The Transition from Longbows and Crossbows to Arquebuses: A Historical Overview

Introduction

The transition from longbows and crossbows to arquebuses was not merely a shift in armament; it marked a profound shift in military strategy and tactics during the late medieval and early Renaissance periods. In this article, we will explore the reasons why longbows and crossbows were held in contempt by the English, Genoese, Aragonese, and Catalans, and why the arquebus eventually dominated the battlefield.

During the period of 1320-1420, the arquebus faced significant challenges due to the separation of gunpowder components and its inaccuracy. However, with the advent of corned gunpowder and the introduction of the serpentine with a slow-burning match, the arquebus became much more effective. By 1515, it was clear that crossbows, longbows, and mounted knights were becoming redundant in many armies.

The Contempt for Arquebuses

There is a prevalent notion among historical scholars that English, Genoese, Aragonese, and most members of the knighthood and nobility held the arquebus in contempt because it required very little skill to use. On the other hand, the longbowmen, crossbowmen, specialty light and medium infantry, and mounted knights required extensive training and practice to be effective in battle. This view underscores the importance of skill and training in traditional archery and cavalry tactics.

The Evolution of Gunpowder and Its Impact

During the period in question, cannon and early handgonnes were not particularly effective due to the tendency of gunpowder to separate into its three components—saltpeter, sulfur, and charcoal. However, the introduction of corned gunpowder, which did not separate, and the addition of a serpentine holding a slow-burning match or lit cord transformed the arquebus. By 1515, the longbow and crossbow had become largely obsolete, and the long pike and firearm formations became the norm for infantry until the late 17th century.

Warrior Proud vs. Practicality

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, in his historical novel, projected a sense of pride similar to that of 19th-century Victorians in the English longbowmen. However, Sir Arthur's impression was perhaps misguided. While contemporary accounts of archers' encounters with gunpowder artillery are scarce, it is reasonable to assume that archers of the period would have been intrigued by the power and novelty of gunpowder weapons, but also aware of their limitations.

Barrie, another historical expert, provides an insightful perspective. He suggests that, during the reign of the White Company, light infantry and archers relied on their mobility and accuracy. A static, protected position was essential for effective use of early firearms, as they took too long to load and discharge. The White Company, composed of light infantry archers, would have found early firearms impractical.

The Impact on Siege Warfare

The transition from catapults and trebuchets to early cannons took about 100 years. It wasn't until almost 200 years later that siege cannons became effectively mobile. Even after 1600, cavalry charges remained a potent force, as evidenced by the Charge of the Light Brigade in 1854. Despite the advancements in weaponry, traditional weapons like swords were still used in set piece battles until 1850.

The evolution of military technology was driven by both the practical need for more effective weapons and the evolving strategic requirements of warfare. The shift from longbows and crossbows to arquebuses signifies a monumental change in how battles were fought, but also reflects the broader cultural and technological shifts of the era.