So there is this problem which is bothering me for a long time. During the renaissance lots of musket were used because I think it was a new invention with more power then the bow. But to be honest if you have a hill between the two enemies wouldn't it be better to have bows. If you imagine there is a scout watching at the enemy constantly, the other troups must pass the hill or even go around and he the Scout would see this. So when the muskets come the bows can constantly shoot arrows in a curve while the others must pass the hill until they can finally shoot straight. And if they want to go around the hill the scout can also tell them and then they shoot in this direction. They got no armor and shilds which could protect them. And a second reason why bows should be better in my eyes is that bows have a lot smaller reloading time than muskets. So I hope you got threw my bad English I'm sry but it was a question I was asking me allot. Yours sincerely Conni
/u/hborrgg discusses the replacement of the bow by firearms in an English context here.
Regarding your scenario, bows using sheaf (war) arrows typically didn't reach much beyond 240 yards, and the treatises written by experienced men tend to suggest that few could reach 220-240 yards within a few weeks of campaigning, or that they could only do this using light arrows. The most pessimistic about the range was Humphrey Barwick, who gave the archers of the late 16th century a range of only 160 yards.
So, unless the hill is a very small one, the archers aren't likely to be shooting over it and into their enemies.
And, while the armour of the time might not have been as heavy as in the past, pikemen still wore at least a breastplate and cuisses (thigh armour) and Humphrey Barwick observed that the arrows of his time were never sharpened and always rusty, and that a good quilted doublet could stop them.
These two questions in the FAQ might answer your question: