Bow and arrow verses Flint Guns

[M. De Land]

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

Good discussion Dave and am enjoying the counter thought. The colonials and soldiers ( English, Colonists, Hessian or French) did not wear the body armor of the pilgrims and Jamestown crowd at the time of the French and Indian wars when it really was primarily bow against flint guns.
Bow and arrows were hampered by rain but so were flint guns so I think that was pretty much a wash as to advantage at those times.
I've used both most of my life and in a close battle I'd take the bow and a quiver of arrows over my muzzle loaders personally.
Also many arrows that missed the mark or even if hitting it were retrieved to launch again. They take far to much effort to construct to throw them away with only one shot a piece.
The technique as I understand in European warfare of the period of long bow use , from the special I watched about Agincourt, was to repeat birage fire and the Bodkin tipped heavy arrows launched from 100 often plus pound long bows would penetrate chain mail with ease by separating and wedging between the links. Only relative few of the rich knights could afford tempered body armor and even then the hail of arrows falling from the sky would eventually find an opening.

 

[longcruise]

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

You did it with more detail

 

[billraby]

At least the Indians were nice enough to introduce Europeans to the joys of syphilis.

 

[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.

Thanks for your comments!

However, we're talking about the .50-70 rifles, which shot the full-house loads, and not the carbines. Also, I was wrong about the "popgun" comment. Garcia called the Henry rifles "peashooters." I'm not sure he included the Spencers in that classification, but it sounded like it. Here is the quote from Tough Trip Through Paradise: "I [Garcia] thought I would be foxy and swap them [his native customers] the new Spencers and Henry peashooters that I got from Webber and Company. Because they were new, I thought that I could raise the price on them. I found out that they only wanted the [Springfield] needle guns, which tore a hole big enough to put your fist in, and were not bad to knock down a buffalo with. With the Henrys and Spencers, half of the time the buffalo did not know that you hit them, and had to be shot so full of holes that their hide was no good; for it took a bullet with some force to kill a buffalo" (p. 184)

Author J. A. Allen described the buffalo hunters he knew during his time on the plains, and wrote about them at some length in his book, The American Bisons, Living and Extinct (published in 1876). In describing their firearms, he wrote, "The improved breech-loading United States musket is their favorite weapon, and most of them will use no other..." (p. 214).

We modern folk can discuss ballistics and so forth, but the quotes above are voices from the frontier. Spencer carbines and Henrys were both very popular with a lot of the white frontiersmen back in the day, and they could be very effective in some contexts. For example, James Cook reported dropping an enraged Texas longhorn with one shot at close range from his Spencer when it charged the headman of the ranch where Cook was working. A lot of people used them, and they were very handy on horseback, although Bill Cody, an accomplished hunter, preferred a full-length Springfield rifle in .50-70, even on horseback. It appears that many of the big-game hunters and Indians wanted more firepower than a Spencer or Henry could offer when they could get it, and the soldiers in the Wagon Box Fight appreciated their breechloading Springfield rifles and used them to good effect.

Notchy Bob

 

[Antelope Pete]

Also many arrows that missed the mark or even if hitting it were retrieved to launch again. They take far to much effort to construct to throw them away with only one shot a piece.

I don't know about back east but here in the west there were quite a few arrow riddled bodies most of them post mortem to act as a statement.

 

[oldwood]

If you want to read about flintlock guns against Indian arrows , read Lewis Wetzel's history. That'll fil ya in on some real life 18th century action.

 

[Eterry]

If you want to read about flintlock guns against Indian arrows , read Lewis Wetzel's history. That'll fil ya in on some real life 18th century action.

Do you know the name of Wetzel's book?

 

[waksupi]

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.

This kind of surprises me. Aside from one arrow that hit too far back, with proper placement deer have usually died within 30 yards of where I've hit them, in around a minute. Same with elk, if anything I think a sharp arrow kills a properly hit elk faster than a bullet. Those I have shot with arrows have lived less than two minutes. My X put three .30-06 180 gr. into an elks heart you could cover with your hand, and it lasted around four minutes before it figured out it was dead.

