> And before anyone else notices that deer don't wear armor, the penetration
> of an arrow was just as good, if not better, than firearms for a long, long
> time. :-)
> John

True enough. Early firearms were inaccurate, slow to reload once
fired, prone to malfunction if improperly used and didn't work too
well in wet weather. Wound trauma was greater (can we say
gangrene?...) and there wasn't, as far as I know, a great
deal to compare in penetration terms. They also, of course, had the
added problem of noise - not something to worry about if you're on
the battlefield (unless you're giving orders), but if it's something
requiring a little more quiet, firearms are not your best bet.
When it comes down to it, if you look at the problems in the wet and
the chances of malfunction, and then at the speed of reloading - a
trained bowman could get off 12 shots a minute, a trained infantryman
in Napoleonic times (and we're talking about decent muskets here, not
the early things) could fire 4.
If it's single-shot lethality you want, a musket's your man. If it's
sustained rate of fire (and thus more casualties over time), then
go for the bow.
Of course, if it was a Winchester '73........... ;-)


"Once I was a lamb, playing in a green field. Then
the wolves came. Now I am an eagle and I fly in a
different universe."
"And now you kill the lambs," whispered Dardalion.
"No, priest. No one pays for lambs."
- David Gemmel, Waylander