It's a great analogy actually. See here for example: https://www.technologyreview.com/2011/01/12/89319/the-puzzling-evolution-of-guns-versus-bows/ https://www.t

It's a great analogy actually. See here for example: https://www.technologyreview.com/2011/01/12/89319/the-puzzling-evolution-of-guns-versus-bows/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2011/01/12/89319/the-puzzli... Firearms took over bows in Europe around 16th century. But they have been around for far longer, as early as 13th century, possibly much earlier too. Even when firearms took over, they were in many ways inferior to bows. The crucial difference was that they required less skill to operate, so much easier from a general logistical point of view. Training longbowmen in medieval England was a whole massive social project. So even being the long-term solution doesn't make something the right solution right now, the time gap until it takes over can be very long, and even once it is the right solution, it might not be due to actual technical superiority (at least not initially) but rather wider strategic considerations. And just to stem the thought, this wasn't because people in the past were stoopid, humans have always devoted a huge amount of skill, cunning and attention to warmongering. Technological progress in military technology was always rapid (if likely slower than today), we just don't see it that way, since one bow kinda looks the same as another to us - but could be an enormous advantage.