First Generation Muskets did not have the range or accuracy of Bows.
And they take an expert 15-30 seconds to load. any idiot can notch a bow in 2 seconds.
Close in the baonet and knife are much more deadly than a musket ball at range.
This is a good point. There are, of course, many kinds of bows and many kinds of muskets, but composite recurve bows, for example - as were common in the ancient world and used by groups as disparate as the Romans, the Vikings, and the Mongols, generally had a longer range than did most muskets. In some cases, a significantly longer range. And English longbowmen had a longer range, still.
It's also important to note that musketmen typically did not fight the way that riflemen due today - even as late as the Napoleonic wars, musketmen would typically only fire one or two volleys at the enemy, and then charge to close with bayonets. Napoleon, in particular, would often charge in column, which meant that only the first couple of ranks could fire their muskets at all, with 80% of the men being unable to do so.
Of course, the bayonet was critical for these tactics, and there's nothing similar that archers could use. It's probably relevant in this context that archers were actually employed a lot like artillery - they were placed behind knights or pikemen and fired over these troops into the enemy ranks.
The great advantage that muskets had was that they took very little training to learn how to use. While ancient archers, as well as English longbowmen, took years and years to learn how to accurately shoot their weapons and (and even to develop the strength to pull the bows), peasant conscripts with no previous firearms experience could rapidly be taught to fire muskets to the (low) level of accuracy that could be achieved by the weapon.
