# When did infantrymen with firearms become more effective than horse-mounted archers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 26, 2010, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-infantrymen-with-firearms-become-more-effective-than-horse-mounted-archers/530538 "2010-02-26T17:44:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-infantrymen-with-firearms-become-more-effective-than-horse-mounted-archers/530538/21 "2010-02-27T19:25:29Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > I’m not sure about that. If “well ordered” means they had developed the tactic of volley fire, where each line of shooters fires, moves back to be replaced by the next line of shooters, while reloading, they can “buy time” to reload while keeping the pressure on. Individual rate of reloading and firing becomes less important. Depending on the opponent. 18th century Austrian armies fighting most European opponents practiced standard volley-fire. But when fighting the Ottomans they apparently frequently abandoned that tactic in favor of free-firing, each soldier loading and firing as fast as they could. The reason being that unlike the tightly drilled European armies that would stand in place and hammer each other at short range, the far more poorly disciplined ( but generally high morale, with a strong cultural and institutional emphasis on individual bravery ) Ottoman troops would often take the opportunity of any gap in fire to charge the lines. As a) the common Austrian soldier seems to have had an almost atavistic dread of their Ottoman counterparts and b) on the battlefield the undisciplined Ottoman soldiery were actually more dangerous in close combat where weight of numbers and personal ferocity could be brought more effectively to bear, it was thought better to do what it took to try to keep them at range as much as possible. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-infantrymen-with-firearms-become-more-effective-than-horse-mounted-archers/530538/22 "2010-02-27T19:44:13Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > Depending on the opponent. 18th century Austrian armies fighting most European opponents practiced standard volley-fire. But when fighting the Ottomans they apparently frequently abandoned that tactic in favor of free-firing, each soldier loading and firing as fast as they could. > > The reason being that unlike the tightly drilled European armies that would stand in place and hammer each other at short range, the far more poorly disciplined ( but generally high morale, with a strong cultural and institutional emphasis on individual bravery ) Ottoman troops would often take the opportunity of any gap in fire to charge the lines. As a) the common Austrian soldier seems to have had an almost atavistic dread of their Ottoman counterparts and b) on the battlefield the undisciplined Ottoman soldiery were actually more dangerous in close combat where weight of numbers and personal ferocity could be brought more effectively to bear, it was thought better to do what it took to try to keep them at range as much as possible. As you describe it, it means the Austrians (or Europe in general) had to adapt their tactics to “answer” the enemy (the Ottomans) tactics. Volley fire doesn’t work if the line breaks. In that case, repeaters would make a big difference. A repeater allows a person to keep firing on the move. The shooter doesn’t have to reload after each shot while in close quarters (at which point an arrow or a sword becomes the superior weapon). ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-infantrymen-with-firearms-become-more-effective-than-horse-mounted-archers/530538/23 "2010-02-27T19:56:02Z")
> [@](#): > > The bow is tactically strong in both charges and retreats, especially during battles on an open field, as it is possible to shoot quickly from among the ranks of the spearmen or others. However, it is inadequate in sieges, or when the enemy is more than forty yards away. Nowadays the schools of archery as well as other arts have more flowers than fruit. In times of real need such kind of skill is useless. > > From inside fortifications, the gun has no equal among weapons. It is the supreme weapon on the field before the ranks clash, but once swords are crossed the gun becomes inadequate. _The Book Of Five Rings_ (aka _Go Rin No Sho_, c. 1645), Miyamoto Musashi. . ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-infantrymen-with-firearms-become-more-effective-than-horse-mounted-archers/530538/24 "2010-02-27T23:35:18Z")
Another thing that I’m not sure has been mentioned is that it’s difficult to put a big knife on the end of a bow and turn it into an ersatz pike. This was obviously more important for infantry men than it was for horse mounted troops, but I’d say the advent of the bayonet pretty much sealed the deal. -XT ---
