Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIV

[rs2excelsior]

Meanwhile, I can show you breach loading firearms and rifled firearms from the 15th century, and i can show you revolvers and metal cartridges from the early to mid 16th.

I'd be really interested to see some of those, especially the 16th century revolvers. Not because I doubt you saying they existed, but because I'm really curious how they were constructed. I knew there were some breech-loading muskets earlier than most people think (Ferguson's rifled breechloader from the American Revolution comes to mind) but I was under the impression that while they worked, they were generally to difficult to make and often too unreliable for the battlefield. Were these functional weapons, or just idle curiosities that probably wouldn't hold up under battlefield conditions? If you can point me in a direction to look I'd be interested in finding out more about them.

Also, fascinating discussion from fusilier et al. about the relative quality of muskets across time periods, and the different ways they were better or worse. It's brought up several points I hadn't thought of before.

Regarding rifles in the American Civil War, I remember reading about a tendency for mid-range volley fire (I think on the order of 200-500 yards, but that could be off, I'm not sure) to be ineffective, due to the fact that around that range the arc of the bullets would take it over the heads of the enemy. While ACW rifles did have pretty good rear sights (my 1861 Springfield has a flip sight for 100, 300, and 500 yards, and my dad's 1858 Enfield is sighted for 100-900 yards in 100 yard increments), soldiers were not really trained to use them, nor would they have the time to when firing volleys--again, rate of fire over accuracy. They were also not generally trained to account for recoil or bullet drop, leading to a lot of shots falling short or going over the enemy's head. Plus the smoke, noise, and confusion generated by black powder weapons. The rate of fire issue is a very good point--one of the main reasons Napoleon didn't adopt rifles for his light infantry like the British did with their rifle regiments (not the entirety of their light infantry, but still enough for a couple of dedicated units) was the lower rate of fire from having to ram a tight-fitting ball. The Minie ball allowed rifle-levels of accuracy with smoothbore-levels of rate of fire, which is when the rifle began to see widespread adoption.

[Max_Killjoy]

The Union did deploy the Sharpshooter regiments, armed with breach-loading rifles (mainly Sharps, the name being purely coincidence), all volunteers, and requiring a high level of marksmanship on specific targets.

The Henry and Spencer lever-action "repeating" rifles also saw use by union forces.

[Vinyadan]

Has anyone watched The Profession of Arms? Any opinion?

[Galloglaich]

I'd be really interested to see some of those, especially the 16th century revolvers. Not because I doubt you saying they existed, but because I'm really curious how they were constructed.

Breech-loading matchlock arquebus, Nuremberg 1470.

here is a page from a book with more detail about it

Spoiler: More detail on German breech-loader

Show

This is a plan for a nearly identical weapon from a manuscript from 1456 by Lorenzo Ghiberti




8 barrel matchlok revolver from 1580 (Germany, I think Nuremberg)



Breech-loading wheellock pistol, ~ 1560, also German

I knew there were some breech-loading muskets earlier than most people think (Ferguson's rifled breechloader from the American Revolution comes to mind) but I was under the impression that while they worked, they were generally to difficult to make and often too unreliable for the battlefield. Were these functional weapons, or just idle curiosities that probably wouldn't hold up under battlefield conditions? If you can point me in a direction to look I'd be interested in finding out more about them.

Well, the truth is we don't know how common they really were or how reliable they really were or any of that. We can really only make a (somewhat) educated guess.

Almost everything from the Middle Ages gets dismissed this way, for example upthread somebody mentioned the long-standing trope that medieval firearms were mainly for 'smoke and noise' - but after 15 years of pretty intense research and reading lots of primary sources, I have less and less faith in these 20th century Tropes. I believe these things were often if not always reliable, and they were more ubitquitous than what could be dismissed as a 'curiousity'. Certainly they represented the pinnacle of medieval and Renaissance craftsmanship but so did thousands of paintings, sculptures, finely made buildings, armor panoplies, swords, musical instruments, nautical instruments, and a thousand other things.

That was really part of the nature of the Renaissance, the material culture was at a very high level and most production was under the control of craft guilds run by master artisans. This is one of the things that changed by the 17th Century.

G

[Galloglaich]

Thanks, I think we've discussed the curious decline in armor quality during the 16th century before, but conversely prior to then most armors weren't really being made with firearms in mind.

I disagree 100% - I don't think plate armor would have come into existence as we know it if it wasn't for firearms. Firearms existed in Europe since the 13th Century.

Even from the early 1500s for example you have Paolo Giovio's account of Pavia where he claims that the muskets used by the Spanish were able to kill two French men-at-arms with one bullet and in Jacapo's The Preceptes of Warre he describes gunners on horseback like this: "For no sorte of souldyers, is more profytable thā they nor yet doth more myschife and hurte. For no man is so well harnaysed, that can be saulfe from them: such a vyolence is in that warlye instrumente"

Yes but at Pavia, they almost certainly had very heavy muskets using iron shot. 20mm weapons etc. Similarly, the last sentence doesn't specify a musket or an arquebus, he could be talking about cannon. No armor can protect you from a cannonball.

20-35 lbs is still quite a lot of weight. We know that the 20+ lb muskets seem to have had a lot of issues and it could be difficult to get musketeers to march long distances without wagons to help carry their weapons. Often the decision to abandon armor seems to have begun with the soldiers themselves, rather than some penny-pinching higher-ups. In 1600 ireland for example English troops were apparently leaving behind even helmets and breastplates in piles everywhere they went. In 1632 John Cruso was still complaining about carbineers who preferred to wear just a buff coat instead of a breastplate and backplate.

You are wrong - 20 lbs is quite light for a soldiers kit - yes 20 lbs is very heavy for a firearm to carry around, but it is not very heavy for kit that you wear in which the weight is distributed over your body. A modern soldier carries far more than in LBE, ammunition, water, body armor and other miscellaneous kit (not counting a backpack).

You also clearly missed my point about 17th century armor. The English troops ditching their breastplates were ditching wrought iron armor which could be as much as 6mm thick with just a breastplate alone weighing up to 40 lbs, whereas armor in the 15th or early 16th century which actually protected better might be as little as 3mm thick at it's thickest point and weigh less than half as much.

The whole knight=helpless turtle thing is a modern myth, but weight and encumbrance were a real problem and could even negatively impact combat performance.

The amount of weight carried by war-fighters is fairly constant going back to Roman times.

G

[Mike_G]

As technology, the 1860 Springfield is far, far, far more accurate than the Brown Bess.

The rifling, the Minie ball, and the back sight all mean that it was more accurate and threw a ball straighter and farther, with less of the wabbling and yaw of a round ball. And the percussion cap was much more reliable than a flintlock.

If troops weren't trained to use the sights or how to aim properly, that doesn't mean the rifle wasn't an improvement. It means that doctrine hadn;t evolved to take advantage of it.

I think that rifle fire was more effective in the ACW if we look at attacks that were stopped by fire alone in the ACW versus Napoleonic wars or Seven Years War, and if we consider the (slightly) looser formations relative to Napoleonic tactics. They weren't "loose" per se, but they tended not to fight in ranks three deep, or advance in column like the French did a Waterloo. The Union troops opened fire on Pickett's Charge at a far greater range than the British did on the French infantry attack at Waterloo.

Maybe the overall hit percentage wasn't higher, but a lot of that is context. The in combat hit percentage with modern assault rifles is lower than at Bunker Hill, but nobody's trying to argue for trading the M-4 for the Charleville.

[fusilier]

As technology, the 1860 Springfield is far, far, far more accurate than the Brown Bess.

The rifling, the Minie ball, and the back sight all mean that it was more accurate and threw a ball straighter and farther, with less of the wabbling and yaw of a round ball. And the percussion cap was much more reliable than a flintlock.

