Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXX

[fusilier]

One other point (I'm not a historian so I can only skirt around the issue) - expect weapon types to be mixed rather than uniform force equippage (perhaps one of the more knowledgeable members can say how mixed).

Yes. Even when made as part of a large contract (and large is very relative term -- hundreds usually), there could be a lot of variability. At this time it was common for the gunmaker to include a bullet mold with each gun, so the bullets were known to match the size of the bore. Personal weapons (hunting firearms, pistols), would almost certainly be made as one offs. They might be made to established patterns and forms, but the customer could pick certain details (like caliber, barrel length, stock style, . . .).

In the 1570s a weapon developed which became known as a "caliver" -- there's a debate about what the weapon actually referred to: some considered it an intermediate weapon, between arquebus and musket, others considered it a type of arquebus but with a musket style stock.

Anyway, the weapon got it's name from the fact that they were supposed to be made to a standard "caliber" (Note: not all calivers had the same caliber, but that they were done in production runs that, within the run, should have standard calibers). Often times, the weapon is referred to the first gun made to a standard caliber.

However, James Lavin in his seminal "History of Spanish Firearms" reproduces a contract for 4,000(!) arquebuses from 1535, where the contract specifies that the weight of the ammunition, and, while each gun was to be supplied with a bullet mold, that the bullets were expected to be interchangeable.

So the idea of producing large runs of guns all in the same caliber had been around for a while. Almost certainly, such a large order would involve some degree of subcontracting, and given the tolerances of the time, the balls were probably undersized to ensure compatibility.

This needs to be balanced against the fact that many soldiers were mercenaries, and were expected to purchase their own weapons (and indeed often their own ammunition). However, I suspect that often the commander of the mercenary group would buy weapons and ammunition, and dock the pay of the soldiers accordingly, so probably tried for some degree of uniformity. I will note that Maurizio Arfaioli's tables of the Black Bands in 1527, always show some number of Schoppettieri (hand gunners), mixed in with Arquebusiers. Every single infantry company has both, although *usually* there's a significantly greater number of Arquebusiers.

Some terminology:

By the mid-15th century, there were two main categories of (firearm) long arms:

The Arquebus was a light weapon. Sometimes used on horseback (sometimes called harquebus). It was popular with skirmishers. Often the caliber was around .65 inches.

The Musket was a heavy weapon. It had a longer barrel, and larger caliber, .85 inches, even more. It was heavy and awkward, usually used a "rest" when aiming to support the weight of the long barrel. It was a response to the increasingly heavy armor, and had better long range capability. (All these effects are relative, and can vary greatly upon which historical source you consult).

(Note, the first contract for "Calivers" were approximately .74 inches caliber)

There was something of an arms race between firearms and armor. With improving firearms, resulting in improved armor, leading to more powerful firearms, etc. Muskets became more and more powerful, up until around 1600. Then as the use of armor declined, muskets start to become shorter, lighter, and smaller caliber.

[Gnoman]

This needs to be balanced against the fact that many soldiers were mercenaries, and were expected to purchase their own weapons (and indeed often their own ammunition). However, I suspect that often the commander of the mercenary group would buy weapons and ammunition, and dock the pay of the soldiers accordingly, so probably tried for some degree of uniformity. I will note that Maurizio Arfaioli's tables of the Black Bands in 1527, always show some number of Schoppettieri (hand gunners), mixed in with Arquebusiers. Every single infantry company has both, although *usually* there's a significantly greater number of Arquebusiers.

A friend of mine studies Early Modern mercenaries professionally, and has told me that it was essentially universal for the owners of mercenary companies to supply the equipment. Much of the manpower for such units came from displaced peasants and townsfolk that would have been completely unable to provide their own. This was one of the reasons why so much military power was concentrated in mercenary units during this period, because the increasing scope of Early Modern warfare demanded larger and larger sources of manpower - which generally far exceeded that which could be organized via the older feudal retinues or the incompletely-centralized states of the time.

[fusilier]

A friend of mine studies Early Modern mercenaries professionally, and has told me that it was essentially universal for the owners of mercenary companies to supply the equipment. Much of the manpower for such units came from displaced peasants and townsfolk that would have been completely unable to provide their own. This was one of the reasons why so much military power was concentrated in mercenary units during this period, because the increasing scope of Early Modern warfare demanded larger and larger sources of manpower - which generally far exceeded that which could be organized via the older feudal retinues or the incompletely-centralized states of the time.

That's my understanding too. I just didn't have time to double check my sources, so backed off making too strong of a claim. Also when the troops were mustered for inspection, any deficiencies in equipment (or the number of troops) would be docked from the pay. As the pay was a lump sum that went to the captain, and he kept a certain amount for himself, there was a financial incentive for him to make sure his company was up to scratch.

However, and I may have the wrong impression here, the sense I get is that the men-at-arms mercenaries usually were a little better off (and higher status), and as their equipment (full sets of plate armor) had to be more specialized anyway, that they usually provided it themselves at least initially? And then maybe they made sure that the rest of their lance was well taken care of? After being on campaign, or simply stood up for a while, then maybe the captain would provide items directly to keep everything maintained (replacement horses, weapons, cloth/clothing, etc.). I would be thinking of 15th century Italian mercenaries.

