Dear Mr Cornwell
I have read and enjoyed very much all of your books. At a battle of the like of Waterloo when the musket was so inaccurate and the rifle could not shoot accurately over say 100 yards do you think the archer could have been employed as a supplementary 'weapon'? I have read that an archer could be accurate at further distances than that.
Kind regards
Robair
It would have been far more effective! So much so that the Duke of Wellington enquired, during the Peninsular Wars, about the possibility of raising a Corps of longbowmen for service in Spain, but he was told there simply weren't enough trained archers to make it feasible. If you have 1000 muskets then their accuracy is lousy - certainly nothing above 100 paces will be remotely accurate, and their rate of fire will be between three and four shots a minute, so be kind and say four, and you have 4000 missiles a minute which are useless beyond 150 paces. Face them with 300 longbowmen who are wickedly accurate at 150 paces and they're loosing 15 arrows a minute which means they're shooting 4,500 missiles in a minute. There's no contest! Most of the musketeers would be dead or wounded before they even got into effective range, but it took ten years dedication to make an archer....so the musket triumphed.