If troops weren't trained to use the sights or how to aim properly, that doesn't mean the rifle wasn't an improvement. It means that doctrine hadn;t evolved to take advantage of it.

I think that rifle fire was more effective in the ACW if we look at attacks that were stopped by fire alone in the ACW versus Napoleonic wars or Seven Years War, and if we consider the (slightly) looser formations relative to Napoleonic tactics. They weren't "loose" per se, but they tended not to fight in ranks three deep, or advance in column like the French did a Waterloo. The Union troops opened fire on Pickett's Charge at a far greater range than the British did on the French infantry attack at Waterloo.

Maybe the overall hit percentage wasn't higher, but a lot of that is context. The in combat hit percentage with modern assault rifles is lower than at Bunker Hill, but nobody's trying to argue for trading the M-4 for the Charleville.

This is generally how I see the issue -- rifled muskets were an improvement. Even if it's hard to measure when we look at the statistics. Training to use the rifles was lacking, which probably inhibited their success.

There was one advantage that smoothbore muskets had over rifled-muskets -- the ability to effectively use buck and ball. Between 30-40 yards that was considered more deadly than a rifle. During the Civil War, it was not uncommon for firing lines to form that close. I've heard some claim that veterans actually preferred smoothbore muskets, but I'm a bit dubious. It seems that troops gladly turned in their old smoothbore muskets for rifled muskets when they had the opportunity.

[Spamotron]

The amount of weight carried by war-fighters is fairly constant going back to Roman times.

G

IIRC earlier versions of this thread it was something like 100 lbs. marching load and 60 lbs. combat load correct?

[fusilier]

I'd be really interested to see some of those, especially the 16th century revolvers. Not because I doubt you saying they existed, but because I'm really curious how they were constructed. I knew there were some breech-loading muskets earlier than most people think (Ferguson's rifled breechloader from the American Revolution comes to mind) but I was under the impression that while they worked, they were generally to difficult to make and often too unreliable for the battlefield. Were these functional weapons, or just idle curiosities that probably wouldn't hold up under battlefield conditions? If you can point me in a direction to look I'd be interested in finding out more about them.

Also, fascinating discussion from fusilier et al. about the relative quality of muskets across time periods, and the different ways they were better or worse. It's brought up several points I hadn't thought of before.

Regarding rifles in the American Civil War, I remember reading about a tendency for mid-range volley fire (I think on the order of 200-500 yards, but that could be off, I'm not sure) to be ineffective, due to the fact that around that range the arc of the bullets would take it over the heads of the enemy. While ACW rifles did have pretty good rear sights (my 1861 Springfield has a flip sight for 100, 300, and 500 yards, and my dad's 1858 Enfield is sighted for 100-900 yards in 100 yard increments), soldiers were not really trained to use them, nor would they have the time to when firing volleys--again, rate of fire over accuracy. They were also not generally trained to account for recoil or bullet drop, leading to a lot of shots falling short or going over the enemy's head. Plus the smoke, noise, and confusion generated by black powder weapons. The rate of fire issue is a very good point--one of the main reasons Napoleon didn't adopt rifles for his light infantry like the British did with their rifle regiments (not the entirety of their light infantry, but still enough for a couple of dedicated units) was the lower rate of fire from having to ram a tight-fitting ball. The Minie ball allowed rifle-levels of accuracy with smoothbore-levels of rate of fire, which is when the rifle began to see widespread adoption.

Early Breechloaders

First, all early breechloaders suffered from poor gas seals, although one of the first successful military breechloaders (the Hall Carbine/Rifle) just ignored the issue. The poor gas-seal affected the range. Gas-seal wouldn't really be solved until metallic cartridges were employed, although there were some clever approaches; these were often frustrated by the messy residue that blackpowder left behind.

Second, they were significantly more expensive than a muzzleloading weapon. They required precision fitting, which was difficult to mass produce. If the cylinders of a revolver become misaligned, it can destroy the gun. This was a problem on some models even in the 19th century. Also, until the introduction of metallic cartridges, chain fires were always a potential issue on revolvers, and could destroy the gun and injure the firer.

Third, in my opinion most were too delicate for serious military service, although some of the simple versions may have seen some service.

There's a good number of these early breechloaders depicted in James Lavin's book (A History of Spanish Firearms) that I mentioned earlier. Although they tend to be more from the 17th and 18th centuries, they have similar designs to those that Galloglaich posted.

Recoil in the Civil War

Officers were known to tell their troops to aim for the knees, in an attempt to account for recoil (and probably the fact that they weren't trained to aim for center of mass).

[Galloglaich]

Just playing Devil's advocate here, I basically agree with everything you said. Just want to throw out a couple of other things to consider.

Early Breechloaders

First, all early breechloaders suffered from poor gas seals, although one of the first successful military breechloaders (the Hall Carbine/Rifle) just ignored the issue. The poor gas-seal affected the range. Gas-seal wouldn't really be solved until metallic cartridges were employed, although there were some clever approaches; these were often frustrated by the messy residue that blackpowder left behind.

Sure, but...

Let's keep in mind that they had been using small (and large) breach-loading cannon going back to the 14th Century. By the 15th Century this was pretty standardized. I think they had figured out how to either prevent the gas problem or work around it. At any rate, I can tell you that by the 1460's there was hardly a castle, a warship or a war-wagon that didn't have a breach-loading cannon, often in quite small caliber, 20-40mm.

I will say that these often seemed to be of 'medium' barrel length, you do see some with very long barrels (10' or more) but the majority are more like 3' or 4' long. So maybe that implies a lower gas pressure.

However I would suggest that given that they clearly made thousands of small breach-loading cannon of sufficient quality that they were in high and wide demand - not just in Europe but also in the Middle East and Asia, incidentally, for craftsmen in one of the more advanced workshops in a place like Nuremberg or the Venice Arsenal to make some breach-loading firearms possibly wasn't that big of a jump.

Second, they were significantly more expensive than a muzzleloading weapon. They required precision fitting, which was difficult to mass produce.

Yes, but...

this also applies to many other things in that same period, for example plate body armor. Crossbows and windlasses. Nautical equipment. Automata. And yet they cranked this stuff out. I think you may be aware of an incident I've mentioned before where Milan 'miraculously' produced armor for 8,000 paroled mercenaries in a matter of four weeks.

This is a different type of mass production than we are used to. The craft guild workshops of Augsburg, and the family based ones in Milan, did make things with a lot of personal attention but had also worked out complex systems of subcontracting and mechanization or what you might even call primitive automation (Barcelona hammer etc.) that it allowed them to produce at this very high quality while also managing a very high quantity too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFpLuJMYJdEE

This is a 19th Century water-powered trip-hammer that has been rehabilitated. Medieval trip hammers were nearly identical. Of course you don't do the fine work of a gun cylinder with a massive hammer like this. But this is what helps speed up the process of turning billets of raw iron into smaller more carefully shaped piece of metal that you can then spend your time working with.

If the cylinders of a revolver become misaligned, it can destroy the gun. This was a problem on some models even in the 19th century. Also, until the introduction of metallic cartridges, chain fires were always a potential issue on revolvers, and could destroy the gun and injure the firer.

Third, in my opinion most were too delicate for serious military service, although some of the simple versions may have seen some service.

There's a good number of these early breechloaders depicted in James Lavin's book (A History of Spanish Firearms) that I mentioned earlier. Although they tend to be more from the 17th and 18th centuries, they have similar designs to those that Galloglaich posted.

Perhaps they were, but...

We know that Henry VIII had two breach-loading guns, an arquebus and a large pistol or caribne, that he used for hunting. At least one of them was 'a three shot' weapon, not sure if that means a revolver. I doubt he would have used it if he thought it didn't work or was delicate enough to be dangerous to him personally. I believe this is one of them:

Spoiler: Henry VIII 3 shot breach-loader

Show

This shows both guns together, the big and the little.


