did that too.

Also, many if not most Indian bows weren't all that powerful. You were much more likely to survive, and even continue fighting, with an Indian arrow in you than having been shot.

 

[EcoRover]

I have always wondered how white foreigners " LIke Me" ever defeated the native American red man with single shot flint guns when used with in 30 yards or so as all the advantage was with the rapid fire bow and arrow!
I still get as much enjoyment out of constructing and shooting heat treated Hickory self bows with modern carbon shaft arrows as gun making and shooting black powder.

By a very wide margin, the most effective "weapon" that European colonizers had against Indigenous Peoples was disease. Usually, the infection was not intentional. Europeans evolved and lived in relatively crowded and unsanitary urban conditions. Europeans routinely carried diseases such as smallpox, measles, flu, typhoid, etc. etc. etc. Native Americans evolved and lived in a relatively disease-free and uncrowded environment, and had evolved no resistance to these new diseases.
Columbus' colonization of Hispaniola (now Dominican Republic) is a good example. Before Columbus, the population was about 8 million. By 1514, only about 30,000 remained. Columbus had to import Black slaves to replace the Indian slaves.
As another example, consider the way that European diseases moved inland from Tribe to Tribe long before white colonizers even arrived. Lewis & Clark noted the smallpox scars on Indians who had never before seen white people. These Indians told of how disease had wiped out most of their people a generation before.
Also critically important to the effective colonization of North America was the constant stream of new immigrants supported by imports along with cultural values such as owning property and political organization.

 

[Eterry]

I appreciate the posts submitted by @Eterry and @dave_person , likely because I agree with them.

I interpreted the original question as concerning guns versus bows and arrows. Except for direct hits to the spine, arrows kill by inducing hemorrhaging, which may take a little time. Bowhunters expect a fatally shot deer to move off, and if left undisturbed, he will bleed out and collapse. Bullets, on the other hand, hit with more force and induce hydraulic shock. Even a non-fatal hit with a big old lead “punkin ball” might put someone out of the fight, whereas someone hit with an arrow could have some fight left in him.

There was also the “shock & awe” created by the noise and concussion of firearms. Before guns, Indian battles would have involved a good deal of yelling, but the twang of bowstrings, the muffled thuds of people being hit with arrows and clubs, and the crackling of homes afire would have been relatively quiet, compared to a fight with muskets.

Costs were also a factor. While actual costs varied, acquisition of firearms would have involved trading skins, hides, robes, or furs collected by the men but processed by the womenfolk. One buckskin might get you four to six charges of powder with an equivalent number of balls. Bows, on the other hand, were made by the men. If you have ever made one, especially with primitive tools, you know it takes a great expenditure of labor. When I was about fifteen, I made a hickory bow with a jack knife, a hatchet, and a coffee can full of broken glass shards that I used as scrapers. No bandsaw, sanders, vise… it took forever to finish. Imagine making a sinew-backed bow, which was worth a trained buffalo pony, or a sheephorn bow… jeez..

Arrows were another matter. They could be re-used, but they were expensive to “buy” and labor intensive to make. A few here have made arrows from natural materials. I have, way back in the dim past. Finding shaft material may involve time and travel, and it should be cut at the right time of year. Then you have feathers and heads… first you have to get the materials, then process them, them assemble everything into arrows. There was no Bowhunter’s Warehouse with spined Port Orford shafts, die-cut feathers, Duco Cement, or Black Diamond broadheads, all ready for the arrowmaker to assemble. Running a few balls over the campfire was easy by comparison.

It may only be peripheral to this discussion, but if you have not studied the Fetterman Fight of December, 1866, it would be worth looking up. It was a total disaster for the US Army. A lot of people don’t realize that about two-thirds of Fetterman’s men were infantry… foot soldiers, not mounted… and they were armed with muzzle-loading Springfield rifle muskets. Captain Marcy ((who was not involved, but wrote about frontier Army life in general terms) said a lot of recruits did not know they were supposed to put the powder in before the ball. Live-fire practice was considered extravagant and wasteful. The result was very poorly trained men armed with near-obsolete weaponry that they probably didn’t know how to use properly. There were a few cavalrymen present, I think twenty or so, armed with Spencers and Colt (percussion) revolvers, and there were also a few civilian “scouts” there, carrying Henry repeaters. However, Andrew Garcia, in Tough Trip Through Paradise, said Spencers and Henrys were considered popguns by the Indians, who preferred rifles with more knock-down power. Garcia did a brisk trade in surplus fifty-caliber Springfields and cartridges with his Blackfoot and Pend d’Oreille customers. Anyway, the Indians in the Fetterman fight had a variety of weapons and they knew how to use them. Needless to say, the Indians won the day.

