Terrifying position to be in however. Drill for musketeers was extremely specific and careful because of the constantly burning matchcord being an everpresent danger with explosives hanging off you and everyone around you.
A good soldier could fire about every 1 minute and 30 seconds. Quite long by todays standards, you can see why the bullet and bolt action rifle where such revelations
It would be a totally strange sensation, the absolute opposite of the usual CoD experience where you're basically Captain America. The first battle experience is nothing but you watching other guys get shot, waiting for your chance to fire a single round.
No, in America (High School) we got to choose our classes. American history and government are the only required classes for social studies. So yes, some Americans can go their entire lives without knowing any European history. I took AP European History (optional class) which covers the Renaissance until the end of the Cold War from a European Perspective. I also took Medieval and Ancient History (both optional), which covers both East Asia and Europe. Another awesome class I took focused specifically on East Asia, mostly China, that is is because China has been the dominant cultural and economic power in that region for the majority of history and the present.
Congrats for the quality of the french orders . These ones should be understand by french mother tongue users . This video is remarquable for the quality of the clothes and firearms . Thanks .
Nicely done! I almost forgot about the wicked mode of firing. You have to give major credit for someone to stand and recharge their weapon while the opposing side is firing a volley at you...takes nerves of steel.
Musketeers were considered support troops back then, cav and pike men did most of the fighting back then, musketeers were position behind the pikes and were less likely to die, also the opposing army also did not have many musketeers either, muskets were also extremely inaccurate and were used mostly to scare the enemy and demorilise them, the wounds caused by these muskets must have been horrendous
@@armincal9834 Where did you get your misinformation? 1. Musketeers outnumbered pikemen, the pikemen supported the musketeers by defending them against cavalry, not the other way around. 2. Two pike squares almost never fought each other, it was considered "bad war." The muskets did all the killing, far from just scaring the enemy! 3. And no, they weren't behind the pikemen, how the hell would they be able to shoot? Two musketeer columns would flank one pike square. They were inaccurate, yes, that's why they used massed volleys to slowly whittle down the enemy ranks over many hours, until one side routed and ran for the hills. That's when the cavalry swooped in and slaughtered them before they could regroup.
@@everfaithful9272 They weren't even that inaccurate. They were obviously extremely inaccurate compared to the modern rifles we're used to. But they were a lot more accurate than the bows and crossbows people had been using up to that point, as is attested by essentially everyone that was on either end of them.
Très belle démonstration. On se croirait en 1610, 1620 sous Louis XIII et le cardinal de Richelieu, ou au Québec. Les ordres en français sont bien compréhensible. Bel effort linguistique. Bravo messieurs. (Very nice demonstration. It feels like 1610, 1620, under Louis XIII and Cardinal Richelieu, or in Quebec. The orders in French are quite understandable. Nice linguistic effort. Well done gentlemen.)
Aaah, so that's why they were always battling in multiple row formation, the front row fires and the back row reloads. I didn't realize reloading these things was such a pain in the butt
@@Chris-2-of-3, no need to add any time, as period accounts specify a roughly one minute reload time. These guys were noticeably slower than that for various reasons, including the fact that they're moving at demonstration speeds intead of combat speeds
Not really. The aim is to get as many guns to bear as possible. Muskets have very low range, so a spread out line is inefficient and not all guns will be able to hit a target putting pressure on one point in the line. So instead they half or third or even quarter the line’s length, allowing everyone to be in better range of the target.
Line battles made the British army deadly, they would get reeaaaaally close to the enemy, then discharge rifles at a deadly range, then make a bayonet charge. They would destroy any foe they found in their way. The discipline to march so close to an enemy mowing your fellow red coats is admirable, they mostly won in the end of each battle.
This lot did very well. These are the most temperamental, potentially dangerous weapons you ever saw. It's unbelievable how easily something can go wrong.
Very cool video. And I don't just mean those crazy looking pants that guy on the left is wearing. I think the matchlock is a very intriguing and underrated weapon. You just don't see a lot of people talking about them. But honestly I don't know which would be harder.... having to follow these slow instructions in the heat of battle knowing that the enemy is going to be upon you in seconds; or having to wear those crazy pants all day long! Be sure to pass along our gratitude to your friends for helping you put together this video. They did a spectacular job!