Closeup of the smaller gun

Royal Armouries dates the weapon to 1537

According to the Royal Armouries website here, another interesting twist to this particular little story is that the weapon was originally a wheel-lock back in the 16th Century, but was later (in the 19th Century) made into a match-lock. Does this mean the wheellock was too delicate, as they have often been accused of being by modern writers, or does it mean that capabilities were declining ...?

Maybe it's just a matter of these things being incredible curiousities centuries ahead of their time, but maybe like the longsword, European martial arts and plate armor, we underestimated their quality to begin with.

Finally, I should also note that the Henry VIII breach-loader linked here, like the breach loading pistol I posted upthread, did use metal cartridges, re-usable steel ones. I think you can see one of the cartridges in the image of the pistol. This too was a well known expedient in the 16th Century among gunmakers, probably goes back to the 1480's at least.

Quote from the Royal armories on the Henry VIII gun follows:

This is the smaller of two breech-loading guns in the Armouries collection which were made for Henry VIII. Both were originally equipped with wheel-locks, which have now disappeared, the lock of this gun being replaced by a plain matchlock with an automatic sliding pan-cover, which was probably made in the nineteenth century. Both guns employ reloadable steel chambers which are pushed into the breech in the same way as a modern cartridge. The side hinged breech-block of both these guns bears a striking resemblance to the breech action, developed by the American, Jacob Snider, which was adopted by by the British Army in 1864.

Breech-loading hand guns using reloadable cartridges were produced intermittently from the fifteenth to the nineteenth century, the earliest ones apparently being modelled on contemporary breech-loading cannon, the chambers simply lying in a trough at the breech end of the barrel and secured by lugs and pins or simple wedges.

The guns of Henry VIII are the earliest known examples of this type of hinged breech-blocks. Henry, who, like many of his contemport princes, seems to have been fascinated by new mechanical contrivances. He had no fewer than 139 breech-loading guns in his collection at the time of his death in 1547, including 116 Italian guns. It is now impossible to be certain which, if any, of the entries in the 1547 Catalogue Inventory of his possessions relates to this gun.

However, as this gun obviously had a velvet covered cheek pad it may be the 'chamber pece in a Stocke of woode, lyned in the Cheke with vellet' which is listed as being in the Palace of Westminster along with another chambered gun, perhaps the larger of the two now in the Royal Armouries collection. Henry's interest in breech-loading guns is further attested by the series of curious gun-shields from his arsenal which are also preserved in the Royal Armouries collection and which are equipped with breech-loading matchlock pistols of an otherwise unknown type (Inv. No. V.39).

The fine barrel of this gun, which is chiseled in the form of a column and bears the device and initials of Henry VIII, illustrates the quality of craftsmen that Henry could call upon. It seems likely that this barrel was made in England by one of Henry's own gunmakers. It is stamped with a mark which maybe that of William hunt who in 1538 was appointed Keeper of the King's Handguns and Demi-Hawkes and was 'emplo'd about the makeing and furnishing of te King's Highnesses' devices of certain pieces of artillery'.
It is perhaps this gun which Joseph Platter, a Swiss traveller, saw in the Armouries in 1599 and describes as a pistol 'very like a musket', which 'could be loaded at the breech, that by this means it might be less readily exploded'.

I may be misunderstanding what this Swiss guy Platter said, but the last quote seems to imply that he thought it was actually safer than a regular muzzle loader.

G

[Galloglaich]

IIRC earlier versions of this thread it was something like 100 lbs. marching load and 60 lbs. combat load correct?

yes, depending on if you include a rucksack and it's contents or not.

[fusilier]

Just playing Devil's advocate here, I basically agree with everything you said. Just want to throw out a couple of other things to consider.

Yes, this is a good conversation. The short response is: These weapons were too expensive, experimental, and delicate for regular battlefield service.

Sure, but...

Let's keep in mind that they had been using small (and large) breach-loading cannon going back to the 14th Century. By the 15th Century this was pretty standardized. I think they had figured out how to either prevent the gas problem or work around it. At any rate, I can tell you that by the 1460's there was hardly a castle, a warship or a war-wagon that didn't have a breach-loading cannon, often in quite small caliber, 20-40mm.

I will say that these often seemed to be of 'medium' barrel length, you do see some with very long barrels (10' or more) but the majority are more like 3' or 4' long. So maybe that implies a lower gas pressure.

However I would suggest that given that they clearly made thousands of small breach-loading cannon of sufficient quality that they were in high and wide demand - not just in Europe but also in the Middle East and Asia, incidentally, for craftsmen in one of the more advanced workshops in a place like Nuremberg or the Venice Arsenal to make some breach-loading firearms possibly wasn't that big of a jump.

They did use breechloading cannons for a while -- but they too fell out of favor. I would guess because of their lower ranges and less power. They held on longer for the smaller anti-personnel weapons, like swivel guns, but even those eventually gave way to muzzleloaders. (They did continue to make medieval style breechloading swivel guns, in North Africa, into the 19th century, but European navies seem to have abandoned them sometime in the 1600s(?)). The most common types used different, and often seemingly crude, systems of breechloading than employed on personal firearms. Although some of the light field pieces, used a screw system very similar to the Ferguson rifle.

Yes, but...

this also applies to many other things in that same period, for example plate body armor. Crossbows and windlasses. Nautical equipment. Automata. And yet they cranked this stuff out. I think you may be aware of an incident I've mentioned before where Milan 'miraculously' produced armor for 8,000 paroled mercenaries in a matter of four weeks.

This is a different type of mass production than we are used to. The craft guild workshops of Augsburg, and the family based ones in Milan, did make things with a lot of personal attention but had also worked out complex systems of subcontracting and mechanization or what you might even call primitive automation (Barcelona hammer etc.) that it allowed them to produce at this very high quality while also managing a very high quantity too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFpLuJMYJdEE

This is a 19th Century water-powered trip-hammer that has been rehabilitated. Medieval trip hammers were nearly identical. Of course you don't do the fine work of a gun cylinder with a massive hammer like this. But this is what helps speed up the process of turning billets of raw iron into smaller more carefully shaped piece of metal that you can then spend your time working with.

Sure, but just like the most expensive armor, you're not going to be able to outfit many soldiers with it (do we have data on how expensive these breechloaders were?). While we see fairly standard (or similar) designs of muzzleloading muskets,arquebuses, and pistols, we see an impressive array of different breechloading systems. So it could be that the technology never coalesced around something that everybody agreed worked well. Also, I do think most of the breechloading weapons were too delicate for military service.

Perhaps they were, but...

We know that Henry VIII had two breach-loading arquebus that he used for hunting. At least one of them was 'a three shot' weapon, not sure if that means a revolver. I doubt he would have used it if he thought it didn't work or was delicate enough to be dangerous to him personally. I believe this is one of them:

Spoiler: Henry VIII 3 shot breach-loader

Show

According to the Royal Armouries website here, another interesting twist to this particular little story is that the weapon was originally a wheel-lock back in the 16th Century, but was later (in the 19th Century) made into a match-lock. Does this mean the wheellock was too delicate, as they have often been accused of being by modern writers, or does it mean that capabilities were declining ...?

Or some bozo restored it in the 19th century to what they thought was more appropriate/valuable. I've seen a lot of old barrels with locks and stocks which were added/recreated much later and are in the wrong style.

Maybe it's just a matter of these things being incredible curiousities centuries ahead of their time, but maybe like the longsword, European martial arts and plate armor, we underestimated their quality to begin with.

They actually seem to be a bit more common than mere curiosities to me. They were rare on the battlefield, but it's clear from those that have survived that it was an on-going area of development for many years.