 

[waksupi]

Thanks for your comments!

However, we're talking about the .50-70 rifles, which shot the full-house loads, and not the carbines. Also, I was wrong about the "popgun" comment. Garcia called the Henry rifles "peashooters." I'm not sure he included the Spencers in that classification, but it sounded like it. Here is the quote from Tough Trip Through Paradise: "I [Garcia] thought I would be foxy and swap them [his native customers] the new Spencers and Henry peashooters that I got from Webber and Company. Because they were new, I thought that I could raise the price on them. I found out that they only wanted the [Springfield] needle guns, which tore a hole big enough to put your fist in, and were not bad to knock down a buffalo with. With the Henrys and Spencers, half of the time the buffalo did not know that you hit them, and had to be shot so full of holes that their hide was no good; for it took a bullet with some force to kill a buffalo" (p. 184)

Author J. A. Allen described the buffalo hunters he knew during his time on the plains, and wrote about them at some length in his book, The American Bisons, Living and Extinct (published in 1876). In describing their firearms, he wrote, "The improved breech-loading United States musket is their favorite weapon, and most of them will use no other..." (p. 214).

We modern folk can discuss ballistics and so forth, but the quotes above are voices from the frontier. Spencer carbines and Henrys were both very popular with a lot of the white frontiersmen back in the day, and they could be very effective in some contexts. For example, James Cook reported dropping an enraged Texas longhorn with one shot at close range from his Spencer when it charged the headman of the ranch where Cook was working. A lot of people used them, and they were very handy on horseback, although Bill Cody, an accomplished hunter, preferred a full-length Springfield rifle in .50-70, even on horseback. It appears that many of the big-game hunters and Indians wanted more firepower than a Spencer or Henry could offer when they could get it, and the soldiers in the Wagon Box Fight appreciated their breechloading Springfield rifles and used them to good effect.

Notchy Bob

I think Garcia's remarks were off target. A Trapdoor with a cast bullet certainly doesn't leave a wound like he describes, even with a flat nosed projectile. I do agree with his assessment of the Henry. I had one, and could just never get used to a rifle where you could watch the bullet fly all the way to the target.

 

[waksupi]

I don't know about back east but here in the west there were quite a few arrow riddled bodies most of them post mortem to act as a statement.

Go to the museum in Chouteau, Montana to see a skeleton with arrow heads embedded.

 

[SOLANCO]

Flint vs bow and arrow? Maybe the better question is hunter/gatherer vs agrarian settler.

 

[DixieTexian]

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.

While I don't disagree with your premise, I think you might have your numbers wrong. I'm not aware of any serious historians making the claim that European diseases killed over 99.6% of the native population, however, if you have any reliable citations I am certainly interested in reading them.

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.

The .44 Henry launches a 200 gr bullet at 1,125 fps, for an muzzle energy of 568 ft-lbs. A .41 mag loaded with a similar sized 210 gr bullet launches it at 1,560 fps for a muzzle energy of 1,135 ft-lbs. I'm not sure I'd call those two the same.

At least the Indians were nice enough to introduce Europeans to the joys of syphilis.

No doubt, but I'm pretty sure many of the Europeans introduced themselves to the joys of syphilis.

 

[SPQR70AD]

At least the Indians were nice enough to introduce Europeans to the joys of syphilis.

what about tobacco introduced to Europeans? how many deaths came from that? years ago when all the AG's were suing cigarette makers I said why dont they sue the Indians. where are our reparations for all the deaths from smoking? 8 million a year die from smoking add that up from decades

 

[SPQR70AD]

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.
View attachment 330497

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...

I think saying so many indians died of smallpox was to make excuses for their defeat to keep up the myth that injuns were superior to whites. just more of the anti white agenda. the comanches were the fiercest biggest tribe of fighters of all the indians and it wasnt smallpox that defeated them

 

[fubar22]

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.

