Editing Arquebus (section)

==Comparison to bows==
[[File:Hakenbüchsen geschmiedet 16. Jh.jpg|thumb|Early arquebuses, the hook guns]]
Sixteenth-century military writer [[John Smith (High Sheriff of Kent)|John Smythe]] thought that an arquebus could not match the accuracy of a [[Bow (weapon)|bow]] in the hands of a highly skilled [[Archery|archer]];<ref name="auto1">Sir John Smythe (1590). ''Certain Discourses''.</ref> other military writers such as Humfrey Barwick and Barnabe Rich argued the opposite.<ref name="auto2">Barwick, Humfrey (1594). ''A Breefe Discourse''</ref><ref name="auto3">Rich, Barnabe (1574). ''A right excellent and pleasaunt dialogue''</ref> An arquebus angled at 35 degrees could throw a bullet up to {{convert|1000|m|abbr=on}} or more.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Krenn |first1=Peter |last2=Kalaus |first2=Paul |last3=Hall |first3=Bert |date=1995 |title=Material Culture and Military History: Test-Firing Early Modern Small Arms |url=https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/MCR/article/view/17669/22312 |journal=Material Culture Review |volume=42 |language=en, fr}}</ref> An arquebus shot was considered deadly at up to 400 yards (360 m) while the heavier Spanish musket was considered deadly at up to 600 yards (550 m).<ref name="auto3"/> During the [[Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598)|Japanese Invasions of Korea]], Korean officials said they were at a severe disadvantage against Japanese troops because their arquebuses "could reach beyond several hundred paces".{{sfn|Chase|2003|p=186}} In 1590, Smythe noted that arquebusiers and musketeers firing at such extreme distances rarely seemed to hit anything and instead decided to argue ''effective'' range, claiming that English archers like the ones from the Hundred Years' War would be more effective at 200–240 yards (180–220 m) than arquebusiers or musketeers, but by that point there were no longer enough skilled archers in England to properly test his theories.<ref>E. G. Heath (1973). ''Bow versus Gun''</ref>

Perhaps the most important advantage of the arquebus over muscle-powered weapons like longbows was sheer power. A shot from a typical 16th-century arquebus boasted between {{convert|1300|to|1750|J|ftlbf|abbr=on}} of [[kinetic energy]], depending on the powder quality. A longbow arrow by contrast was about {{convert|80|J|ftlbf|abbr=on}}, while crossbows could vary from {{convert|100|to|200|J|ftlbf|abbr=on}} depending on construction. Thus, arquebuses could easily defeat armor that would be highly effective against arrows or bolts, and inflict far greater wounds on flesh. The disparity was even greater with a 16th-century heavy musket, which were {{convert|2300|to|3000|J|ftlbf|abbr=on}}.<ref>Alan Williams. ''The Knight and the Blast Furnace: A History of the Metallurgy of Armour in the Middle Ages & the Early Modern Period''. Brill Academic Publishing: 2003. p. 924.</ref>

Most high-skilled bowmen achieved a far higher rate of shot than the matchlock arquebus, which took 30–60 seconds to reload properly.<ref name="auto2"/> The arquebus did, however, have a faster rate of fire than the most powerful [[crossbow]], a shorter learning curve than a [[longbow]], and was more powerful than either. The arquebus did not rely on the physical strength of the user for propulsion of the projectile, making it easier to find a suitable recruit. It also meant that, compared to an archer or crossbowman, an arquebusier lost less of his battlefield effectiveness due to fatigue, malnutrition, or sickness. The arquebusier also had the added advantage of frightening enemies (and horses) with the noise. Wind could reduce the accuracy of archery, but had much less of an effect on an arquebus. During a siege, it was also easier to fire an arquebus out of [[Embrasure|loopholes]] than it was a bow and arrow. It was sometimes advocated that an arquebusier should load his weapon with multiple bullets or [[Shotgun shell|small shot]] at close ranges rather than a single ball.<ref name="auto2"/> Small shot did not pack the same punch as a single round ball but the shot could hit and wound multiple enemies.

