It depends on the period, but late sixteenth-century musket with a good charge might deliver over 2000 J. Artillery shots from a decent-sized piece could get up to a megajoule or more. I'm not sure about the fifteenth century, but because of penetration dynamics, round shot at only 600 J wouldn't even pierce most breastplates. A bolt with that level of kinetic energy would be much more dangerous than a bullet.

Kurt,

You are right. I should have made mention of that as well. The charge is also a major factor but is an unknown as we have no sure idea how full they would have filled the chamber. It is dangerous either way to assume but my guess is they undercharged to not risk a rupture which could lead to death and injury.

RPM

I linked the source for 240lb draw weights when I initially mentioned them. It's The Manchu Way: The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China by Mark C. Elliott. The winner of the 1728 contest between the empire's top archers supposedly shot a bull's-eye with such a mighty bow.

Benjamin,

This text talks a lot about drugs being taken to be able to do these astonishing results. That pretty much sounds like doping. What exactly did they use, how did it work and how effective was it? If this was something with amphetramine like features (like khat) outside the East African - South Arabian context, we might have something that can give a totally new perspective on muscle powered weapons.

According to my understanding, nobody used such heavy bows in battle. Just because you can manage a 240lb draw weight in a competition doesn't mean it'd be wise to go to war with such a weapon. The Chinese sources (using the term broadly) indicate military draw weights almost identical to those of English archers according to the Mary Rose reconstructions: 150-160lbs for infantry and 80-120lbs for cavalry, with a few exceptional cases pulling 180-190lbs.

That is scary.

I know of a few people who can pull over 200-220 lbs draw but 265lbs seems really, really insane. I can imagine chemical enhancement being useful for such draws.

The Qing were Manchurian nomads correct so I am assuming they used a type of composite bow?


RPM

I can't really imagine their skeleton and tendons being in healthy shape....

Unless they were doing it like, once a month, with only careful training before.

Or 'just' had Žydrūnas Savickas like frame, but I don't know if it's likely. :D

Interesting paper, though rereading Humphrey Barwick has made me question the supposed inaccuracy and quick learning curve of early guns. Barwick emphasized the need for skill and claimed he - or one of his students - could outshoot any archer in England. On training time, he thought a troop of halberds or pikes would be in better form after six days than a troop of gunners after sixty days. As for the broad question of why guns displaced bows so quickly in Western Europe and Japan but so slowly in China, I find Kenneth Chase's thesis in Firearms: A Global History to 1700 most compelling. Chase argues gunpowder weaponry provided scant advantages in mobile warfare against the nomadic foes China faced, thus the Chinese had less incentive to develop the technology.

Ben,

Not back to the Barwick and Smith argument..... like spinning wheels in deep mud on this one.

Honestly I'd avoid Barwick if you are looking for anything other than a good trip into how ones bias can distort reality. His 'evidence' are mostly hear say and the fact he had his hands in the pocket of gun manufacturing also makes his comments highly suspect.

That said Sir John runs the rounds as well granted.

To me the entire debate is fraught with almost no real evidence and lots of 'stories' and personal passion for their argument that boils down simply to opinion.

That said there is some good evidence in it but more anecdotal than anything.

The fact that we have real evidence from military training and logistics manuals from around the period of and then later than Barwick that contradict him on many/most accounts, including the limited accuracy issue, to me leaves little doubt to the limited nature of his comments as little more than personal agenda.


Now I think the example of use of a halbard to gun taking more time makes perfect sense but compared to the real alternative, bows, training is much easier.

Timo,

I was always under the impression that there personal firearms were not as advanced as those of the west during the late medieval into modern period.

I always figured that archery cultures did rather well even with the advent of firearms so it was somewhat unnecessary to shift over.

In the west I still figure it comes to simple logistics and ease of use to other weapons such as the longbow, especially coupled with the fact guns could be further advanced while bows would be much harder to develop further.

RPM

I disagree completely about Barwick and Smythe as worthless sources. To the contrary, their works provide a detailed window into sixteenth-century elite military thought. They actually agree on a fair amount as well, such as the importance of armor. Barwick takes Smythe to task for suggesting various lighter armors for missile troops. He considered jacks and brigandines relics of the past and unsuitable for contemporary warfare. Barwick's writing underscores how much penetrative power explains the adoption of the gun in Europe.

On accuracy, various sixteenth-century texts clash with modern scholarly notions of early guns as unable to hit anything save by luck. I recall one historian questioning such a period account on that basis. I suspect skilled gunners with good equipment shot as well as archers at least within a hundred yards or so. As Barwick wrote, the design of guns and crossbows has an inherent accuracy advantage over the hand-drawn bow. So does the much flatter trajectory of the gun.

Ben,

I never said worthless but one needs to exercise some major discretion when assuming Barwick can be taken at face value or can trump more reliable (less opinion based over evidence based arguments) period sources. I am not sure I'd consider Barwick a 'military elite' as we have little to no real evidence that he was besides his own opinion he was. At least with Smith we have a fairly lengthy term of service known.

As to Modern tests... these often are misleading as to what was the real historic situation and have little or no bearing if not done with care. These tests are often done with incorrect variables that invalidate the testing in large part if not completely with- Incorrect powder, incorrect quantities of powder, modern techniques of construction and firing.... millions of possible issues. So the tests might show what a c. 2011 arquebus could do with modern powder but unless such factors decide the testing and not simple side stepped as well as the medieval and early modern texts are consulted and analysed critically the tests are of limited or questionable value.

Now as to if a person could become proficient with personal firearms... absolutely. I never said they did not. My point is that everything has limits and the fact is 95% of the evidence in text tends to point one way on this one. Its place in the battlefield is important and it seems to have a very clear and dedicated place there. It looks like most soldiers equipped with arquebuses were not likely to hit anything they aimed at much past 30-50 yards. That said the volley tactic employed negates this being required.

RPM