On other related subjects:

I think in Arfaioli's work there's discussions of captains taking out loans (or using personal funds), to make sure their companies are properly equipped when pay was in arrears (of course this mattered more during a campaign).

Also I remember reading (in one of Michael Mallet's works on mercenaries) about a captain who was demanding to receive long overdue back pay, and the state refusing to do so, unless the troops were first mustered for inspection (as was tradition). The captain refused to muster the troops without the back pay, leading to an impasse The cause was implied -- without funds the company had run down, and the captain needed the funds to get the troop numbers and equipment back to scratch, but the state wouldn't pay until a muster had been done, to know how many troops were to be paid . . .

[Gnoman]

One thing I forgot to mention is that at this time there's two kinds of gunpowder.

The original powder, generally called serpentine is mixed dry. This has the major downsides of not necessarily being properly combined in the first place, and it also tends to separate in transit. This results in severe deficiencies in power and reliability. This was a much less common type by this time (particularly in personal firearms - it was much more common as an artillery propellant), but people in poorer situations or somewhat backward regions might not be able to obtain better.

The other type is known as corned powder. It uses the same sulfur, saltpetre, and charcoal, in the same proportion (though exactly what those proportions are varies by time, region, and purpose). The difference is that various liquid compounds are added to create a slurry, which is then formed into cakes. Once dried, these cakes are very carefully ground into powder and stored. Because of the way it is mixed, corned powder is truly homogenous, and does not settle. The result is significantly more power (sometimes as much as three times the equivalent volume of serpentine, maybe more), infinitely better reliability, and the ability to be easily stored or transported without compromising it. Corned powder went through many improvements until reaching its final form in the 19th century (further improvements may well have been possible, but the discovery of Powder B by France rendered all forms of black powder hopelessly obsolete and research stopped), so different regions and manufacturers would have better or worse grades and qualities available.

This may well be too granular for most people, but giving a penalty to weapons using serpentine or a bonus to anybody that can get high-grade powder is far from unreasonable. If nothing else, it can be a justification for making enemies weaker than the PCs (because they can't get the good powder) and the existence of "bosses" (higher-ranking or wealthy opponents that can get good powder in sufficient quantity to use themselves).

[fusilier]

One thing I forgot to mention is that at this time there's two kinds of gunpowder.

The original powder, generally called serpentine is mixed dry. This has the major downsides of not necessarily being properly combined in the first place, and it also tends to separate in transit. This results in severe deficiencies in power and reliability. This was a much less common type by this time (particularly in personal firearms - it was much more common as an artillery propellant), but people in poorer situations or somewhat backward regions might not be able to obtain better.

The other type is known as corned powder. It uses the same sulfur, saltpetre, and charcoal, in the same proportion (though exactly what those proportions are varies by time, region, and purpose). The difference is that various liquid compounds are added to create a slurry, which is then formed into cakes. Once dried, these cakes are very carefully ground into powder and stored. Because of the way it is mixed, corned powder is truly homogenous, and does not settle. The result is significantly more power (sometimes as much as three times the equivalent volume of serpentine, maybe more), infinitely better reliability, and the ability to be easily stored or transported without compromising it. Corned powder went through many improvements until reaching its final form in the 19th century (further improvements may well have been possible, but the discovery of Powder B by France rendered all forms of black powder hopelessly obsolete and research stopped), so different regions and manufacturers would have better or worse grades and qualities available.

This may well be too granular for most people, but giving a penalty to weapons using serpentine or a bonus to anybody that can get high-grade powder is far from unreasonable. If nothing else, it can be a justification for making enemies weaker than the PCs (because they can't get the good powder) and the existence of "bosses" (higher-ranking or wealthy opponents that can get good powder in sufficient quantity to use themselves).

Certain weapons (usually cannons) designed to use the relatively low pressure serpentine powder could not be fired with corned powder without exploding!

Other sources mention that if serpentine powder is well and carefully packed (rammed) in the barrel it could give reasonable amount of power, vis-a-vis, corned powder.

I think the differences are less noticeable at the scale of personal firearms, but you can still see the effect on design -- hand-gonnes designed to use serpentine powder sometimes have long powder chambers. A reduced bore chamber is apparently more efficient for serpentine powder, but the length of the chamber still indicates a rather large amount of powder was intended.

[Clistenes]

That's my understanding too. I just didn't have time to double check my sources, so backed off making too strong of a claim. Also when the troops were mustered for inspection, any deficiencies in equipment (or the number of troops) would be docked from the pay. As the pay was a lump sum that went to the captain, and he kept a certain amount for himself, there was a financial incentive for him to make sure his company was up to scratch.