**Author:** ![TheHegemon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9c0ed/32.png) [@TheHegemon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheHegemon)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2010, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-infantrymen-with-firearms-become-more-effective-than-horse-mounted-archers/530538/25 "2010-02-28T00:57:20Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Regarding the obsolescence of horse cavalry, it was a long process; they were unable to deal with smoothbore muskets but retained their use long after the introduction of the Maxim machine gun. Barring exceptional circumstances no one was foolish enough to do a traditional cavalry charge against rifled muskets; but cavalry was already impotent against smoothbore muskets a half century before that. A properly formed infantry square in the Napoleonic era was essentially invulnerable to cavalry, though it made a juicy target for artillery. It would take exceptional circumstances for a square to be broken. At [Quatre Bras](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Quatre_Bras) British infantry was taken by surprise and unable to fully form squares before French Cavalry impacted them, and at [Garcia Hernandez](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Garcia_Hernandez) a French infantry square broke when a horse brained at close range did what no living horse would, it kept going at full gallop and crashed into the French infantry, making a hole in the line. From 1815 'til 1914 cavalry could not be expected to break infantry, but it was still undisputed in its other traditional roles of reconnaissance, screening, raiding, and still sometimes riding down a defeated enemy preventing their escape. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the rifled musket completed the obsolescence of cavalry begun during Napoleon’s era. It took well-disciplined troops to hold square during a cavalry assault and the square was vulnerable as an artillery target. By the American Civil war, average or even below-average disciplined infantrymen could break up a potential cavalry assault before it was even formed. The same infantrymen could shoot down the horses and men of any potentially threatening artillery battery. Furthermore, all this could be done from the comparative safety of the infantry line. By 1864, when elaborate trench systems began appearing on the battlefield, the infantry line was more-or-less invulnerable to direct attack. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2010, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-infantrymen-with-firearms-become-more-effective-than-horse-mounted-archers/530538/26 "2010-02-28T02:39:30Z")
> [@TheHegemon](#): > > Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the rifled musket completed > the obsolescence of cavalry begun during Napoleon’s era. It took well-disciplined troops to hold square during a cavalry assault and the square was vulnerable as an artillery target. > By the American Civil war, average or even below-average disciplined infantrymen could break up a potential cavalry assault before it was even formed. The same infantrymen could shoot down the horses and men of any potentially threatening artillery battery. Furthermore, all this could be done from the comparative safety of the infantry line. By 1864, when elaborate trench systems began appearing on the battlefield, the infantry line was more-or-less invulnerable to direct attack. Mention has been made upthread of using cannon to break up infantry formations. This might have been made obsolete when rifled muskets exceeded the range of smoothbore cannon. But what happened when modern field artillery regained comparable range? Were open infantry “formations” mostly a thing of the past by then? ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2010, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-infantrymen-with-firearms-become-more-effective-than-horse-mounted-archers/530538/27 "2010-02-28T04:20:40Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > I’m not sure about that. If “well ordered” means they had developed the tactic of volley fire, where each line of shooters fires, moves back to be replaced by the next line of shooters, while reloading, they can “buy time” to reload while keeping the pressure on. Individual rate of reloading and firing becomes less important. Gustavus had his men so well drilled that they got by with three ranks of muskets, where the Imperial army was still using five. You don’t do something like that unless your individual rate of fire is greatly increased. