Early firearms were not as accurate when compared to modern firearms and were time-consuming to load and reload. So how did the firearm become more common use and replaced the bow and arrow considering that the latter required professional training and was more lethal and accurate?

by sammyjamez

Correct if I am wrong here but since arrows became quite common in the military, it required the adequate training and body conditioning to be able to use it effectively.

Not only that but you could have multiple archers firing volleys of arrows from a distance while early firearms required a shorter distance and were less accurate and required more time to reload, let alone not being able to use the weapon if it was wet when compared to the bow and arrow.

​

So what was the reason of why many militaries slowly replaced the bow and arrow with firearms even though early firearms were not as effective as the reliable bow and arrow?

​

BONUS QUESTION - How did the bow and arrow slowly become replaced with the crossbow before firearms came into the scene?

DanKensington

it required the adequate training and body conditioning to be able to use it effectively

I submit that a weapon that needs training and proper conditioning to be good is not quite as usable as a weapon that needs much less physical fitness to be passable. More can always be said on the matter; for the meantime, the matter of bows versus firearms has been explored multiple times, as we can see in the appropriate section of the FAQ (Early Firearms, subheading Transition from Bows to Firearms, if your browser doesn't automatically take you there).