jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (5 posts)

Why 18th century soldier don't use bow and arrow in coalition with bayonets.

  1. profile image61
    peter565posted 2 years ago

    Why 18th century soldier don't use bow and arrow in coalition with bayonets.

    Bayonets came out in China 1000 year ago, with a pistol attached to a short spear. Because short spear have, less range, but more flexibility, but by adding a pistol, it would have long spear range. By 18th century western bayonet only have 300 meters range, can't cover advancing troop, can fire only one round till melee. Mongol bows and arrow from 13th century, with rocket attached to the arrow can fire 800 meters, fire repeatedly and cover advancing troops. It was extremely effective till 19th century. So, why western troops prior to 19th century, no longer use archers, after bayonets arrive

  2. profile image0
    Kevin Goodwinposted 2 years ago

    It is more accurate to shot a gun than a bow and arrow. Plus a bow and arrow may not be efficient enough to kill.

    1. Old-Empresario profile image83
      Old-Empresarioposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I have to disagree on one point. 18th Century smoothbore muskets were not accurate at all after a few dozen meters. The bayonet was considered the more lethal weapon for an infantryman.

  3. connorj profile image77
    connorjposted 2 years ago


    By no means am I an expert on this; however, the long rifle/musket was used in the 1700s and proved deadly against Indian bows and arrows especially during the French-Indian War in North America that is the North American aspect of the Seven Years' War.

  4. Old-Empresario profile image83
    Old-Empresarioposted 2 years ago

    The bow required strength, muscle conditioning and training. Also, the musket ball always penetrated armor. The musket required no physical strength and a very minimal amount of training. It was easier to have a line of unskilled troops mass their fire than it was spend years training young men to be skilled archers.