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2010, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-infantrymen-with-firearms-become-more-effective-than-horse-mounted-archers/530538/28 "2010-02-28T07:16:37Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > Gotta step up for my not-really-peeps and rather strongly disagree with the above. The classical Mongol empire faced as professional of armies as existed at that time, including that of the Jin and Sung dynasties in China. That the Mongol forces were _more professional_ by dint of Genghis Khan’s radical reorganization is unquestionably one of their greatest advantages ( having a couple of genuine military geniuses was the other big one ). Nonetheless few of their opponents were lightweights. The Jin and Sung deployed comparatively huge armies, as did the Khwarizm Shahs. Nor did the Mongol expeditionary armies had any great numerical superiority over their European counterparts. And when faced with adverse terrain in China, while rapid advances definitely did stop, the Mongol war machine did prove ultimately able to adapt, witness the conquest of the Southern Sung. I’ve gotta back you up on your non-peeps. Dupuy and Dupuy’s commentary in _The Encyclopedia of Military History_ has always stuck with me: > [@](#): > > The word “horde,” denoting a Mongol tribe or a field army, has become synonymous with vast numbers because the Mongol’s Western foes refused to believe that they had been overwhelmed by small forces. Half to excuse their defeats, half because they never had the opportunity to understand the marvelous system that permitted the Mongols to strike with the speed and force of a hurricane, 13th-century Europeans sincerely but wrongly believed the Mongol armies to be tremendous, relatively undisciplined mobs that achieved their objectives solely by superior numbers. > > Genghis Khan and his armies accomplished feats that would be hard, if not impossible, for modern armies to duplicate, principally because he had one of the best-organized, best-trained, and most thoroughly disciplined armies ever created. The Mongol Army was usually much smaller than those of its principal opponents. The largest force Genghis Khan ever assembled was that with which he conquered Persia; less than 240,000 men. The Mongol armies which later conquered Russia and all of Eastern and Central Europe never exceeded 150,000 men. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2010, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-infantrymen-with-firearms-become-more-effective-than-horse-mounted-archers/530538/29 "2010-02-28T11:04:33Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > It was more than just the relative ease of training that made the musket win out. The musket may have been less lethal than the bow, but the musket had a greater moral effect; it was loud and made a great deal of smoke. As Napoleon put it “two armies are two bodies which meet and try to frighten each other” and firearms are more frightening. On a range the longbow from the 14/15th century is a much more accurate and faster firing weapon than the Brown Bess musket from the 18th/early 19th century, but formations with muskets didn’t supplement formations of trained archers on the battlefield. They entirely replaced them despite being the “less effective” weapon. A musket has quite a lot of advantages over the bow in other respects, though : - It can reliably punch through basic armour. Yeah, yeah, I know all about the Agincourt myths of English longbowmen shooting right through plate mail like it was butter. I call BS. Of course, the wide use of firearms meant that soldiers progressively ditched armour alltogether (except for horsemen, who got rid of them a bit later), which would have made bows useful again… until the enemy gets his cuirass back from storage, that is. And thanks to industrialization and machined tools, it would have been much easier to make good steel plate _en masse_ in the late Renaissance than it had been in the high Middle Ages. - When it does hit, it does a whole lot more damage than an arrow. - It’s much easier to use and aim. English longbowmen weren’t born premier archers : every single yeoman was required, by law, to put in hours at the firing range every Sunday (and learned to shoot at a given range, rather than at a target). Other nations weren’t as enthusiastic about teaching their peasants the ways of war in peacetime - could have given them the wrong idea, you see ;). By comparison, give a complete novice a musket or a crossbow, and by the end of the week he’ll be able to use it adequately. Load, point in enemy’s general direction, fire, repeat. No messing about with angles or ranges. Another week of shouting at them, and they might even grasp the gist of firing by ranks. They won’t be great soldiers, sure, but they’ll do. - Firearms can be carried already loaded. In the case of pistols and cavalry carbines, an individual could even carry a whole brace of them. By comparison, a bow is only strung right before a battle, and unless you’re The Hulk, you can’t keep it drawn very long either. Makes all the difference in the world in case of ambush while on the march. - In the context of a siege, firearms are simply superior : no need for high rate of fire (and if need be, again one man can prepare a dozen muskets beforehand) or even accuracy since only lucky shots are going to hit anyway, can be shot through a tiny murderhole, can be reloaded from cover with only a quick exposure to shoot (you can even shoot blind without even leaving cover)… - Unlike longbows which had to be individually crafted, muskets and crossbows could be made in bulk. Balls and powder even more so, compared to arrows. - As has already been said, muskets double as crude mêlée weapons, even more so with the advent of the bayonet (but even before that, a solid hit with a rifle butt or weighed pistol grip would seriously ruin your day). So you see, it’s not all about the noise and smoke. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2010, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-infantrymen-with-firearms-become-more-effective-than-horse-mounted-archers/530538/30 "2010-02-28T13:57:07Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > It can reliably punch through basic armour. Yeah, yeah, I know all about the Agincourt myths of English longbowmen shooting right through plate mail like it was butter. I call BS. Call BS if you want, and I’ve made no magical claims of arrows from long or composite bows slicing through platemail like butter. I’d have to object to plate mail being described as anything close to ‘basic armor’ however. It wasn’t, basic armor would at best have been leather and padding. Plate had its own disadvantages of weight, and horses were rarely well protected even if the rider was in the case of cavalry. [Warning, pdf file](http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci/docs/Champ_Bane_Archery-Testing.pdf) but from here on actual testing of the longbow vs various armors: > [@](#): > > Conclusion > Most soldiers on the battlefield would have been at risk from the longbow. The average archer would have had the tools to wound or kill most armour types. Even with the advent of coat of plates, the archer would have had an impact on an advancing army. Only the most expensive and well made plate armour wearers would have had an advantage. Although even with plate, I only tested the impacts to major protected areas. The joints and gaps would all still be vulnerable being mostly of maille until the 16th century. Without significant metal to withstand the energies of an arrow or excessive padding to spread out the force, arrows of the 1400’s would have been deadly. > [@Kobal2](#): > > Of course, the wide use of firearms meant that soldiers progressively ditched armour alltogether (except for horsemen, who got rid of them a bit later), which would have made bows useful again… until the enemy gets his cuirass back from storage, that is. And thanks to industrialization and machined tools, it would have been much easier to make good steel plate _en masse_ in the late Renaissance than it had been in the high Middle Ages. Mass production of \*\*\*anything \* \*\*wasn’t going to happen in the late Renaissance. It also took until quite a bit later for horsemen to give up their armor, old habits die hard. The cuirass continued in use among horseman for a very, very long time; through the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 [and even into WW1](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuirassier) > [@](#): > > In 1914 there were still cuirassiers in the German army (ten regiments including the Gardes du Corps and the Garde-Kürassiers); the French (twelve regiments) and the Russian (four regiments, all of the Imperial Guard). The German and Russian cuirassiers had, by the end of the nineteenth century, come to retain their breastplates only as part of their peacetime parade dress, but the French regiments wore the cuirass (with a cloth cover) and plumed helmet on active service during the first weeks of World War I. The three Household Cavalry regiments of the British Army (1st and 2nd Life Guards and Royal Horse Guards) had adopted cuirasses after the Napoleonic Wars as part of their full dress uniforms, but never had occasion to wear this armour in battle. > > The retention of this magnificent-looking but obsolete armour for active service by the French Army in 1914 reflected the historic prestige of this branch of the cavalry, dating back through the Franco-Prussian War to the campaigns of Napoleon. Attempts were made prior to the outbreak of war to have the cuirass restricted to parade dress, but upon mobilisation in 1914, the only concession made was to wear a cover of brown or blue cloth over the shining steel and brass of the cuirass itself, to make the wearer less visible. The cuirass ceased to be worn by most French regiments within a few weeks of the outbreak of war, though it was not formally withdrawn until October 1915. [quote=Kobal2 ] - It’s much easier to use and aim. English longbowmen weren’t born premier archers : every single yeoman was required, by law, to put in hours at the firing range every Sunday (and learned to shoot at a given range, rather than at a target). Other nations weren’t as enthusiastic about teaching their peasants the ways of war in peacetime - could have given them the wrong idea, you see ;). By comparison, give a complete novice a musket or