scenario 1(pre bayonet Muskets)
I would think another simple reason to use musket men(with pikemen who usually wore armour, there would also be halberdier men and guys armed with Flamberges to chop of pike tips in melee if it came to that.) vs bowmen( with pike men ) the bows would not do much damage to pikemen.
scenario 2(Bayonet Muskets)
Two if two armies of equal number were to fight. 1 musket men with bayonets lets say 5000 vs 3000 crossbowmen and 2000 pike men. The Second army has reduced fire power due to having to equip some of its men with pikes. Also because the bowmen would have to group together with the pikemen it would create a massive target for artillery which by Napoleonic times was a lot more accurate than in the past. Thirdly Distance of an enemy is more important with a bow or crossbow and with smoke obscuring the field bows would suffer from less accuracy were muskets could pointed in the general direction of the enemy and would score hits as long as they were in operational distance. Muskets were so deadly by this point battles were often decide by shooting alone so pike men would have no other role than to prevent enemy cavalry from charging and would be shot to pieces, not to forget cavalry had there own guns as well with which they could now kill the pikemen with rather than risking melee.
Have you seen the armour on pikemen? especially in the 1600's, its practically well ... cloth, perfect targets for bow.
Also one your second choice your still comparing technology around 300-400 years apart, why don't we compare modern days tanks to lets say ... Cavalry of the 1600's? I wonder why the tanks would win?
Also what type of crossbows are youu talking about?:
Its a pretty powerful crossbow and considering your not wearing much anywhere as musket infantry I think the 3k crossbowmen would decimate the musketmen, the crossbow firing at 4 bolts a minute ... the muskets around 2-3, the crossbow could probably happily fire at 100m it dosn't need to be accurate, volume of fire would work well, the musket needing to get to around 60-80m to actually be accurate and due to discipline it'd be a horrible slog to walk those 20-40 meters.
Now the problem is that people think the further back you go the worse the weaponry ... problem is a weapon is still a weapon and without that armour to defend you it will kill you the same way it used to.
Do you understand that armour played a very important part in destroying the use of bow and crossbows ... without it the crossbow and longbow beat the musket hands down, yep you'd have the bayonete but really ... a longbowman would never get into that situation before you got to him ... and a sturdy peice of wood clubbing you over the head would do the trick.
Firstly the original topic is why didn't they field mass armies of bowmen/crossbowmen in the 18th century so comparing bayoneted muskets from the 18th an early 19th century is completely relevant in order to answer the question.
And well pikemen in the 1600s did have armour. Pikemen 1500 to 1550 would wear cloth and a breastplate for the lucky ones but by the middle of the century many states kept and maintained arsenals of arms and armour to equip state levied armies. Armour only increased in quality towards the 1600s
Helmets (when worn) covered more of the head and can include visors and falling buffs. This is a continuing trend towards a full burgonet style helmet. A lot of these helmets had very large brims and a rounded skull with a small or no crest. The terminal ends of the brim would curl around like rams horns and some were hinged like a visor. Some helmets had a short spike on the top and were onion shaped. The spike was usually topped with a decorative ball with plumage coming out of it.
The breastplate at the start of this period is of the globose style that loses the Maximillian fluting and the decoration becomes plainer. At about 1540 the distinctive pigeon point and the curving embossed panel on the upper edge of the breast that is so typical of the later black and white style starts to develop.
The ever-present mail standard is just as popular and evident as in the previous two periods. The style and construction of the standard is the same as well. Plate gorgets (neck protection) are shown in woodcuts and seem to be worn with Harnisch more often.
When armour to protect the arms was worn, they would sometimes enclose the entire arm instead of the splinted type from the earlier periods. Arm vambraces were still, by and large, very rare and would have been worn by veteran (doppel) soldiers who had the money to purchase them.
Hear are links to images of 1600s and 1700s pikemen
The English Civil War (1642–1651) pikemen wore breast plate hear too.
I have some major issues with this, your armour facts fine ... your period facts ... bleh.
During teh 1600-1700's the bow was out, it had been out of warfare in england since around the 1550's, armour was now mainly worn to stop sword cuts or thrusts, which were carried by a large majority of the pikemen and you can see that in clashes with the swiss and bluecoats in the English Civil war.
Also note crossbowmen in the 1700's did not exist anymore, so your comparing earliers peices when it was at its prime with the longbow around the 1300's-1400's before armour was catching up with it. And the longbow and crossbow were deadly its why the french feared the longbow so much during the 100 years war and often lost to it. When armour caught up in the 1450's the long bow was less and less feared thanks to the new lombardian plate that was swiftly adopted across Europe as the new standard of steel and hardending ... next came armour peircing hand weapons. The Armour was lessened once a new thread came into play, the matchlock, now to beat matchlock infantry you need more speed, so ditching the armour that was already being peirced so easily made sense ... which is why armour decreased throughout the 1600's to the 1700's and eventually we end up with the 1900's when armour is almost completely ditched.
Fast forwarding to modern day body armour has started to come back into play, the kevlar vests and various other types of body armours to ward off shots, much like the medieval knights and hardened steel plate against the bow and crossbow ... it will eventually evolve into something raygun like where body armour counts for nothing in the far or short future.
Its the general evolution of armour and weapons ... "The Arms Race".
I'd also suggest looking at the battle of verneuil and you'll see the difference from Agincourt and what the lombardian plate armour actually did ... its quite catastrophic for the English on this sudden realisation their best weapon is useless against that type of plate.
Also around the 1450-70's the war of the roses kicks up a storm and strangly enough there are less crossbows and bowmen, and a lot more "Handgonnes", which I found strange myself but i'd put it down to the quality of armour and what kind of effect it was really starting to have on Europe, eventually leading to the bows depletion by the 1550's.