That's true. Frankin knew from history that rapid-firing English archers defeated French forces with devastating arrow volleys during the Hundred Years War (1337-1453). What Washington knew was that these English archers trained from childhood to draw and fire the 100 lb+ war bows needed for those feats. By the late 18th century, nobody was forcing all able-bodied men to spend every Sunday practicing archery. While arrows from an English war bow could kill at distances comparable to 18th century muskets, their military effectiveness came from the sheer volume of arrows -- 6 - 10 per minute -- they could pour onto an advancing enemy, not pinpoint accuracy. At the battle of Crecy (1346), for example, the 6000-7000 English archers fired an estimated 75,000-90,000 arrows onto the advancing French in the first minute of the battle.

 

[ronaldrothb49]

I think it is unrealistic to compare hunting with what happens in a battle regardless of whether you are using a bow or a rifle. In hunting you can take careful aim and not likely the Deer is going to be shooting back. Granted if I was facing a Grizzly I would want the largest caliber rifle I could find and have several friends with similar rifles to back me up but even then the bear can't do anything till he gets to you. Most of the people, depending on where they were hit by either in a battle would survive the initial wound. Yes many would later die from infections. Both would be limited in how many times you could shoot. Arrows took time to make and powder and lead had to be purchased. Contrary to the movies there wouldn't be a lot of indiscriminate shooting being done with either. I just read an article yesterday about an individual who spent several decades in the Texas Rangers, I already forgot his name, getting old sucks. Well over the years he was wounded 20 times by bullets and arrows. In a skirmish with the Comanche's he was listed as having 3 grievous wounds and was left for dead. He made it back to the headquarters on his own recovered and rejoined the Rangers, He went on to die of old age.
The native tribes contributed to their own destruction by joining the Colonist's in fighting other tribes that they considered their enemies.

 

[Zapadach]

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.

Yes, Benjamin Franklin did advocate for the use of the bow, he also wanted the turkey to be the national symbol instead of the bald eagle. However, it takes far longer to train a skilled archer, than it does to train one to proficiently shoot a musket.

 

[M. De Land]

Good discussion Dave and am enjoying the counter thought. The colonials and soldiers ( English, Colonists, Hessian or French) did not wear the body armor of the pilgrims and Jamestown crowd at the time of the French and Indian wars when it really was primarily bow against flint guns.
Bow and arrows were hampered by rain but so were flint guns so I think that was pretty much a wash as to advantage at those times.
I've used both most of my life and in a close battle I'd take the bow and a quiver of arrows over my muzzle loaders personally.
Also many arrows that missed the mark or even if hitting it were retrieved to launch again. They take far to much effort to construct to throw them away with only one shot a piece.
The technique as I understand in European warfare of the period of long bow use , from the special I watched about Agincourt, was to repeat birage fire and the Bodkin tipped heavy arrows launched from 100 often plus pound long bows would penetrate chain mail with ease by separating and wedging between the links. Only relative few of the rich knights could afford tempered body armor and even then the hail of arrows falling from the sky would eventually find an opening.

I don't believe I've ever read of an account of Native Americans using volley fire in battle but it could have happened occasionally in battle.
The NA was raised with a bow in their hand from youth and nothing makes one as proficient with a weapon as the one used daily to keep life and limb together so the notion of training with the bow to a N.A. would have been redundant and unnecessary
I am quite sure given the effort to make good arrows that they were retrieved as often as possible and reused.
Another fascinating aspect is the length of time it would have taken for the shear number of arrow heads we find today to have accumulated in the density they are found. I would think this is probably because of the decades and centuries of the the inhabitants using the same hunting grounds over and over again.
The chert to make good arrow and dart tips were a form of currency in trade and they would not have been wasted indiscriminately in battle or for hunting.

 

[nhmoose]

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

Today it is cocaine, heroin, fentanyl. Not to mention HIV and Aids. No respect from the .gov does not help.

Many have been great warriors for the .gov by the way and deserve all the respect that can be given.

Primitive living was worse than style of living today.

 

[Antelope Pete]

Go to the museum in Chouteau, Montana to see a skeleton with arrow heads embedded.

Thanks. If I get to that area I'll have to do that.