Before the widespread adoption of revolvers and repeating rifles, bows and crossbows really did have some advantages over guns. A skilled archer with a powerful bow could shoot deadly arrows at an impressive rate, while the crossbow sacrificed shooting speed in exchange for a weapon that could be learned more easily, allowed an archer to span a bow he wouldn't be strong enough to draw manually (with the help of a spanning device), and could hold a bolt at full draw without fatiguing the user. The challenges of military archery were raising (or hiring from elsewhere) enough people who had trained since childhood to draw and shoot powerful bows accurately, stockpiling enough arrows for a campaign ('cause arrows weren't cheap!), and importing the materials needed to manufacture bows and arrows if they couldn't be gotten locally.

The appeal of early firearms was that they were more powerful than bows or crossbows, and just about anyone could be taught to use one. They could also pull double-duty as mêlée weapons through [[PistolWhipping swinging the weapon itself]] or [[BayonetYa using a bayonet]]. The arquebus was good enough to replace the crossbow in Western European warfare by the 16th century, since it filled the same role and did it better. However, the bow could still shoot faster than these single-shot muzzle-loaders, and the English didn't give up on keeping archers as well as arquebusiers until it was clear there weren't enough skilled archers left in the country. Warriors in Asia, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe would often use the bow and musket together for their different advantages. Even in the early 19th century, white settlers on the American Great Plains were at a disadvantage against [[HorseArcher mounted, bow-using]] Natives such as the Commanches who could out-pace their single-shot pistols and rifles. Ironically, the fact that Europeans had decided that ArmorIsUseless against massed firearms and therefore gotten rid of it left them more vulnerable to arrows, which would have been stopped by plate armor. Samuel Colt's revolver turned the tide in favor of guns by being the first commercially produced firearm to really challenge the bow's shooting rate, and the subsequent spread of breech-loading and repeating rifles rendered the bow outclassed.

Of course, that applies to mass deployment, where the disadvantages of guns aren't a constantly glaring flaw. Take noise as an example: HollywoodSilencer, put simply, doesn't exist -- ''any'' gun will make a distinct, very audible noise when fired. The only question is how much and whether or not you can pinpoint where the shot came from. Although bows and crossbows aren't actually silent -- and in fact a crossbow's mechanism makes a pretty loud "thwack" when shot -- either of those is still much quieter than a gun. They also don't produce muzzle flash or powder fumes. In a situation where that matters, such as stealthy military operations or just plain old hunting, the "archaic" arrow/bolt-throwers may be preferred.

----