Finally, I should also note that the Henry VIII breach-loader linked here, like the breach loading pistol I posted upthread, did use metal cartridges, re-usable steel ones. I think you can see one of the cartridges in the image of the pistol. This too was a well known expedient in the 16th Century among gunmakers, probably goes back to the 1480's at least.

To me that's more of a removable breech -- it's very heavily built. I don't suspect it would expand much when fired (creating a gas-seal), then shrink to be able to be removed. That was the advantage that brass (and copper) cartridges had. Interestingly, the first models of the gatling gun used a similar system.

Quote from the Royal armories on the Henry VIII gun follows:

I may be misunderstanding what this Swiss guy Platter said, but the last quote seems to imply that he thought it was actually safer than a regular muzzle loader.

G

Hmmm. I'm not entirely sure how to follow that line either. One of the dangers of loading a muzzleloader is if there's an accidental discharge while pouring in the powder, or ramming the ball home. A breechloader avoided a lot of that danger.

However, revolvers had a particular set of problems, which are well documented, chain fire being a major one. When loading with loose powder, it was possible for powder to spill and get trapped around the cylinders. When fired, this loose powder might be ignited, and might ignite other loaded chambers (which are not aligned with the barrel). Careful loading and attention was required to prevent this -- that's easy enough in a target shooting or hunting situation, but on a battlefield reloading could become sloppy.

Likewise, even some 19th century revolvers could be damaged in such a way that they wouldn't "index" correctly (meaning the cylinder was no longer aligned with the barrel), but would still fire! This often happened due to rough-handling, like using your pistol as a club.

[rrgg]

I disagree 100% - I don't think plate armor would have come into existence as we know it if it wasn't for firearms. Firearms existed in Europe since the 13th Century.

Except small arms didn't really have much of a battlefield presence until the tail end of the 15th century. Even at the start of the Italian wars it would have been typical for only 10% of troops to have been armed with firearms.

Whats more, of what few firearms were in use during the 15th century there was a huge variety, ranging from small handguns which had less power than crossbows and probably were intended primarily as noise makers, to actual cannons as well as large caliber "hook guns" and swivel guns mounted on carts/wagons which I doubt any armor would be able to protect against. The type of penetration achieved at Pavia wasn't exactly something new, if anything the "musket" likely began as a relatively light wall gun which was turned into an infantry weapon with the addition of a forked stick.

In contrast to the late 16th century where small arms had become the biggest killer on the battlefield, plate armor in the 15th century designed specifically with bullets in mind and not just crossbows or edged weapons would have just been adding weight to counter only a very small proportion of battlefield threats.

Yes but at Pavia, they almost certainly had very heavy muskets using iron shot. 20mm weapons etc. Similarly, the last sentence doesn't specify a musket or an arquebus, he could be talking about cannon. No armor can protect you from a cannonball.

Jacobi was referring to light horsemen armed with arquebuses or other small guns, something relatively new to the early italian wars. Interestingly we start to see a far more significant distinction between light and heavy cavalry in the early 16th century, with duties like scouting, harrassment, and raiding becoming exclusively the domain of horsemen like the straiioti, jinetes, reiters, and mounted arquebusiers, while gendarmes grow increasingly heavy with barded horses and longer lances to become more exclusively used as shock cavalry.

You are wrong - 20 lbs is quite light for a soldiers kit - yes 20 lbs is very heavy for a firearm to carry around, but it is not very heavy for kit that you wear in which the weight is distributed over your body. A modern soldier carries far more than in LBE, ammunition, water, body armor and other miscellaneous kit (not counting a backpack).

You also clearly missed my point about 17th century armor. The English troops ditching their breastplates were ditching wrought iron armor which could be as much as 6mm thick with just a breastplate alone weighing up to 40 lbs, whereas armor in the 15th or early 16th century which actually protected better might be as little as 3mm thick at it's thickest point and weigh less than half as much.



The amount of weight carried by war-fighters is fairly constant going back to Roman times.

G

That last statement isn't true at all. The weight of a velites' combat kit was not the same as that of the triarii. The amount of weight carried by marius' mules on the march was pretty abnormal for the ancient world, and even today some argue that US infantry tend to be overburdened. In any period, the ideal marching weight and ideal combat weight are both 0, anything else is a compromise due to a lack of magic materials.

Pikemen's armor in 1600 was not expected to be musket-proof, at best it might have protected against pistols and carbines carried by cavalry at a distance. Sir Roger Williams described it as "proof of the caliver at ten or twelve score [200-240 yards]". That's part of the issue, it was extra weight and didn't even provide much protection. Unless you want to argue that pikemen were ditching their helmets because even that alone weighed more than 20 lbs.

As an anonymous author in 1628 put it: "If armours were musket proof, and men well able to endure them" they would still be very useful, but as it was neither of those things were the case.

[Galloglaich]

Except small arms didn't really have much of a battlefield presence until the tail end of the 15th century. Even at the start of the Italian wars it would have been typical for only 10% of troops to have been armed with firearms.

Totally incorrect. You are off by 80 years.

The first recorded use of significance to the outcome of a battle was in the 13th. Firearms were already important in siege warfare all through the 14th Century. Sieges wee only a part of war but, most soldiers did have to engage in sieges so this was already reason to be prepared for firearms.

The first large scale use of firearms on the open battlefield was in the 1420's during the Hussite Wars. By the 1430's the Czechs were producing large numbers of a wide variety of hand-gonnes, as well as hook-guns and other firearms. By the 1440's cities like Venice, Prague, Nuremberg and Ghent were producing hundreds of firearms every year.

The Hungarian Black Army by 1458 had a ratio of 1/4 handgunners to all other troop-types including cavalry, pikemen, crossbowmen and cannon crew. Probably about half of the infantry were gunners. This was also true at the same time for many German and Bohemian armies in Central Europe.

Whats more, of what few firearms were in use during the 15th century there was a huge variety, ranging from small handguns which had less power than crossbows and probably were intended primarily as noise makers,

Again, totally incorrect this particular cliche has been blown up years ago including on this very thread. Early firearms have been tested, not just replicas but the actual antiques have been tested, and they shoot very well thank you. Can even be aimed at things pretty far away and hit reliably and with plenty of force. If I had the patience right now I'd dig up some youtube videos, link some studies etc. but it's been done on this thread dozens of times already in various incarnations.

As somebody else pointed out upthread, if you just wanted to make noise you could use fire crackers. Roger Bacon wrote down instructions for making those in 1260. Fireworks and pyrotechnic devices were already in wide use, for warfare and just for celebration by the end of the 13th Century.

In contrast to the late 16th century where small arms had become the biggest killer on the battlefield, plate armor in the 15th century designed specifically with bullets in mind and not just crossbows or edged weapons would have just been adding weight to counter only a very small proportion of battlefield threats.

Again, totally incorrect. They were already marking armor with bullet dents as 'proof' in Augsburg and Nuremberg by the 1440's.

Pikemen's armor in 1600 was not expected to be musket-proof,

As I has previously mentioned, by 1600 armor was made mostly of wrought iron - so it was only marginally protective of , though there was some composite or laminated armor which also had a steel plate in the middle of the breast plate.

Look, I can tell you have read a couple of books, but I don't feel like you are either understanding what I've been telling you or just choose not to think about it too much, so I'm going to forgo further discussion with you on these topics, as I think it will be a waste of both of our time and I don't have as much time as I used to for online debates. Lets just agree to disagree.

G

[rrgg]

@fusilier and rs2excelsior

There was quite a bit of improvement when it came to gunpowder quality especially during the late 18th-19th centuries. At times it even outperformed modern powder due to people at the time having more experience with it and being better at matching the powder to the dimensions of their weapon. When Benjamin Robins performed his experiments with the ballistic pendulum in the mid 18th century he found that a .75 caliber musket with half the balls weight of powder had a muzzle velocity of 1700 fps. Just prior to the civil war the .69 caliber smoothbore used by us army could still hit 1500-1700 fps with just a 110 grain service charge and an "old rifle" firing a tight fitting round ball could achieve more than 2000 fps.

