In the real world, maces and flails came into use with the advent of heavy armor and went into disuse as a consequence of gunpowder and "handgonnes." Peasants, armed with these miniature cannon on a stick, given a much less amount of training opposed to, say, longbowmen, could put in a credible performance on the battlefield. Maces, flails and the like existed to deform heavy armor through its wearer. Gunpowder, trumping heavy armor, meant that heavy slow weapons, meant for heavy, slow targets, were no longer necessary. In a gunpowder era, especially one advanced to a "-lock" design, these heavy blunt weapons would be in disuse as a matter of course. Relieved of their plate armor, a man armed with, say, a flail, would be easy meat for a man with a rapier and pistol
Now, as for bows, until you have a breechloader, there are some advantages to the longbow and shortbow. They are excellent hunting weapons, do have a higher rate of fire than the crossbow or musket. I want to say that the British tried to keep the bow as a militia / yeoman's weapon much further than one would expect, but I have no reference handy.
The bow would have remained in the arsenals of bandits or those individuals who have to live by their own wits, such as frontiersmen. If the only "real" barrier to the bow is official disapproval, its use will actually be encouraged in some quarters -- there are some folks who are just simply so pig-headed as to embrace that which is forbidden or discouraged by the powers-that-be. Then again, in a battlefield where heavy armor has come into disuse as a consequence of gunpowder, a bow is, arguably, a superior weapon than either the crossbow or handgonne. The real limitation for the bow in the amount of practice and training that goes into making a bowman. The predominance of the crossbow and gun would likely arise as a consequence of the ease that an untrained individual can be trained in their use, versus the bow. A body of competent crossbowmen or gunners is more easily (and more cheaply) raised and trained than a body of archers, on an "as-needed" basis. Longbowmen require more training for effective military use, implying either being part of the regular military or members of a privileged class, such as the English yeoman.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Notes and Notions...
Date: 2006-10-07 11:30 pm (UTC)Now, as for bows, until you have a breechloader, there are some advantages to the longbow and shortbow. They are excellent hunting weapons, do have a higher rate of fire than the crossbow or musket. I want to say that the British tried to keep the bow as a militia / yeoman's weapon much further than one would expect, but I have no reference handy.
The bow would have remained in the arsenals of bandits or those individuals who have to live by their own wits, such as frontiersmen. If the only "real" barrier to the bow is official disapproval, its use will actually be encouraged in some quarters -- there are some folks who are just simply so pig-headed as to embrace that which is forbidden or discouraged by the powers-that-be. Then again, in a battlefield where heavy armor has come into disuse as a consequence of gunpowder, a bow is, arguably, a superior weapon than either the crossbow or handgonne. The real limitation for the bow in the amount of practice and training that goes into making a bowman. The predominance of the crossbow and gun would likely arise as a consequence of the ease that an untrained individual can be trained in their use, versus the bow. A body of competent crossbowmen or gunners is more easily (and more cheaply) raised and trained than a body of archers, on an "as-needed" basis. Longbowmen require more training for effective military use, implying either being part of the regular military or members of a privileged class, such as the English yeoman.