So during the period where war consistent of huge lines of people firing muskets at eachother, why wouldn't generals place bowmen behind the muskets? They could fire over your lines into the enemies, and since no one wore any armor anymore, you didn't need those incredibly powerful warbows of the past, and thusly didn't need THAT specialized troops to fire them. Or did this happen and I just haven't read about it? O.o
Here is a nice picture I made to illustrate my point http://i.imgur.com/mapAWte.jpg
This has been asked endlessly. The snapple facts are this:
It takes significantly longer to create bows and to fletch arrows. Months at times for a good bow. A musket can have a simple cast with simple parts that can be made in a straightforward way. This also includes ease of repair and replacement parts. Most importantly though was that bullet should be cast and produced in mass while arrows had to be individually fletched
It takes significantly longer to train with a bow. Especially on horseback. A man can be okay to use his musket after 2 weeks of training. It takes years of training to be proficient with a bow. A lifetime on horseback.
Arrows by the 1500s could not reliably penetrate common armor. Even by the later crusades compound bows would have their arrows bounce or stick out of the armor of crusaders. By the 1500s average armor could even withstand a bodkin arrow from an English longbow. On top of this all the earliest muskets could reliably quadruple the kinetic impact of an arrow. Armor was no savior to mass internal damage and trauma.
Bows are a very physical weapon. Crossbows moreso. A musket is not. They may shoot slower but they get significantly less tired doing so.
Unlike a bow a musket is more than a ranged weapon. They were bayonets first and guns second once they fully replaced pikes. A bowman can't ward off a cavalry attack. A bowman can't seize or defend a hill from more men charging up to take it. A bowman can't charge and route wavering infantry. A bow is an inflexible support tool, a musket is a flexible, simple tool. One which combined two roles into one.
Ultimately all this would do is take a large portion of men and make them significantly more defenseless to major battlefield threats -- bayonet charges and cavalry. For what? They can shoot arrows at men who are now unarmored? Know what else kills unarmored people really well? Bullets. Ultimately it's a fallacy to assume muskets just took over overnight. It took 150-200 years to fully take over. However once flintlock muskets came into play men could reliably fire a volley every 20 seconds which, with 3 tanks alternating fire, meant near automatic volleys being laid down. Combine that with the shock factors you mention and it's clear why they took over.
At the end of the day this was a long process and every time a musket centric army of roughly equal strength matched up against a non musket army the former overwhelmingly seized the day. See battles like Pavia. This is the ultimate proof above all.
See H.W. Kochs The Rise of Modern Warfare, 1618-1815