a crossbow, and by the end of the week he’ll be able to use it adequately. Load, point in enemy’s general direction, fire, repeat. No messing about with angles or ranges. Another week of shouting at them, and they might even grasp the gist of firing by ranks. They won’t be great soldiers, sure, but they’ll do. [/quote] This is of course the advantage of easier training that a musket had over a bow, which I have never disputed at all. I’d also note that ‘load, point in the enemy’s general direction, fire (or not), repeat,’ is what happened and the effect was as much if not more psychological than physical. Had everyone in opposing infantry regiments with even smoothbore much less rifled muskets actually aimed to kill rather than fire in the enemy’s general direction opposing lines should have practically annihilated each other in very short order. > [@](#): > > - Firearms can be carried already loaded. In the case of pistols and cavalry carbines, an individual could even carry a whole brace of them. By comparison, a bow is only strung right before a battle, and unless you’re The Hulk, you can’t keep it drawn very long either. Makes all the difference in the world in case of ambush while on the march. Wearing a brace of loaded pistols 24/7 in case of sudden ambush, much less keeping a shot rammed down the barrel of a muzzle loading musket with powder behind it and in the pan and was neither feasible nor safe. Aside from the dangers of keeping a firearm with a round chambered at all times, ramming the shot down after emptying (almost) all of the powder charge down the barrel was done to put the shot in contact with the powder at the bottom of the barrel. The rest of the powder went in the flash pan. Keeping this type of firearm in this state unless one is expecting to fire it very soon is well - something that wasn’t done while on the march. An arrow could be notched and fired much, much faster than a musket could be loaded. > [@](#): > > - In the context of a siege, firearms are simply superior : no need for high rate of fire (and if need be, again one man can prepare a dozen muskets beforehand) or even accuracy since only lucky shots are going to hit anyway, can be shot through a tiny murderhole, can be reloaded from cover with only a quick exposure to shoot (you can even shoot blind without even leaving cover)… Which again only reinforces what I’ve said. Accuracy doesn’t really matter since only lucky shots are going to hit anyway, and you can just shoot blind: the moral and psychological effect of fire and noise that firearms have whether they are actually hitting anyone or not. > [@](#): > > - As has already been said, muskets double as crude mêlée weapons, even more so with the advent of the bayonet (but even before that, a solid hit with a rifle butt or weighed pistol grip would seriously ruin your day). Yes I’m well aware of this [considering that I was the one who said it.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12166803&postcount=15) > [@](#): > > So you see, it’s not all about the noise and smoke. Which I have never claimed. Nowhere have I said the advantage of firearms was all about smoke and noise. I was noting that easier training wasn’t the sole reason firearms replaced bows, all of that smoke and noise had a distinct psychological advantage to it whether early firearms were more lethal than bows or not. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2010, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-infantrymen-with-firearms-become-more-effective-than-horse-mounted-archers/530538/31 "2010-02-28T14:24:47Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > Gustavus had his men so well drilled that they got by with three ranks of muskets, where the Imperial army was still using five. You don’t do something like that unless your individual rate of fire is greatly increased. 3 ranks vs 5 ranks? Jeez, that makes a huge difference. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2010, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-infantrymen-with-firearms-become-more-effective-than-horse-mounted-archers/530538/32 "2010-02-28T14:43:54Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > The best test of this question is probably when forces with muskets actually had to defeat horse-mounted archers: when Russia began to conquer central Asia. The Russian conquest of the Siberian Khanates spanned the era from the late sixteenth century to the middle of the seventeenth century. So I would say then. But didn’t the Russians have cavalry of their own? ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2010, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-infantrymen-with-firearms-become-more-effective-than-horse-mounted-archers/530538/33 "2010-02-28T15:51:31Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > 3 ranks vs 5 ranks? > > Jeez, that makes a huge difference. Yes, it does. Because the army in 3 ranks can match the front of the one with 5 ranks and have guys left over for a flank attack. ---
