> Why did firearms and bullets replace bows and arrows? To many, this sounds like a stupid question with an obvious answer: the firearm succeeded the bow becaus

> Why did firearms and bullets replace bows and arrows? To many, this sounds like a stupid question with an obvious answer: the firearm succeeded the bow because it’s a superior weapon. This is objectively true now and has been for a while, though the article goes into detail about how it was far from being true in the early days of the firearm. > firearms took the skills and muscular effort out of killing someone from a distance. > Crossbowmen and musketeers required little or no training, while it took many years of practice to build an archer skillful and strong enough to be of use in warfare. As with many things, economics dictate the choices we make as societies. > It would decrease the number of people in a given population who could become effective soldiers We're doing a fine enough job of that already, with sedentary lifestyles leading to fat and unhealthy people.