Muskets vs. Crossbows - Why do firearms exist?

[Speaker to Animals]

Oh yeah. I remember there used to be such a thing as a cavalry before the advent of firearms. Must have been tough times for cavalrymen when people started shooting guns and cavalry became useless...

[TheReal_ND]

I was having a reflective moment while buzzing on Voodoo Ranger Imperial IPA

Swipples are worse than vegetarians. They have to insert their favorite craft beer into every conversation.

[DBTrek]

Oh, they coexisted for a while before "guns" made (horse) cavalry obsolete. See the Napoleonic Wars:

Heavy cavalry
Heavy cavalry were all cavalry units that mounted large horses and were used to deliver a physical shock to either enemy cavalry or infantry. They were so called from the 18th century belief that they were the decides of the battle, always kept as a final reserve to be used to break the enemy ranks. Although many still wore the cuirass, and therefore many regiments were called cuirassiers during the previous century, and were descendants of armoured cavalry before them, many like the carabiniers did not, and were later referred by writers as "heavy cavalry" for the size of their horses.


Light cavalry
Light cavalry were utilised for their speed and agility functioning primarily as reconnaissance and screening troops. They were also used for skirmishing, raiding and communications. Many light cavalry types evolved flamboyant uniforms, particularly the hussars, which had originated in Hungary and continued to be recruited from there by the army of Austria. By the time of the wars, units consisting of or modeled after hussars were found in all armies. Irregular Cossack cavalry were of great use to the Russian army in harassing the enemy lines of communication and conducting raids.

Infantry of the line
Infantry of the line were so named for the dominant line combat formation used to deliver a volume of musket fire. Forming the bulk of the Napoleonic armies it was the primary offensive and defensive Arm available to the commanders during the period. Movement in line formation was very slow, and unless the battalion was superbly trained, a breakdown in cohesion was virtually assured, especially in any kind of uneven or wooded terrain. As a result, when movement over such terrain was required over a significant distance troops would move in columns and then deploy into line at their destination.
In addition, the line formation was vulnerable to cavalry charges, particularly from the flanks and rear, and these attacks usually resulted in the complete breakdown of cohesion and even destruction of the unit unless it was able to "form square".

Grenadiers
The grenadier units had, by the time of the Napoleonic Wars, ceased using the hand-thrown grenades, and were largely known for being composed of physically big men, frequently relied upon for shock actions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_ ... eonic_Wars

Still, Napoleonic wars kick off in 1803, a good four hundred years after Europeans are fielding arquebusiers. There's horse cavalry right there on the field with them.

So the question remains, why did these lords continue to field musketmen in the previous four centuries when it seems they offered no great advantage over crossbowmen?

[DBTrek]

Swipples are worse than vegetarians. They have to insert their favorite craft beer into every conversation.

Awwwww, does someone like something you don't like?
Better bitch about it on the internet, snowflake.

[Speaker to Animals]

My stab in the dark here..

Assuming crossbows and early firearms were roughly equivalent in effectiveness (they might excel one another at different ranges, but were generally about the same overall)..

I think firearms still come with a distinct economic advantage. They required more craftsman and more economic activity. You didn't just need to manufacture the guns, but also the gunpowder and musket balls. So converting your army to firearms would result in an economic advantage at home as more people were employed to build these weapons and produce gunpowder.

Furthermore, having a strong economy producing firearms probably translated to cannons, which actually did have great effect. They were developing early mortars by the 15th century.

Add to that the fact that there were "handgun" muskets pretty early, which carried a distinct advantage in terms of mobility and speed (pre-loaded).

It probably wasn't so much that the muskets themselves were so much better than crossbows, but that all the economic activity and technological gains associated with converting to gunpowder-based infantry were so great.