**Author:** ![Walther\_Ego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8dc957/32.png) [@Walther\_Ego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walther_Ego)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-infantrymen-with-firearms-become-more-effective-than-horse-mounted-archers/530538/34 "2010-03-01T08:14:49Z")
I give you [Battle\_of\_Chaldiran](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chaldiran), 1514. We’re talking about a battle in the heartland of Turkish-Iranian horse archery here. Also, notable that the winners had relied on horse archery before. Of course, artillery playd an important role too. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-infantrymen-with-firearms-become-more-effective-than-horse-mounted-archers/530538/35 "2010-03-01T12:30:44Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Wearing a brace of loaded pistols 24/7 in case of sudden ambush, much less keeping a shot rammed down the barrel of a muzzle loading musket with powder behind it and in the pan and was neither feasible nor safe. Aside from the dangers of keeping a firearm with a round chambered at all times, ramming the shot down after emptying (almost) all of the powder charge down the barrel was done to put the shot in contact with the powder at the bottom of the barrel. The rest of the powder went in the flash pan. Keeping this type of firearm in this state unless one is expecting to fire it very soon is well - something that wasn’t done while on the march. An arrow could be notched and fired much, much faster than a musket could be loaded. Yeah, that was reaching, agreed. But I didn’t mean 24/7 though, I meant when soldiers were expecting trouble (as in, scouts have reported possible enemy activity, but don’t know how much or exactly where. You know, military intelligence :p). Besides, as I said before, bows weren’t carried strung, as it wore down the bow itself, and exposed the string to the elements. > [@](#): > > Which I have never claimed. Nowhere have I said the advantage of firearms was all about smoke and noise. I was noting that easier training wasn’t the sole reason firearms replaced bows, all of that smoke and noise had a distinct psychological advantage to it whether early firearms were more lethal than bows or not. I still remain doubtful about that. In the 14th century, when firearms were first introduced, yeah, noise and smoke might have had an effect. In the 17th century however, that is to say around the time musket Regiments of the Line became the norm, I daresay people had become used to the concept, at least in Europe. What morale effect firearms had was more about seeing 30 men fall at once from an enemy volley than just the loud noise. Besides, morale effect or not, the noise and smoke were more hindrance than anything : the noise meant it was harder to carry orders above the din, and the smoke made it hard to see, both for the soldiers who just fired and the generals watching the battle from afar. Hence the eventual move to smokeless powder. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-infantrymen-with-firearms-become-more-effective-than-horse-mounted-archers/530538/36 "2010-03-01T15:45:02Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But didn’t the Russians have cavalry of their own? They had cavalry. They didn’t have mounted archers, though. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Excellent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Mr.Excellent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Excellent)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-infantrymen-with-firearms-become-more-effective-than-horse-mounted-archers/530538/37 "2010-03-01T16:07:53Z")
Thanks for the informative posts, all - I now know far more about the role of mounted archers, early firearms, and so on than I ever thought I’d know. The Dope truly rocks. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-infantrymen-with-firearms-become-more-effective-than-horse-mounted-archers/530538/38 "2010-03-01T18:51:46Z")
> [@Walther\_Ego](#): > > I give you [Battle\_of\_Chaldiran](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chaldiran), 1514. We’re talking about a battle in the heartland of Turkish-Iranian horse archery here. Also, notable that the winners had relied on horse archery before. Of course, artillery playd an important role too. That’s the traditional starting point used for the rise to dominance of “gunpowder armies” in the Near East. But some authors have argued that [Bashkent](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Otluk_Beli) ( Otlukbeli in wikipedia ) in 1473 was in fact the better bellwether. Uzun Hassan’s traditional Turkmen tribal army was shattered by the Ottoman field artillery in particular with losses reported in the range of 10 to 1 ( 10,000 to 1,000 in this case). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-infantrymen-with-firearms-become-more-effective-than-horse-mounted-archers/530538.md?page=1)