Shad points out the biggest strength that nobody recognizes with a musket line over a group of archers.
When you see a line of muskets fire, what happens on the other side? You see that first, sometimes second, line of troops drop dead and wounded. Think about that from the perspective of the 3rd or 4th lines. You are going to die if they fire again if you don’t move. And the further back in the lines you get, the more of this effect happens.
Now, look at when a troop is getting shot with arrows. It’s still dangerous, don’t get me wrong, but it’s more random. Plenty of people still get hit, heck maybe even the same amount of people as the musket line in rare occasions, but it’s not the solid line of people directly in front of you getting hit and going down. That difference matters. It’s why, as guns became more and more advanced, the idea of troop deployment changed more and more into something unrecognizable to what it was before. Because people wanted less and less to be standing in the way of the shot.
Which, I think we can all agree, is a fair opinion to have.

"Can carry less arrows than the average musketeer"... thats debatable, but why is the musketeer carrying arrows to start?

An argument I haven't seen yet is, that it's not only harder to train a proper bowman, but you also need to KEEP him trained. You can send a musketeer to a farm for harvesting season and he'd still shoot fairly accurate when he returns, but a bowman has to re-train his muscles for combat readiness. It's hard to believe, that he would put 2h of bow training in, after 8h of field work.

Oh wow!  This is incredibly surreal for me to see.  Shad, you were one of my main inspirations to start YouTube in the first place!  This is kind of making my own online presence hit home for me in a way it has never before.  And I must say, I'm relieved to hear that you don't utterly disagree and hate my guts in the first minute of the video, which was what I immediately became paranoid about when I saw that title!  I don't often have time to watch 40 minute plus videos these days (kind of ironic given how longwinded I am) but I am definitely taking the time for this one!  I just had to have my fangirl moment and to say 'thanks' before watching.  Off I go!

My favorite thing about this community is how polite y’all are to each other, it goes a long way to promoting professional and personable discourse.

The ability to re-shoot arrows that you have scavenged is less important than one of the most overlooked advantages muskets have: arrows are much heavier than powder and shot. A musketeer can carry four times as many shots as an archer for the same weight.

29:39 Fun fact: I'm actually "The guy" who was in the clip firing the bow and then shouldering it. I also edited the video. With the model of bow I had shouldering it is fairly easy so I guess I just got used to it and didn't really think if it was historical or not. One thing after another drove it from me mind as the saying goes.

Kinda funny to hear Shad talk about me in a video.

Historically speaking, there's a correct answer: yes, muskets are better for warfare. Nations could train musket users in a matter of weeks, whereas bow proficiency and the strength needed to use the bow would take years.

Interesting that the Total War games hit the nail on the head with their unit morale system. A unit in a prolonged melee will keep fighting as their numbers dwindle below 30%, but if the same unit is damaged to 50% health in a very short time period, they suffer a massive morale penalty and likely break. To an extent in other PVP games, burst damage is always preferable to sustained DPS because it allows less time for the opponent to react to what is happening to them.

The damage of a musketball is not only made by its large diameter ist is also done by its shape. An Arrowhead is rather sharp and edgy, so it will cut its way into the victims body while the musquet ball will simply smash it's way through the tissue and will do incredible damage while ripping it apart. It is like cutting someones heart out with a spoon.

"Shadlings" sounds like an invading horde of goblin-like creatures ... oh, wait!

Shad: "the one to two shots you can get in them off from a musket in one or two minutes..."

Sir Henry Simmerson : What makes a good soldier, Sharpe?
Richard Sharpe : The ability to fire three rounds a minute. In any weather, sir!

Me: about to skip the advert section
Shad: Let me advertise this by being a wholesome dad.
Me, gritting my teeth: ...hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm DAMN YOU SHAD! watches it

What I like about these "reply" videos is that Shad clearly and openly admits where his area of expertise is AND acknowledges the reality of history. If firearms weren't better, armies wouldn't have used them. Yes the very early firearms weren't great but once you get to flintlock muskets/pistols (with bayonets) and later advances in rifling, trigger mechanisms, etc...Then it was a no brainer to have the majority of your troops armed with firearms (even some of your cavalry). It was relatively easy to train a soldier how to use them, the effect of morale was devastating and most importantly I think, they basically negated most armour. Armour by the late medieval period had got to a level where arrows and bolts were becoming far less effective at penetrating them, to the point where many soldiers stopped using shields because they knew their armour would be able to protect from 99% of any incoming ranged damage.

As some mentions, it all comes down to training.
After the Battle of Patay, it took the English years to retrain a sizable longbow force. If it have been a musket force of the same size, it could have taken months only or even weeks though at cost of being undertrained.

The weirdest thing is that at the very moment that muskets replace longbows, the military writers of the 16th-early 17th century specifically don't mention at all is training being easier for musketeers. They do contrastingly mention repeatedly the vital importance of training for musketeers. Which makes a lot of sense when considering large groups of matchlock armed troops in close order.

I think the argument about a single barrage of fire causing massive damage being superior to a more spread out constant rain of fire holds true in 20th century warfare too.  It never really happened, but consider if in say the Korean war, instead of a constant artillery barrage on an enemy position, they used a single, small yield atomic bomb.  If you're getting shelled, you think there's a chance they'll all miss you.  If you see one of your positions disappear behind a 0.8kT mushroom cloud, you maybe think about going home now.

Obviously there's logistical reasons why you don't want to use atomic weapons in a land war, but my point remains.

7:25 Ammunition price!
When you compare the amount of work the fletcher needs to produce a single arrow with the amount of work required for production of a lead ball and a bit of black powder, you can clearly see why the price of the ammunition was very different.

Your point about the psychological impact of taking fire from a musket is I believe 100 percent on the nose. I think people vastly underestimate just how scary being shot at by that weapon is. (Which isn't very surprising when you think about it) that also makes it amazing that at one point standing your ground in the face of that was something people did in the 18th century, brave chaps.
Edit: given the discussion in the replies I figure this video would be really helpful on explaining musket/napoleonic style warefare. https://youtu.be/cl7ElFROgts

"With arrows, you can re-shoot them" He says, displaying the one arrow that can't be re-shot.