Archery Question

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'd say it was a case of someone seeing the potential, and trying to polish that turd until it finally shone, or got blued, as the case may be.
[right][snapback]64513[/snapback][/right]

Maybe a little more pragmatic. Long bows and cross bows largely nullified the advantage of the heavy cavalry (AKA, knights). 'Firepower' was becoming king, even if the term itself was not invented. Large peasant armies replaced the charge of the king and his drinking buddies. Crossbows were expensive items requiring good materials and at least reasonable workmanship. Longbows were much cheaper, but took a great degree of effort to master. On the other hand, cannon were becoming common, especially as siege weapons. Gunpowder was becoming cheap, lead had been cheap for a long time, and a cast bronze hand cannon was a simple enough item that it could be made in quantity. The efficiency of the individual soldier didn't much matter as long as you had more of them than your opponent (pretty much true until the end of the Brown Bess era).

After that, it was always just a question of having your side armed with something a little bit better than what your opponets had. Getting that edge drove the development of that puppy, but not too much. Rifling, breech loading, precussion caps, magazine feed, etc., etc., etc. all showed up in sporting and hunting guns long before they showed up in military weapons.

--Pete