An arquebus also has superior penetrating power to a bow or crossbow. Although some plate armors were bulletproof, these armors were unique, heavy, and expensive. A [[cuirass]] with a tapul was able to absorb some musket fire due to being angled. Otherwise, most forms of armor a common soldier would wear (especially cloth, light plate, and mail) had little resistance against musket fire. Arrows, however, were relatively weaker in penetration, and heavier than bows or crossbows that required more skill and reload time than the standard bows.

Producing an effective arquebusier required much less training than producing an effective bowman. Most archers spent their whole lives training to shoot with accuracy, but with drill and instruction, the arquebusier was able to learn the profession in months as opposed to years. This low level of skill made it a lot easier to outfit an army in a short amount of time as well as expand the small arms ranks. This idea of lower-skilled, lightly armoured units was the driving force in the infantry revolution that took place in the 16th and 17th centuries and allowed early modern infantries to phase out the [[longbow]].<ref>Clifford J. Rodgers (1993). "The Military Revolutions of the Hundred Years' War". ''The Journal of Military History'', Vol. 57, No. 2. p. 257</ref>

An arquebusier could carry more ammunition and powder than a crossbowman or longbowman could with [[Crossbow bolt|bolts]] or [[arrow]]s. Once the methods were developed, powder and shot were relatively easy to mass-produce, while arrow making was a genuine craft requiring highly skilled labor.

However, the arquebus was more sensitive to rain, wind, and humid weather. At the [[Battle of Villalar]], rebel troops experienced a significant defeat partially due to having a high proportion of arquebusiers in a rainstorm which rendered the weapons useless.<ref>{{cite book |author-link=Henry Latimer Seaver |last=Seaver |first=Henry Latimer |title=The Great Revolt in Castile: A study of the Comunero movement of 1520–1521 |orig-year=1928 |year=1966 |publisher=Octagon Books |location=New York |page=325 |ref=Sea28 }}</ref> Gunpowder also ages much faster than a bolt or an arrow, particularly if improperly stored. Also, the resources needed to make gunpowder were less universally available than the resources needed to make bolts and arrows. Finding and reusing arrows or bolts was a lot easier than doing the same with arquebus bullets. This was a useful way to reduce the cost of practice or resupply oneself if control of the battlefield after a battle was retained. A bullet must fit a barrel much more precisely than an arrow or bolt must fit a bow or crossbow, so the arquebus required more standardization and this made it harder to resupply by looting bodies of fallen soldiers. Gunpowder production was also far more dangerous than arrow or bolt production.

An arquebus was also significantly more dangerous to its user. The arquebusier carries a lot of gunpowder on his person and has a lit match in one hand. The same goes for the soldiers next to him. Amid the confusion, stress and fumbling of a battle, arquebusiers are potentially a danger to themselves. Early arquebuses tended to have a drastic recoil. They took a long time to load making them vulnerable while reloading unless using the 'continuous fire' tactic, where one line would shoot and, while the next line shot, would reload. They also tended to overheat. During repeated firing, guns could become clogged and explode, which could be dangerous to the gunner and those around him.

Furthermore, the amount of smoke produced by black-powder weapons was considerable, making it hard to see the enemy after a few salvos, unless there was enough wind to disperse the smoke quickly. (Conversely, this cloud of smoke also served to make it difficult for any archers to target the opposing soldiers who were using firearms.) Before the wheellock, the need for a lit match made stealth and concealment nearly impossible, particularly at night. Even with successful concealment, the smoke emitted by a single arquebus shot would make it quite obvious where the shot came from, at least in daylight. While with a bow or crossbow a soldier could conceivably kill silently, this was of course impossible with an explosion-driven projectile weapon, such as the arquebus. The noise of arquebuses and the ringing in the ears that it caused could also make it hard to hear shouted commands. In the long run, the weapon could make the user permanently hard of hearing. Though bows and crossbows could shoot over obstacles by firing with high-arcing ballistic trajectories they could not do so very accurately or effectively. Sir John Smythe blamed the declining effectiveness of the longbow in part on English commanders who would place firearms at the front of their formations and bowmen at the back, where they could not see their targets and aim appropriately.<ref name="auto1"/>