Interestingly though, with the introduction of the minie bullet the muzzle velocity of rifles dropped considerably down to just 1000 fps or so. This was apparently because the "skirt" of a minie ball tended to rip off instead of engaging the rifling if fired with too much power so the charge had to be reduced. Long story short this is why civil war muskets tended to have a much more noticeable drop over distance than older weapons.

[Galloglaich]

Yes, this is a good conversation. The short response is: These weapons were too expensive, experimental, and delicate for regular battlefield service.

I don't think we actually know that.

They did use breechloading cannons for a while -- but they too fell out of favo... sometime in the 1600s(?)).

Are you sure about that? I keep seeing them from all over. I think the Venetians among many others were still using them on Galleasses and Galleys well into the 18th Century. What is your source for their going away in Europe?

Sure, but just like the most expensive armor, you're not going to be able to outfit many soldiers with it

There is another very persistent myth about the armor. That the steel armor was so expensive. I've tried (and clearly failed) to debunk this. Let me just briefly quote two numbers from the 15th Century. Average reported annual earnings above rents and subsistence for mid-ranking peasant in Poland in the 1430's was 30 'zloty', equivalent to German gulden. Average net annual income after paying journeymen (as assessed for war taxes) for a tailor in Gdansk in 1450 was 24 marks (about 18 zloty).

Cost of a complete Milanese harness in the Krakow marketplace in 1440 was 7 zloty. 'Proofed' for 12, whatever that means in terms of quality precisely.

Ownership of armor was a requirement for citizenship in Danzig, Krakow and every significant town, and better kit for the militia translated to better prestige. This is the armor of an accountant in Augsburg in the 16th Century:



as is this, same guy different armor



and this, also the same guy.



In 1491, the wool-weavers craft guild of the small north-German city of Wismar listed an inventory of their armor including seven complete sets of 'proofed' armored harness, five proofed gorgets, and two proofed bevors. This is the extra stuff owned directly by the guild, since individual members had their own harness. Wool weaving wasn't even a big industry in Wismar and Wismar was a small town in 1491 I think like 13,000 people?.

Mercenaries - just hand-gunners or pavisemen, could make as much as 100 gulden a year in the 15th Century, assuming the actually got paid.

The reason why nobles armor was so commonly gilded, etched with magnificent artwork and so on is in order to make it stand out. Commoners could afford the good armor.

(do we have data on how expensive these breechloaders were?). While we see fairly standard (or similar) designs of muzzleloading muskets,arquebuses, and pistols, we see an impressive array of different breechloading systems. So it could be that the technology never coalesced around something that everybody agreed worked well. Also, I do think most of the breechloading weapons were too delicate for military service.

It's one of the major differences between the late medieval Renaissance and the 17th - 18th Century, in the earlier period there was a lot of variety in everything - including firearms. Things became much more standardized in the later period. That is not necessarily because it was better that way, it was more suited to the times which isn't precisely the same thing.

To me that's more of a removable breech -- it's very heavily built. I don't suspect it would expand much when fired (creating a gas-seal), then shrink to be able to be removed. That was the advantage that brass (and copper) cartridges had. Interestingly, the first models of the gatling gun used a similar system.

I honestly don't know precisely how they worked, they may have been something in between a breach and a cartrdige. The breach loading cannon worked that way, the removable breaches which often looked like beer mugs, would be pre-loaded with powder and then corked, so they could be put back into the gun in rapid succession. You can see a guy shooting a replica of a 15th Century swivel gun of around 1" caliber with 4 breaches here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmGTM1hWtQ

If you watch that video it gives you an idea of the rate of fire of these things. You just put in another breach, lock it, prime it and shoot. That quick.

If you watch from 04:14 to 5:21 he gets off 4 shots in just over a minute, all of which hit his target. Imagine what some guy who was a professional soldier with 5 or 10 years of experience could do with that weapon.

Here is some Swiss re-enactors assembling and shooting a larger caliber breach-loading 15h Century replica cannon of about 3" or 4" caliber I think. As you can see they can get it into action pretty quickly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk_bNFUqzo4

Larger caliber breach loading swivel gun (you can see the large amount of powder in the removable breach as he preps it) shoots a pretty big hoe through some wood here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUm9zwPCFvw

G

[fusilier]

Are you sure about that? I keep seeing them from all over. I think the Venetians among many others were still using them on Galleasses and Galleys well into the 18th Century. What is your source for their going away in Europe?

I'm pretty confident that it happened, but I'm not sure of the timeline. The swivel guns that I've seen from the 18th century onward in European navies are muzzleloading. If there's evidence that they continued to use breechloaders throughout the 18th century, I would be interested in seeing it.

There is another very persistent myth about the armor. That the steel armor was so expensive.

. . .

The reason why nobles armor was so commonly gilded, etched with magnificent artwork and so on is in order to make it stand out. Commoners could afford the good armor.

Are you saying that in the late 16th century most soldiers could afford laminated armor?

I used the term most expensive armor, because I was referring to the expense, and pointing out that we haven't actually established the expense of breechloading firearms of the time. Most of those that have survived may be the high end of the market, and it's possible that there were lower grade examples.

By the end of the 16th century you occasionally see entire units of common soldiers being outfitted with wheellock muskets/arquebuses. They were usually given special duties like guarding the artillery and the powder train. Cavalry had been using wheellock pistols for a long time before then, but they were still considered an expensive weapon. One that needed to be well made otherwise they failed or wore out quickly.


If breechloading personal firearms weren't too expensive and/or too delicate for battlefield use, what was it that prevented them from being used? Or, is there evidence that they were more widely used on the battlefield that has been overlooked?

[Kiero]

That last statement isn't true at all. The weight of a velites' combat kit was not the same as that of the triarii. The amount of weight carried by marius' mules on the march was pretty abnormal for the ancient world, and even today some argue that US infantry tend to be overburdened. In any period, the ideal marching weight and ideal combat weight are both 0, anything else is a compromise due to a lack of magic materials.

Velites were skirmishers, you can't really call them "war fighters", that was the line infantry. And while the Hastati's kit was almost as light as that of the Velites, I don't think it's a coincidence that the "Mules" standardised on the kit used by the Principes.

[Brother Oni]

IIRC earlier versions of this thread it was something like 100 lbs. marching load and 60 lbs. combat load correct?

yes, depending on if you include a rucksack and it's contents or not.

If I remember correctly, the era also matters. Combat load was closer to 40-60lbs and it's only with the advent of modern warfare that infantrymen end up heading into combat with upwards of 60lbs.

Some digging indicates that during the Falklands, Paras and Royal Marines were carrying ~80lbs of gear, while in the most recent Iraq conflict, the average squaddie was typically carrying 145lbs.

US doctrine FM 7-8, Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad, 22 April 1992, Chapter 5, Annex I says the combat load shouldn't exceed 60lbs, but I've found some terminology and limits:
Fighting load - Only what is worn = 36.9 lbs
Fighting light - Worn plus the assault pack = 59 lbs
Approach march - Worn plus the rucksack = 72.9 lbs
Everything - Worn plus the rucksack and assault pack = 95 lbs

I can hear the laughter from the former serving right now.

[snowblizz]

20-35 lbs is still quite a lot of weight. We know that the 20+ lb muskets seem to have had a lot of issues and it could be difficult to get musketeers to march long distances without wagons to help carry their weapons. Often the decision to abandon armor seems to have begun with the soldiers themselves, rather than some penny-pinching higher-ups. In 1600 ireland for example English troops were apparently leaving behind even helmets and breastplates in piles everywhere they went. In 1632 John Cruso was still complaining about carbineers who preferred to wear just a buff coat instead of a breastplate and backplate.