Although the longbow was used by one man in particular and Projects personal favourite:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill
The crazy man wielding a Scottish Broard and Longbow on a Motorbike.
Interesting and to a large extend I can agree. But....
As I said it is not one factor. This is evolution. And only looking at armor would not be right. Technology evolved, but so did the concept of war and nations. And along with it strategy and the idea of the soldier.
Even at Agincourt the arrows of the English longbow men did not pierce the armor of French knights. This has been proven many times in simulations today. The French could have easily beaten the English had they not fought on the terms of the English. The commander of the French was not of noble birth and was not taken seriously by the eager French knights. Had they not charged and waited or surrounded the English, who were sick and hungry, with their supply lines cut. Henry would have lost his head. So arrows did not kill the French. It was the French eagerness and arrogance that made them fail. They stormed over a muddy field into a bottleneck. While the horse were shot the knights were trembled by their own men. The longbow men did most of the killing, but not with their arrows but with their knives. Killing French knights who could not get up in the mud due to their heavy armor. (actually most knights were executed after the battle...).
Armor was always ahead and stronger over the arrow. But at one point armor just became a burden. Though the archer played a major role, it was the combination of new infantry tactics and strategy that made the knight obsolete. You also have to take the social changes into account. At Agincourt it was clear that a simple farmer could kill a noble. A reality almost unbearible for the nobility (Knights tended not to kill eachother but take captives for ransom). The English were very pragmatic when it came to winning. They had not eye for the etiquette that came with chivalry.
So armor had its limits too. The cost of armor was incredibly expensive.
When it comes to cost, it is not only the cost of armor. The cost of losing a knight (a landlord and important pillar in a feodal system) was simply too high. With populations increasing and states being formed the role of the knight became less important.
Now armor served another role than dogging arrows. It was used for melee.
Melee evolved too. Battle evolved from big blobs to dense organized formations of cheap men with cheap training. Pikes were often not used as anticav but also as a phalanx in melee. Some armor protection is handy when in melee... (but again if you have cheap soldiers and a lot of them, why sacrifice mobility for protection?).
I agree that armor played a role. Gunpowder was the nail on the coffin.
Again. Even with the arquebuses the tactics changed. Where the Spanish used there tercios, Maurits introduced the Anglo-Dutch firing line. A concept that could bring a continues rain of fire on the enemy and needed less pikes for protection. It blew most (armored) tercios away.
Finally on cost of arrows. Soldiers could easily melt their own bullets, where as making an arrow was a very special skil and something you do in a workshop. Any idea how much space a good stack of arrows for one soldier takes up? True blackbowder (chemistry) is a very specialised skil. But in bigger volumes the cost would decrease dramitically. This can not be said for arrows. That remains handycraft.
So yes I agree that is was the 'technology' race. And armor played a major role. But in warfare everything comes down to cost.
Losing an expensive armored guy (who trained whole his live to be a living tank) due to a cheap infantry man (even with an expensive gun, who got 2 days of training) is also a matter of cost.
Right the French had always known the power of the Longbow since the battle of Crecy in 1346 near 60 years before Agincourt so that was not the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cr%C3%A9cy
Now the problem is is that Agincourt is a source of pretty bad lies, people seem to think that the French assault was halted ... it wasn't it almost broke entirely through the English lines completely, the main french loss was flanking fire from archers due to the corridor they were pushed into that caused the route and total annhilation.
Now another myth is that armour is very very heavy and falling off your horse means your dead ... observe:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMuNXWFPewg
Also note the mud stuck to his breastplate, that is "Mud" but you don't get a look at the thickness of it, a main issue with saying "Mud", now to slow you down it needs to be atleast ancle deep to slow down infantry to a crawl, for horses ... its needs to be much thicker which would mean the infantry would never make it to the front line ... so really the mud was not an issue.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kKLgSTkCEo
- Not the right style but you get the point about weight being spread.
Yes I agree though the loss of nobility was a problem but nobility as the cavalry did change by the 1500's with "Men at Arms" being suplimented in, getting paid half as much as a knight, receiving the same sort of training but coming from a lot lower down circumstances, probably people the knight trusted or children of the knights trusties, trained to fight along side them ... but worth nothing in terms of ransom.
About bullets, if you look in the standards of the Archers prime of the 1400's getting hold of an arrow was not very expensive at all, it was actually a lot easier when on campaign, but getting hold of lead to melt was a lot harder and more expensive ... afterall you had to pay for your own equiptment. For the 1700-1800's though this was not a problem, you had your equiptment paid for and produced for you, there would be a wealth of lead ready to be melted down and changed into what you needed it for, ships were stocked to the bring with piles of lead for musket balls to on ship repairs.
There is a massive difference between the standard man of the 1400's to the 1700-1800's. Money was probably never actually seen by the common man in the 1400's ... the literal sense of a coin probably never existed to them at all, except with riches of their lords, they handed over their crops as rent pay which was sold by your lord ... the standard feudal system. In the 1700-1800's traders had taken over along with the idea that everyone was in a sense 'free' after the English civil war where people with little background could make it big.
The differences from social lives to income need to be taken into account ... and if they arn't then your missing a lot of the truth.
True musket balls would be easy to manufacture in the 1400's ... but lead was no-where near as readily or easy to get hold of and damned expensive competeing with the church for it. But after Monastical and trading reforms up to the 1650's lead itself and trading goods in general for gunpowder became easier to get hold of, let alone the industrial revolution in the 1750's.
Hope this is all making sense now.