The tables were turned eight months later, in the Wagon Box Fight of August, 1867. Fetterman’s defeat got the attention of the Army brass, and the frontier soldiers were subsequently issued the relatively new trapdoor Springfields. I don’t know if the rifles used in that fight were chambered for the original .58 caliber rimfire cartridges or the new .50-70 rounds. In any event, the increased rate of fire and ease of loading those trapdoor rifles saved the day for the men huddled behind tipped-over wagons. The casualty rate among the Indians, who were used to fighting men with muzzle-loaders, was terrible.

Notchy Bob

Just for comparison: The Spencer 56-50 and the 50-70 carbine load were practically the same.
The Spencer used a 50 caliber, 350gr bullet backed by 45gr fine black powder.
The Springfield carbine (cavalry) load was a 50 cal 430gr bullet and 45grs black powder.
The Spencer was never considered a pop gun by those who used one. The 44 Henry has the same ballistics as our 41 Rem Magnum, nothing I'd want headed my way.

Almost every ACW issued long arm used a bullet from 350 to 500 grains and a powder charge from 45 to 60 grains, all had a velocity from 900-1100fps.
In fact, the 56-50 is the father of the 50-70. Just lengthened approximately 0.6" and a infantry load of 70gr. Reports from the field state the 70gr and 500gr bullet was excessive in a carbine, hence the lighter load.

 

[Eterry]

j

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.

One big difference is the Buffalo, Elk, and Deer didn't shoot back.
I bow hunted for a decade until shoulder surgery, took several deer and other critters. Every deer needed 15-30 minutes to cross over. If that was a person they could fire several shots in that time, if they stayed focused.
The Indians were getting metal tipped heads as soon as colonists arrived. I've read one reason they burned wagons was for the metal, to use as arrow heads.

 

[Eterry]

Some of that is generated by modern instigators. Ward Churchill the disgraced CU professor made that claim. The journal of the clerk at the trading post where it supposedly was done wrote about the smallpox outbreak. His wife was NA and they had children. He mentions nothing about it being intentional. It was claimed by Churchill that the blankets were distributed by the US army but there was no US military presence in that area at the time.


Yes, probably killed more NAs than anything.

Many of Custers men were killed by arrows. A few of the Indians had lever guns but many more had bows. And to compound the problem the cavalry was armed with Springfield trapdoors and defective ammunition. The cases were soft and would be damaged by the extractors and leave the soldiers with disabled weapons.

All imaginable types of weapons were used at Greazy Grass. Modern archeology has recovered many minie balls from NA positions, meaning some had muzzleloaders.

 

[nkbj]

They thought we would keep our word.

You accept a deal from an invader when you're given a deal you can't refuse.
Like even if you know they're lying they got you over a barrel.

 

[Nav]

and trade blankets infected with smallpox.

The ONLY evidence that this happened, ever, was in 1763, and it was from British officers under siege at Ft. Pitt. The fake Indian, Colorado, communist professor Ward Churchill wrote that in a "history book", "A Little Matter of Genocide" with no evidence and no attribution of it whatsoever. The Ft. Pitt incident as being the only known one.

Yes, THAT Ward Churchill.

While small pox certainly devastated the native Americans; it killed a hell load of settlers too. The idea that a healthy person they would handle infected items in any way is ridiculous as EVERYONE was terrified of small pox. They would burn a whole house down if the family was infected and they all died.

https://allthatsinteresting.com/smallpox-blankets

Even since Ward Churchill was discredited as being of NO native American heritage, and that his books are pure fantasy, hating white people and Western culture has been a steadily growing industry among the ignorant and the left...but I repeat myself...

 

[Nav]

Sorry, did not read the rest, and saw this was already pointed out...

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
Disease was the number one killer of indigenous peoples and most of the eastern American tribes were destroyed by it before Jamestown or Plymouth happened. There were quite a number of early voyages to America before the English colonists to transmit disease to the natives. Basque fishermen fished for cod in the Grand and Georges Banks, and may have dried the fish on America's shores long before Columbus. However, with respect to firearms, one has to ask why demand for primitive gunpowder weapons for artillery and infantry swept through Europe so quickly despite the apparent advantages of long bows and cross bows? It was because they went "boom" and psychologically unnerved the enemy but more importantly, they killed noble, tradesmen, and peasant with equal effect, and it did not take 10 years to train the shooters unlike bows. The native Americans saw the advantages of flint ignited gunpowder weapons very quickly in their conflicts among themselves and the Spanish, French, and English invaders. They rapidly took up arms offered by traders, especially the Dutch, and used them extensively, and often more effectively than the colonists. They learned fast and ditched their bows both for hunting and war.

dave