I've seen it noted that Swedish musketeers were reluctant to abandon the caliver, their "pipes", to go up to a musket with rest (should be around 1600s).

Soldiers seem to most of the time have been inclined to ditch and lighten items, even to their own detriment later on. It doesn't even have to be that heavy or bulky. It's just that it's more than nothing and I'm clearly not using it right now so why am carrying it?

Cavalry had been using wheellock pistols for a long time before then, but they were still considered an expensive weapon. One that needed to be well made otherwise they failed or wore out quickly.

One reason for the "changes" in tactics for cavalry Gustav II Adolf introduced (early 1600s) was precisely the expense and problem of getting enough pistols to outfit cavalry "properly" so they kinda had to go with the swords.

Mercenaries - just hand-gunners or pavisemen, could make as much as 100 gulden a year in the 15th Century, assuming the actually got paid.

There's a fairly important distinction there.

Armies were very often in arrears. And a lot of your pay could be in kind. Which may not quite as easily be turned into quality equipment... I've read of a number of instances were loot from cities, e.g. cloth was used to settle some part of pay.

The Spanish army of Flanders was chronically underpaid as a particularly eggregious exanple. IIRC they were considered quite ragged when payment issues were particularly severe.

Gusta II Adolf in part started to issue equipment in-lieu of pay (and also let *him* and the state to do the profiteering captains usually did) to solve some of the money to equipment issues.

And this is ignoring a lot of the didn't use the signing bonus or equipment money to actually get equipment that was fairly common among recruits.

Oftne the high pay of mercenraies were rather more theoretical thna actual. IIRC there's evne a ongs about that intended to disencourage enlsitment. Which tended to work the opposite way.

[Kiero]

One reason for the "changes" in tactics for cavalry Gustav II Adolf introduced (early 1600s) was precisely the expense and problem of getting enough pistols to outfit cavalry "properly" so they kinda had to go with the swords.

There's also the question of getting cavalry of this era to actually charge home. One of the reasons Cromwell's Ironsides were feared, besides their religious fervour, was that they were quite willing to charge home with their swords. Not wheel away from the point of contact firing their pistols, as the Royalist cavalry preferred to.

[Galloglaich]

I'm pretty confident that it happened, but I'm not sure of the timeline. The swivel guns that I've seen from the 18th century onward in European navies are muzzleloading. If there's evidence that they continued to use breechloaders throughout the 18th century, I would be interested in seeing it.

As far as I can tell, they retained a niche for the smaller caliber swivel guns more or less continuously from the 14th Century until the advent of modern type cannon in the 19th.

This is just one of many examples, a French bronze 2.75" caliber swivel-gun from 1717. They seem to be all over the place, both on vessels and on fortifications. I have seen them in museums associated with old Spanish forts all over Spain and Portugal, the South of France, the Gulf South of the US and the Caribbean.

http://www.icollector.com/Rare-Early...7-To_i11154067

Are you saying that in the late 16th century most soldiers could afford laminated armor?

No. Not in the late 16th Century.

First by the late 16th Century most soldiers were much poorer than soldiers from earlier eras (say, up to the first quarter of the 16th Century). Second, by the late 16th Century the armor industry itself had largely collapsed and the only centers making the older types of steel armor were basically royal armouries like at Innsbruck and Greenwich. The scale of production of high quality armor had gone through a precipitous decline by then and the price had gone up accordingly.

If you go back to the first quarter of the 16th Century and into the 15th, then I would say then yes, though that also depends somewhat what you mean by 'laminated armor'.

If you mean steel armor with a plackard which is as strongly made as the armor in the NOVA documentary, then yes absolutely. Common soldiers could afford it, that (again) is why nobles decorated theirs with gold etc., so they could stand out as superior.

If you are referring to the type of laminated armor they made in the 17th century (and maybe in the late 16th, I'm not sure) where they put a steel plate inside of a thicker wrought-iron plate, then ... I'm not sure. I don't know much about the economy by that point. Probably not though.

I used the term most expensive armor, because I was referring to the expense, and pointing out that we haven't actually established the expense of breechloading firearms of the time. Most of those that have survived may be the high end of the market, and it's possible that there were lower grade examples.

I don't know the cost of such firearms however it shouldn't be impossible for find out. The major distinction I make on the armor is not lamination but quality of steel and heat treatment, mainly. The point I was making is that this type of armor, like the armor in the NOVA show, was affordable during the peak years of armor production, say 1440-1520.

How much the firearms cost would be interesting to look into. I know you can find records from the Venetian arsenal on gun purchases all over the place, and also the municipal archives of Nuremberg have a lot of surviving records. Maybe they distinguish on things like breach loaders. I do think breach-loading firearms were quite rare, maybe not curiousity rare but maybe as rare as something like a .50 caliber sniper rifle today... let alone something like that revolver which is clearly a masterpiece.

By the end of the 16th century you occasionally see entire units of common soldiers being outfitted with wheellock muskets/arquebuses. They were usually given special duties like guarding the artillery and the powder train. Cavalry had been using wheellock pistols for a long time before then, but they were still considered an expensive weapon. One that needed to be well made otherwise they failed or wore out quickly.


If breechloading personal firearms weren't too expensive and/or too delicate for battlefield use, what was it that prevented them from being used? Or, is there evidence that they were more widely used on the battlefield that has been overlooked?

As I've mentioned before, I suspect this may be a reflection of the changing economy and political / military landscape of the time. Breach-loading firearms probably came into being in the second or third quarter of the 15th Century, at least as far as I can tell. I doubt they were being made in any numbers until the fourth quarter of the 15th. But during the end of the second quarter of the 16th Century Europe began going through massive social changes with the onset of the Reformation, the German Peasants War, the major invasions of Italy and the snuffing out of the independence of so many of the Italian city-States. By the third quarter of the 16th Century we can detect a major shift in the material culture of weapons.

In other words, maybe this technology stalled out just as it was coming online. Craft industries took a while to tune up from luxury to middle class production. I have read detailed studies on similar changes in other industries, for example Venetian glass manufacture. in 1470 they were making mostly drinking vessels, eyeglasses, small mirrors and window-panes mostly for middle class consumption in towns in italy, Flanders, Germany and Poland. By 1530 they had already shifted dramatically into making glass beads and tiny mirrors for trade goods for the New World and Pacific Rim, and giant fancy mirrors for rich ladies in France and Muscovy (Russia).

Wheel-locks are a good analogy and probably a roughly similar level of challenge in terms of manufacture (maybe a little more). I think it got harder to make them in the 16th Century, just as they were needed more, because of the decline of many of the traditional manufacturing centers. But they had a more vital niche - it's very hard to manage a slow match on horseback. The wheellock's were needed for cavalry and the Reiter had an important battlefield role especially in Northern Europe. Maybe or maybe not it's a coincidence that this same zone was one of the hold-outs for Free Cities - many of the Hanseatic towns remained independent and pretty strong right up to the 30 Years War. I don't know enough about the history of firearms in that era.

Anyway, if I'm able to find anything on this I'll post it here for sure.

G

[Galloglaich]

There's a fairly important distinction there.

Armies were very often in arrears. And a lot of your pay could be in kind. Which may not quite as easily be turned into quality equipment... I've read of a number of instances were loot from cities, e.g. cloth was used to settle some part of pay.

The Spanish army of Flanders was chronically underpaid as a particularly eggregious exanple. IIRC they were considered quite ragged when payment issues were particularly severe.

Gusta II Adolf in part started to issue equipment in-lieu of pay (and also let *him* and the state to do the profiteering captains usually did) to solve some of the money to equipment issues.

