Early modern tech disparity between European nations

[Delvestius]

The time between the late sixteenth and early eighteenth centuries were a time of great technological innovation (I think we still exist in the scientific paradigm as established by the thinkers of this age)but the lack of fast, reliable communication and strict national patronage through universities inevitably made some nations more powerful, though the culmination wouldn't be evident until the Agricultural Revolution in England. I wonder though if a technological edge did exist, besides just having more guns. I'm curious as to the gunpowder-bow-melee-cavalry ratio of Spain, France, England, Prussia, Austria, Ottomans and Russia 1550-1700. I imagine bows being phased out everywhere by the mid-1500s but England, or is even that too late? Which is probably around the time crossbows began being phased out in France and Spain. The mercenary-based forces of Italian city states were very interesting with their mechanics and the had the best cannons and navy backing them up. And let us not forget Sweden and the revolutionary Infantry/Artillery tactics of Gustavus Adolphus.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

IIRC crossbows were largely gone by 1550. England officially abandoned the longbow sometime under Elizabeth I, though I'm not sure whether they were actually that common before hand. England's armies were quite backward during this period, largely because the country didn't really have to fight any major land wars against up-to-date European powers. (The navy, which was much more important for national defence, was both powerful and modern, at least by Elizabeth's time.)

 

[sahaidak]

England officially abandoned the longbow sometime under Elizabeth I, though I'm not sure whether they were actually that common before hand.

They definitely were: Henry VIII's carrack Mary Rose, sunk in 1545, carried 250 longbows on its last mission (and only 50 handguns, BTW). It stands to reason that land forces were armed similarly to the Mary Rose marines.

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

The longbow was last used militarily in the English Civil War but by then it was largely abandoned. I think the longbow would have been abandoned sooner but as other people pointed out, England didn't do much land war in the early 1600s to highlight how out of date the weapon was.

 

[wietze]

The time between the late sixteenth and early eighteenth centuries were a time of great technological innovation (I think we still exist in the scientific paradigm as established by the thinkers of this age)but the lack of fast, reliable communication and strict national patronage through universities inevitably made some nations more powerful, though the culmination wouldn't be evident until the Agricultural Revolution in England. I wonder though if a technological edge did exist, besides just having more guns. I'm curious as to the gunpowder-bow-melee-cavalry ratio of Spain, France, England, Prussia, Austria, Ottomans and Russia 1550-1700. I imagine bows being phased out everywhere by the mid-1500s but England, or is even that too late? Which is probably around the time crossbows began being phased out in France and Spain. The mercenary-based forces of Italian city states were very interesting with their mechanics and the had the best cannons and navy backing them up. And let us not forget Sweden and the revolutionary Infantry/Artillery tactics of Gustavus Adolphus.

you are forgetting the biggest arms producer of the time, the United Provinces.

The agricultural revolution originated in the low countries in the 16/17th century, the uk only followed later.

 

[Saphroneth]

The longbow was last used militarily in the English Civil War but by then it was largely abandoned. I think the longbow would have been abandoned sooner but as other people pointed out, England didn't do much land war in the early 1600s to highlight how out of date the weapon was.

It wasn't out of date in capability (it was faster firing and more accurate than a musket, and near-silent to boot), but it's one of those weapons which has a horrible lead time and even worse demands on the user.
It was, in other words, impractical because you could train several musketeers for the opportunity cost. It wasn't outclassed.

 

[othyrsyde]

It wasn't out of date in capability (it was faster firing and more accurate than a musket, and near-silent to boot), but it's one of those weapons which has a horrible lead time and even worse demands on the user.
It was, in other words, impractical because you could train several musketeers for the opportunity cost. It wasn't outclassed.

Completely agree having studied this a lot. Early guns really really sucked. The reason they were used was the cost effectiveness. It didn't take long to train a musketeer, while longbowmen took years to master their weapon. Artillery was more revolutionary during the early gunpowder age since it largely destroyed feudalism as the king could now topple a rebellious nobles castle. (Also the ability to arm more men and quicker is not to be understated as well).

 

[Delvestius]

Completely agree having studied this a lot. Early guns really really sucked. The reason they were used was the cost effectiveness. It didn't take long to train a musketeer, while longbowmen took years to master their weapon. Artillery was more revolutionary during the early gunpowder age since it largely destroyed feudalism as the king could now topple a rebellious nobles castle. (Also the ability to arm more men and quicker is not to be understated as well).

So then when did the accuracy, effectiveness and production of firearms overtake that of crossbows in continental nations?

 

[Saphroneth]

Completely agree having studied this a lot. Early guns really really sucked. The reason they were used was the cost effectiveness. It didn't take long to train a musketeer, while longbowmen took years to master their weapon. Artillery was more revolutionary during the early gunpowder age since it largely destroyed feudalism as the king could now topple a rebellious nobles castle. (Also the ability to arm more men and quicker is not to be understated as well).

Apparently, General Arthur Wellsey (later the Duke of Wellington) asked for a corps of longbowmen during the peninsular war. Obviously this wasn't practical...
But yes, the ease of training is the big thing behind why guns replaced bows. Arguably, the gun did not outclass the bow in all fields until the reliable breechloading rifle.