Lastly, just looking at what happened in Japan, it's probably the case that converting to this kind of warfare somewhat weakened the aristocracy, which helped the rise of kings to become despots. There was a little of that happening with longbows and crossbows in the high middle ages, and the Church freaked the fuck out. They did not like the idea of commoner English longbowmen or Italian crossbowmen cutting down lots of knights. But if you are a king constantly having to deal with an aristocracy trying to limit your power, it kind of pays off to arm your peasants and yeoman in this way, get them to swear fealty directly to you in national armies, and then ask the dukes giving you lip what exactly they meant that time they were spouting off at the mouth.

[Speaker to Animals]

Oh, they coexisted for a while before "guns" made (horse) cavalry obsolete. See the Napoleonic Wars:

Heavy cavalry
Heavy cavalry were all cavalry units that mounted large horses and were used to deliver a physical shock to either enemy cavalry or infantry. They were so called from the 18th century belief that they were the decides of the battle, always kept as a final reserve to be used to break the enemy ranks. Although many still wore the cuirass, and therefore many regiments were called cuirassiers during the previous century, and were descendants of armoured cavalry before them, many like the carabiniers did not, and were later referred by writers as "heavy cavalry" for the size of their horses.


Light cavalry
Light cavalry were utilised for their speed and agility functioning primarily as reconnaissance and screening troops. They were also used for skirmishing, raiding and communications. Many light cavalry types evolved flamboyant uniforms, particularly the hussars, which had originated in Hungary and continued to be recruited from there by the army of Austria. By the time of the wars, units consisting of or modeled after hussars were found in all armies. Irregular Cossack cavalry were of great use to the Russian army in harassing the enemy lines of communication and conducting raids.

Infantry of the line
Infantry of the line were so named for the dominant line combat formation used to deliver a volume of musket fire. Forming the bulk of the Napoleonic armies it was the primary offensive and defensive Arm available to the commanders during the period. Movement in line formation was very slow, and unless the battalion was superbly trained, a breakdown in cohesion was virtually assured, especially in any kind of uneven or wooded terrain. As a result, when movement over such terrain was required over a significant distance troops would move in columns and then deploy into line at their destination.
In addition, the line formation was vulnerable to cavalry charges, particularly from the flanks and rear, and these attacks usually resulted in the complete breakdown of cohesion and even destruction of the unit unless it was able to "form square".

Grenadiers
The grenadier units had, by the time of the Napoleonic Wars, ceased using the hand-thrown grenades, and were largely known for being composed of physically big men, frequently relied upon for shock actions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_ ... eonic_Wars

Still, Napoleonic wars kick off in 1803, a good four hundred years after Europeans are fielding arquebusiers. There's horse cavalry right there on the field with them.

So the question remains, why did these lords continue to field musketmen in the previous four centuries when it seems they offered no great advantage over crossbowmen?

I was being facetious. Guns made cavalry more effective.

[Smitty-48]

America took the 1st (Air) Cavalry Division into Vietnam in 1965, and at the time the Air Cav was in fact an experimental formation, and the thought was "oboy, we're gonna win this war now, the Viet Cong don't stand a chance against the Air Cav", but turns out, no, the Viet Cong figured it out almost immediately, only took them one costly battle at LZ X-Ray in the Ia Drang for the Viet Cong to figure out "hug the belt", and literally within a few days the Vietnamese wiped an entire battalion of the Air Cav out at LZ Albany, so the edge that the Air Cav gave the Americans in battle in Vietnam, lasted for about a week, so why did America continue to develop the helicopter?

[TheReal_ND]

Swipples are worse than vegetarians. They have to insert their favorite craft beer into every conversation.

Awwwww, does someone like something you don't like?
Better bitch about it on the internet, snowflake.

Enjoy your double dose of estrogen mimickers.

[StCapps]

You underestimate the psychological advantage of firearms, they make scarier noises and after you fire they provide concealment via smoke, that made a big difference back in the day, enough to overcome the weaknesses of early firearms compared to crossbows. Morale is a big deal, and it turns out that having firearms while your opponent doesn't is quite the morale boost.

[Smitty-48]

You're vastly underrating the "cool!" factor, again, helicopters; how many battles have they won? How many wars have you won since becoming the ultimate airmobile force?

Answer; none. None the less; helicopters; "cool!"