And this is ignoring a lot of the didn't use the signing bonus or equipment money to actually get equipment that was fairly common among recruits.

Oftne the high pay of mercenraies were rather more theoretical thna actual. IIRC there's evne a ongs about that intended to disencourage enlsitment. Which tended to work the opposite way.

Yes, all very true in general, however it depended a lot on the specific mercenaries and on the people who hired them. The French had a saying "pas d'Argent, pas de Suisse' - "No money, no Swiss"

The odd thing about the Swiss was, once you hired them, they were very loyal, despite being mercenaries. They would fight to the death. it was part of their culture. This was a big difference from many other mercenaries and condottiere, many of whom were notorious for changing sides or being easily bribed to go from one side to the other. But the second you missed a promised payment, the Swiss companies marched home.

However this policy of the Swiss was not that unusual particularly in Northern Europe. Many of the Bohemian mercenary companies were similar - they would fight loyally unless they weren't paid. Then they became unruly. Same with some of the more famous Landsknecht companies, and notably, the companies making up the Hungarian Black Army from which I got that number.

Matthias Corvinus complained bitterly in letters about the need to scrounge money to pay his armies - that is actually how we know how much he paid the different types of soldiers, from letters he wrote to relatives complaining about the cost. But he did pay them, and when he couldn't for whatever reason, they left the field. Usually he found the money, quite often it was actually Venice (where one of his relatives lived) who footed the bill, because they very much liked the problems that Corvinus was causing for the Ottomans in the Balkans.

Conversely, unless you were Swiss, the French King was notorious for not paying his soldiers or mercenaries. This often led directly to their going looting and ravaging the countryside.


So long and short of it is that we know at least some mercenaries were indeed getting this kind of money. We see the huge payments made to them, as well as the vast sums they acquired from looting and ransom payments from towns and princes when they went on the rampage due to not being paid.

it's actually quite similar to the Vikings and the Danegeld in the late Migration / Carolingian era. They started out equipment-poor in the early days of the Viking raids in the 8th-9th Century but seem to have become fairly well equipped by the 10th

I know of one case in 15th Century Bohemia where two Bohemian mercenary companies had captured 3 polish towns from the Prussian Confederation, but the Teutonic Knights had run out of money to pay them. They gave them two months and then approached the Polish king to sell them back to him. He pressured Gdansk to come up with 190,000 gulden to pay them! This couldn't have been more than 2,000 mercenaries. But it was worth the investment for the Poles and the Prussian towns to have the 3 towns back. You can read about that incident here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirte...)#1455_to_1460



So yeah TL : DR mercenary pay, like mercenary life in general, had a capriciously random element and was often not what it was supposed to be, but mercenary work was routinely very lucrative. That is why so many people took the risk.

G

[rs2excelsior]

-snip-

Wow. The degree of craftsmanship in the late Medieval/early Renaissance continues to amaze me. I'm of a similar mind to fusilier regarding gas seals and cost to manufacture compared to muzzle loaders, but still, that's an incredibly impressive and ingenious bit of craftsmanship.

Specifically, my comment regarding the reliability of breechloaders was more related to the 18th century attempts, specifically the Ferguson rifle (which was ahead of its time, but not practical enough for widespread use). The revolver musket looks quite a bit like the pepperbox, just without individual barrels for each cylinder. Again, I'm really impressed they managed to get a good seal between the cylinder and barrel.

[Galloglaich]

Wow. The degree of craftsmanship in the late Medieval/early Renaissance continues to amaze me. I'm of a similar mind to fusilier regarding gas seals and cost to manufacture compared to muzzle loaders, but still, that's an incredibly impressive and ingenious bit of craftsmanship.

Yes, of course muzzle loaders are cheaper. As are unarmored troops, for example. We used to think that armor went away because it was just outclassed by guns, but it now kind of looks like maybe that wasn't the case.

What I've been getting at is that as far as the soldiers themselves you have a shift in the Early Modern era from skilled to unskilled (or high-skilled to lower-skilled) warriors. In the medieval you have people show up who are expected to know what they were doing. The skill level of a gunner, an archer or a crossbowman in 1450 was expected very high and they were paid accordingly.

The big shift in the 16th Century is that you start to have poorer, less skilled recruits specifically recruited from the poorest available areas (like Landsknechts from rural Swabia, and Conquistadors from Estremadura in Spain) and then being trained in a somewhat simplified version of what the earlier more skilled warriors did.

Maybe this is comparable to the Marian reform in certain respects -in terms of the demographic shift anyway.

We tend to think of this as an improvement, a modernization, because our society is more like Roman or Early Modern society than it is like medieval or barbarian tribal society. We are used to the idea of taking a recruit who knows nothing, teaching him step by step how to march and shoot, follow orders and submit to discipline. We don't expect fighters to show up knowing anything and the idea of civilians having military units is threatening to the modern mind.

Parallel to the changes in the types of soldiers, the economy also changed. Weapon making industries which previously were tailored to thousands of individual princes and aristocratic families, and to City States and mercenaries, shifted to a different customer - the Absolute Monarch.

Specifically, my comment regarding the reliability of breechloaders was more related to the 18th century attempts, specifically the Ferguson rifle (which was ahead of its time, but not practical enough for widespread use). The revolver musket looks quite a bit like the pepperbox, just without individual barrels for each cylinder. Again, I'm really impressed they managed to get a good seal between the cylinder and barrel.

Yeah i don't know how they work technically, I would like to learn more. I have seen enough evidence to convince me know though that medieval firearms very generally speaking were quite effective. I also can tell you though this one observation more generally.



Very much like the martial arts - you find these types of weapons like 16th Century revolvers and 15th Century breech-loaders, in auction house catalogues, collectors websites and so on. You do not find them in modern histories of firearms or military history books or in academia - except as outlier curiosities. Or at least I don't. I found those photos on a collectors forum, and have found similar ones in auction catalogues like Hermann Historica. The Henry VIII guns are an exception because ... Henry VIII. We also generally tend to get a lot more information on English sources in the English -speaking world. But this isn't necessarily where the epicenter of the tech is, particularly in the medieval era.

Once again, this mirrors the existence of European Martial Arts and the actual nature of medieval swords (also pioneered by an outsider), both of which we have learned a great deal about in the last 20 years. The data is out there, but it seems to be filtered out by our modern analysis.

G

[Haighus]

Very much like the martial arts - you find these types of weapons like 16th Century revolvers and 15th Century breech-loaders, in auction house catalogues, collectors websites and so on. You do not find them in modern histories of firearms or military history books or in academia - except as outlier curiosities. Or at least I don't. I found those photos on a collectors forum, and have found similar ones in auction catalogues like Hermann Historica. The Henry VIII guns are an exception because ... Henry VIII. We also generally tend to get a lot more information on English sources in the English -speaking world. But this isn't necessarily where the epicenter of the tech is, particularly in the medieval era.

Once again, this mirrors the existence of European Martial Arts and the actual nature of medieval swords (also pioneered by an outsider), both of which we have learned a great deal about in the last 20 years. The data is out there, but it seems to be filtered out by our modern analysis.

G

This is nicely demonstrated by the information you posted above about the guns of Henry VIIIths collection, in which over 100 of the guns (more than 2/3rds) were definitely or probably Italian built.

[Galloglaich]

This is nicely demonstrated by the information you posted above about the guns of Henry VIIIths collection, in which over 100 of the guns (more than 2/3rds) were definitely or probably Italian built.

yes, and I would guess you would see some Flemish and German as well. It's very much the same in France, incidentally.

[jayem]

Just playing Devil's advocate here, I basically agree with everything you said. Just want to throw out a couple of other things to consider.

Sure, but...