However, and I may have the wrong impression here, the sense I get is that the men-at-arms mercenaries usually were a little better off (and higher status), and as their equipment (full sets of plate armor) had to be more specialized anyway, that they usually provided it themselves at least initially? And then maybe they made sure that the rest of their lance was well taken care of? After being on campaign, or simply stood up for a while, then maybe the captain would provide items directly to keep everything maintained (replacement horses, weapons, cloth/clothing, etc.). I would be thinking of 15th century Italian mercenaries.

On other related subjects:

I think in Arfaioli's work there's discussions of captains taking out loans (or using personal funds), to make sure their companies are properly equipped when pay was in arrears (of course this mattered more during a campaign).

Also I remember reading (in one of Michael Mallet's works on mercenaries) about a captain who was demanding to receive long overdue back pay, and the state refusing to do so, unless the troops were first mustered for inspection (as was tradition). The captain refused to muster the troops without the back pay, leading to an impasse The cause was implied -- without funds the company had run down, and the captain needed the funds to get the troop numbers and equipment back to scratch, but the state wouldn't pay until a muster had been done, to know how many troops were to be paid . . .

Fun historical bit: When Alonso de Contreras was an alférez (sort of a liutenant and standard-bearer) of the Spanish Tercios his captain left him to train the new recruits alone; the weapons they had brought were inadequate, but he couldn't do nothing about it.

Luckily, he discovered a weapons smuggler kept a cache of firearms in a farm, so he went and stole it, confident that the smuggler wouldn't go to the authorities.

However, the smuggler happened to be supplying a group of rebels, so when the Inquisition arrested the smuggler and interrogated him, he decided to take revenge on him by telling the inquisitors that Contreras was part of the plot.

Alonso de Contreras was arrested, but he was acquitted quite soon.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Things like buck-shot, and bird-shot, are quite old (not exactly sure how old), and troops were known to sometimes simply fire two full-size balls at close range . . . but those are multiple-projectiles shot together, sharing a single powder charge.

Right. That's a thing that was actually used in practice as early as 1600. Pike and shot formations, the combination of muskets and pikes, were amazing in an anti-cavalry role. Mounted lancers practically disappeared from the battlefield in at least Western Europe. Instead cavalry often adopted large pistols, with wheellocks, and sometimes with a bit of a blunderbuss / trumpet style flaring barrel for easier loading. These would often be loaded with "ball and buck", one large bullet / ball that landed roughly where you were aiming, and three or so smaller ones. Because when firing into a formation, why not?

Grenades start coming in around 1630 or so, plug bayonets (daggers with a handle that can be stuck in a gun barrel) around that same time. The widespread adoption of ring or socket bayonets, that don't plug the barrel, takes longer than one might expect, until around 1700 or so. Aparently a reliable setup for that is pretty tricky to engineer. That's also around the time lancers come back in full force, because these bayonets spell the end of pikemen, and bayonets aren't as good vs cavalry as pikes are.

As a rule of thumb modern firearms appear around 1850. Revolvers, pump action shotguns, bolt action rifles, all start seeing use in large numbers around that time. Machine guns and even smaller early submachine guns join them before the first world war.

[Gnoman]

As a rule of thumb modern firearms appear around 1850. Revolvers, pump action shotguns, bolt action rifles, all start seeing use in large numbers around that time. Machine guns and even smaller early submachine guns join them before the first world war.

While technically the Dryse (1836) and Chassepot (1866) are bolt action rifles, it wasn't until the 1870s that Mauser introduced something we'd really recognize today. LIkewise you don't start seeing pump guns until the late 1860s. Submachine guns weren't introduced until 1918, the last year of WWI.

On the other hand, machine guns are a bit earlier than you suggest - the Gatling is 1860s, and the single-barrel Maxim makes debut in 1884, 30 years before WWI.

[Grim Portent]

On the topic of blackpowder, was there a notable increase in price for corned powder over serpentine, or was it just a matter of available supply limiting the use of the former after it was developed?

[fusilier]

On the topic of blackpowder, was there a notable increase in price for corned powder over serpentine, or was it just a matter of available supply limiting the use of the former after it was developed?

I'd have to go through the sources again, but if memory serves me right, the cost was based primarily on the availability of saltpeter. In Europe, the natural supplies of saltpeter were pretty quickly exhausted, and they had to learn how to make it (or import it from India). It took a little while to get the industry of making saltpeter going, and some historians think early attempts resulted in a quite inferior product, which may have been very hygroscopic (readily absorbed moisture from the air, quickly ruining the powder). This, they speculate, may have encouraged the development of corned powder, as pressing it into a cake would reduce the surface area and limit the hygroscopic effect. The cake could then be transported whole, and "corned", i.e. ground up, before use.

Whatever the case, as the use of corned powder increased, the availability of saltpeter (in Europe) was also increasing . . . so whatever extra costs were associated with the manufacture of the powder, it was more than offset by the decreasing costs of the main ingredients. Labor costs were probably a small fraction of the cost anyway, and often times, especially in the case of serpentine, powder was mixed on site anyway. So as a result of these factors, I don't think it's possible to observe a difference in cost. I would guess that serpentine was a little cheaper, but I'm not sure if the data can differentiate that.