Late to the conversation as usual, and by now I'm sure your question has pretty much been answered, but just my own two cents worth: basically the 16th century was witnessing the turning point in weapons of war. Guns were, for the most part, still new and being improved upon, and tactics were becoming increasingly about speed which was seeing the end of the heavily armoured troops. Progress to this day seems to revolve around the concept of "quicker, cheaper, better". It's kinda like the progress of the automobile over the horse-and-carriage - while the car was being invented, you would see both vehicles and horses on the road at the same time.
As a few folks here already stated, the biggest problem with the firearms was time - it took time to reload. Here's a break down of the how it worked, but please be aware that the history of guns really isn't my area of expertise:
1. The musket was loaded by pouring the gun powder down the muzzle.
2. Sometimes wadding like soft wood was added next, to increase the pressure between the charge and the projectile.
3. The bullet was then dropped in, and the ball had to be pushed down far enough because any space left between could cause a 'back fire', making the shot useless.
4. So a ramrod was used to force the bullet down as far as possible. The ramrod was housed in a channel cut in the musket itself, so the soldier would slip it out, force the round down, slide the rod back out and return it to its channel.
5. The lock was now a simple internal mechanism of levers and springs, which was set off by pressing the trigger. To discharge the weapon, the trigger initiated the metal arm (serpentine) which consisted of a match (which was lit) and ignited the primer powder. Light, rotate, contact, BANG.
6. Aim. You'd be surprised how much this helps, and if your men crack under the fear of war, you can kiss a well aimed shot goodbye. And the purpose of any weapon is to drop the enemy with the first blow, again the idea of being faster is better.
I should point out, too, that the match (fiber soaked in saltpeter, dried, and lit) I've read can burn at a rate of 3-to-5 inches per
hour. Can you imagine how long the wait must be to fire? You have to be sure of the length of wick you cut for the match, to increase or decrease the time needed. Here Mother Nature would become a factor, too, because you need fire to discharge a gun. Be pretty hard to light a match in the rain.
As
ShawScope pointed out, while the musketeers reloaded, they were protected by pikeman, whose weapons had a long enough reach to keep the enemy at bay. So how the tactics worked is:
You have a line of muketeers with guns already loaded, and when the enemy had advanced close enough in range, a volley was fired. The first line would either step back or lower themselves (and begin to reload) for a second line of musketeers with guns already loaded. A second volley would be fired. At this point, enough foremen of the enemy would be down, making their advance slower, and the pikemen would step forward to protect the musketeers while they reloaded. The first line would soon be ready to re-fire, and this would continue until the enemy was too close or charged, and hand-to-hand combat would be needed.
You also have to remember that the enemy would have muskets and archers as well, and since the musketeers are in front - when the enemy fires back, your musketeers are in the line of fire, therefor dead. So of course you cannot at this time period be without your sword, polearm or whathaveyou.
In this scenario, it takes considerably less time to "reload" a bow than a musket. The archer has merely but to reach down and pluck a new arrow from his quiver, nock it, aim and release. Making them more dangerous to the slowly reloading musketeers. All these men would (or should) be well shielded.
Of course, a gun has greater velocity and range over the archer. But both the archer and gunner shared the problem of rounds; once you were out of arrows and bullets/powder, that's it, you're spent. So it's debatable which weapon had the advantage.
I know there's like 300 years difference and saw great improvement upon the gun - but this reminds me of the Civil War movie
Glory, the scene where they're trying to properly train the men to shoot quickly, accurately, and with the noise and distractions of a war. General Shaw (Matthew Broderick) states that: "A good man can fire three aimed shots in a minute."
Even during the Civil War the calvary had swords, and rifles were fitted with bayonets. You cannot rule out the need for close combat defense because if-and-when your line of defense is breeched, you NEED to be able to fight one-on-one. I think a lot of people are disillusioned by the scope of a gun, thinking that because they have them the enemy will be defeated at a distance, giving the gunner false hopes. And of course, as shown in IYSS, this is not so. Weapons alone do not garner you a victory, and no one weapon is superior. It is the quality of your tactics and men foremost.
Here is a previous post that
skinz started where several of us have discussed weapons used, and not just guns and cannons:
deiner.proboards48.com/index.cgi?board=AdmiralYi&action=display&thread=1118846206I don't think I agree with you there,
letterman. I think close combat would yield less or equal casualties, because you're facing one opponent at a time and both are fairly matched; everyone during that time period needed to learn to fight. A line of guns can take out more people than swinging a sword, and even a wound by a bullet in that era is life-threatening. A lucky wound by a sword would be a glancing cut on an arm, needing a bandage and possibly a stitch job. But a bullet in the arm would tear through and could embed in the bone, needing pliers to gorge it free, hot iron to seal the hole, possibly more blood loss and a greater chance of infection.
Sorry! I also disagree with your statement that using swords in hand-to-hand combat is "brutal". Sword combats are fair. One trained man against another with the same sort of weapon. And you have to defend yourself, as well as strike. There's no backing down. Skill and effort dictates the winner.
Now don't get me wrong. I have an affinity for weapons and find the power of guns alluring (even sexy). However, there is nothing honorable about a gun, unless you are standing off against another armed (gun) opponent. Archers train nonstop to hone their craft. The Samurai
budo spirit is not to kill needlessly by the sword, it's to protect and defend; Samurai believe the sword has a soul and purpose. It's a way of life for them, not an instrument of war.
Anyone can pick up a gun, load it, and generally point it towards someone and kill - in an instant. Because unlike the sword, someone can stand feet or miles away and with no effort, thought or skill, KILL someone. With a close combat fight, you have to look in your opponent's eyes and draw blood, not stand far, far away in your own little comfort and safety zone and squeeze a trigger at a figure in the distance. A gun, to me, is a coward's weapon. That's why it's easier for children these days to kill someone, whether by intent or accident. To me, that's "brutal".
But then I guess you're probably thinking of the good old European broadsword where the effort is less graceful, and more hacking at limbs. That is a time of "the strong survive", where burly knights in armour did battle. But even then, the brutality is against someone of their same stature. That's why it's considered the Age of Chivalry, more or less.
Okay, I think I've talked your ears off by now. Thanks for the chat!
~ Heather
www.isotype-newtype.com
??
??