Let's keep in mind that they had been using small (and large) breach-loading cannon going back to the 14th Century. By the 15th Century this was pretty standardized. I think they had figured out how to either prevent the gas problem or work around it. At any rate, I can tell you that by the 1460's there was hardly a castle, a warship or a war-wagon that didn't have a breach-loading cannon, often in quite small caliber, 20-40mm.

I will say that these often seemed to be of 'medium' barrel length, you do see some with very long barrels (10' or more) but the majority are more like 3' or 4' long. So maybe that implies a lower gas pressure.
G

Could it also be an cube-square-line thing?
If say they could match the join to the nearest milimeter, then on a 20mm diameter gun, 20% of the backplate is leaky. On a 200mm gun, 2% of the backplate is leaky.
Similarly making a 10cm big fastening might be a bit easier than crafting a 10mm version (and for that matter you can push harder with your hand than your pinky).

(though that doesn't really tie in with the small caliber)

[rrgg]

@Galloglaich

Unfortunately I haven't had much time for arguing on the internet either lately, so sorry if I haven't been explaining myself in depth well enough. Unfortunately this makes it all the more frustrating that we seem to be talking past each other.

You know more about eastern Europe than I do so I'll have to concede on there, though I'm still not convinced many knights in western europe were ordering intentionally bullet-proofed armor.

Regarding the power of early handguns compared to crossbows I was just trying to cover my bases while still emphasizing variety (15th century sources as far as I know tend to be vague in distinguishing between handguns and small artillery, you can see many sizes of gun in this illustration of a Hussite wagon fort as an example). There are some historical examples I doubt the power of though. For instance The Danziger Handgonne on this webpage has a caliber of just 12 mm. Even if it managed to achieve an extremely high muzzle velocity it's doubtful it could match the penetration of the highest-end crossbows with a bullet so light. Conversely I've seen 15th century handguns with a caliber of 25mm, 35mm, or higher and shot a bullet 15 times heavier. A bullet that large would be very difficult to stop even if the powder was weak.

Regarding the decline of armor, I guess I have two main points I'm trying to make.

The first is that blaming it all on guns wasn't just an invention of modern historians, it comes straight from military writers at the time explaining why they no longer fought the way their grandfathers did. "Sir, then was then, and now is now; the wars are much altered since the fierie weapons first came vp: the Cannon, the Musket, the Caliuer and Pistoll." Examples of high-end steel armors from Greenwich for example still exist today so presumably some of these men would have known better, yet still many seemed to express the opinion that it was impossible for any armor to fully protect from modern firearms, even "proofed" armor. (As an aside, Alan Williams has an article where he studied a number of supposedly "proofed" armors from the 17th century and concluded that many of the indentations were inconsistent from even a very weak pistol, so proof marks alone possibly don't say that much about much protection an armor offers). The two explanations I see for this lack of faith are either that everyone suddenly forgot that steel armor is better than iron, or that even the highest end steel armors didn't offer guaranteed protection against high-powered muskets or a wheellock pistol literally pressed against the visor. I suspect the second explaination has much to do with it but yes, we might have to agree to disagree.

The second point I'm trying to make is that I do think armor is awesome, and it was extremely important during the middle ages, but armor isn't everything. Not all battles are decided by the side with the best armor, just off the top of my head the battle of Lechaeum, where Iphikrates and his peltasts routed a column of Spartan hoplites. Probably the most immediate impact of the matchlock arquebus is that it suddenly made light infantry and light cavalry much more powerful and much more important. An armored footman isn't going to catch an unarmored arquebusier while the arquebusier can kill from farther off and do much more damage than an archer or peltast previously could. Similarly it was typically suicide for mounted gendarmes to try and charge a line of dragoons taking cover behind ditches and hedges. Sure an arquebusier might gain more protection from stray bullets if he wears a heavy steel breastplate, but the same is true if he keeps most of his body concealed behind a tree or a rock.

What I mentioned earlier about armored arquebusiers being disadvantaged in armor comes from William Garrard in 1591. He isn't talking about a full 50 lb corselet, just a mail shirt, which was generally considered simple light armor.

Now as these careles persons farre misse the marke with ouer great securitie, so some bring in a custome of too much curiositie in arming Hargabusiers, for besides a Peece, flask, Tutch boxe, Rapier and Dag∣ger: they load them with a heauie Shirt of Male, and a Burganet: so that by that time they haue marched in the heat of the Sommer or deepe of the Winter ten or twelue English miles, they are more apt to rest, thē readie to fight, whereby it comes to passe that either the enterprise they go about, which requires celerity, shall become frustrate by reason of the staie they make in refreshing themselues, or else they are in daunger to be repulsed for want of lustines, breath, and agilitie.

[fusilier]

As far as I can tell, they retained a niche for the smaller caliber swivel guns more or less continuously from the 14th Century until the advent of modern type cannon in the 19th.

This is just one of many examples, a French bronze 2.75" caliber swivel-gun from 1717. They seem to be all over the place, both on vessels and on fortifications. I have seen them in museums associated with old Spanish forts all over Spain and Portugal, the South of France, the Gulf South of the US and the Caribbean.

http://www.icollector.com/Rare-Early...7-To_i11154067

Fair enough, I admitted that I was unsure of the timeline. Still, any search I do for swivel guns of the 18th century brings up only muzzleloaders. On the other hand, the opposite appears to be the case when looking at swivel guns from the 16th century. At the very least, breechloading swivel pieces went from being almost ubiquitous to being comparatively rare. That's significant.

As I've mentioned before, I suspect this may be a reflection of the changing economy and political / military landscape of the time. Breach-loading firearms probably came into being in the second or third quarter of the 15th Century, at least as far as I can tell. I doubt they were being made in any numbers until the fourth quarter of the 15th. But during the end of the second quarter of the 16th Century Europe began going through massive social changes with the onset of the Reformation, the German Peasants War, the major invasions of Italy and the snuffing out of the independence of so many of the Italian city-States. By the third quarter of the 16th Century we can detect a major shift in the material culture of weapons.

In other words, maybe this technology stalled out just as it was coming online. Craft industries took a while to tune up from luxury to middle class production. I have read detailed studies on similar changes in other industries, for example Venetian glass manufacture. in 1470 they were making mostly drinking vessels, eyeglasses, small mirrors and window-panes mostly for middle class consumption in towns in italy, Flanders, Germany and Poland. By 1530 they had already shifted dramatically into making glass beads and tiny mirrors for trade goods for the New World and Pacific Rim, and giant fancy mirrors for rich ladies in France and Muscovy (Russia).

Wheel-locks are a good analogy and probably a roughly similar level of challenge in terms of manufacture (maybe a little more). I think it got harder to make them in the 16th Century, just as they were needed more, because of the decline of many of the traditional manufacturing centers. But they had a more vital niche - it's very hard to manage a slow match on horseback. The wheellock's were needed for cavalry and the Reiter had an important battlefield role especially in Northern Europe. Maybe or maybe not it's a coincidence that this same zone was one of the hold-outs for Free Cities - many of the Hanseatic towns remained independent and pretty strong right up to the 30 Years War. I don't know enough about the history of firearms in that era.

Anyway, if I'm able to find anything on this I'll post it here for sure.

G

One of the things you might want to look into is spiraling wage inflation in the 16th century -- it had effects like encouraging the use of slaves as oarsmen, and the decline of stone firing cannons in the west (the stone cannonballs required much more labor to create).

However, there's a problem with the wheellock analogy. Wheellocks were a new technology at the beginning of the 16th century and they became more prevalent over the 16th century -- not less. Breechloading firearms remained rare, and never established themselves on the battlefield in any capacity (as far as I can tell). They didn't go away, but the technology never established itself. Perhaps they did fall into some sort of economic trap, but given how other technologies continued to develop, it seems unlikely to me.