Right, that’s what I’m asking: if the second (middle) is wrong, (i.e., logistics was not the influential factor) then what is the real reason that earlier guns were superior?
The reasoning is correct in that bow has much better range, better accuracy, and more lethality. Its the oversight or dismissal of logistics as a factor in the power of a weapon that is the mistake, and results in the incorrect conclusion. Basically, knowning enough to know that an archer is more dangerous than an early firearm user, but not enough to factor in logistics in the value of a weapon.
Right, that’s what I’m asking: if the second (middle) is wrong, (i.e., logistics was not the influential factor) then what is the real reason that earlier guns were superior?
The reasoning is correct in that bow has much better range, better accuracy, and more lethality. Its the oversight or dismissal of logistics as a factor in the power of a weapon that is the mistake, and results in the incorrect conclusion. Basically, knowning enough to know that an archer is more dangerous than an early firearm user, but not enough to factor in logistics in the value of a weapon.