AK107DX Hi, this is only partially true. The greatest power of the infantry forming a 2 or 3 person deep line is the volley, not the individual shots. Until these commads are used on the battlefield, the officers have chance to issue commands to the tropps. If the "fire at will" starts no more commanding is possible due to the noise.
***** Musket formation in the 16th and 17th Century were as many a 10 ranks deep. The front rank would present and fire on command then counter march through the fomation to the rear reloading as they went. The next rank would step up to the line, present and fire on command, then countermarch while reloading. This revolving would continue until the battle was over or the musketeers ran out of powder and shot. In this manner the company could fire a concentrated volley every few seconds while reloading and keeping good order, but the officer in command did not have to give each and every command nor were the musketeers slowed down by the drill commands being given.
***** If I'm not mistaken, you'd have the front. Fank that fired kneel to get out of the way, too, in some cases. Gorgeous rifles there, sad to see no matchlock kits available. They look fun, and it'd be nice to have at least one one gun that didn't rely on caps (which can be a bit hard to find) I can make my own match easier then caps.
No wonder it was so tempting to stick with longbows back then. I know training a proficient longbowman took years, but good gravy would I not want to try this under combat!
Archers fire 2-3 arrows when cavalery massacred them, because arrows can not be ablle penetrated knight armour from long distance. When aguebusiers fire one voley whitch was capable stop cavalery charge. This is the reason why muskets reolaces longbow.
@@cloroxbleach9222 well, more like years because it takes a lot of practice to gain skill especially with war bows. As for rifles mere weeks to months to train.
@@cloroxbleach9222 Sorry i dont agree with you. On English coutriside every man knew use longbow in middle ages. They didnt have shortage of skilled longbowmen. Longbow dissapered because artilery replaced them as muskets replaced pikes and swords.
@@ales811507 The longbow fell out of use in England gradually, over the course of the 16th century, due to a proliferation of munitions-grade armour, and was replaced by the arquebus/musket. There are several edicts given during the reign of Henry VIII, commanding the commons to keep to the butts on Sundays - the repetition suggests they were slacking off. After Flodden 1513, when the storm of longbow arrows failed to stop the Scottish advance, the time of the longbow drew to a close. The Royal Navy was still using them to shoot fire arrows (a goodly bunch was found on the Mary Rose, along with about a dozen muskets) up to the time of the Armada. I also recall there was a problem getting Spanish Yew, which was preferred to English Yew, after the Divorce. Artillery did play some part, though the pike was kept around (at a reduced ratio - mainly as protection from cavalry) until the bayonet was invented.
@@KM-hw6tw Artilery replaced longbow as long range weapon. Muskets replaces pikes as standart infantry weapon. Longbow dissapear not because shortage of arrows or good wood, It was repalced because artilery outranged longbow and they must leave their secured pozition after obstaclest etc.
You often dont hear about 15 to 18 century period.I seen people divide it into 15- middle of 17 century period of reneisance and golden age of spain and ottomans.And middle of 17-18 century period until the industrial age
+ultor europae Well it is a French manual. Later refinements to the procedure no doubt included a restorative sip of cognac and a quick bite of fromage et escargots. ;-)
Gunpowder troops rarely stood alone on a 16th and 17th century battlefield. There would a group of pikemen and other infantry to protect them from infantry and calvary charges while they were reloading. And then there was the implementation of countermarching where the first line of gunmen headed to the back of their formation after they had fired to reload, allowing the next line to fire and so on. The Spanish Tercios used this technique to devestating effect during this time period.
As a safety precaution, I would have charged the pan last rather than first. With the lit match so close to powder in the pan, charging the barrel must be nerve racking to say the least...lol
As a modern time shooter I would do the the same. But when the guns were loaded from paper cartridges this was the first thing to do after biting the cartridge end off.
The biggest safety concern in those days was keeping the lit match out of the serpentine and between the fingers of the shooter's left hand until after the pan was primed and the main charge was loaded down the barrel. I personally witnessed an inadequately trained and drilled re-enactor load the way you suggested and nearly blew his hand off as well as the head of the guy standing next to him. This guy loaded the main charge down the muzzle first, brought the weapon around and primed the pan with the match mere inches away when suddenly, BOOM.In the video above, note which directions the muzzles are pointing while the shooters are priming the pan. If there was a ball in the barrel and you had an unintentional ignition... well..., whereas if the pan is loaded first, the most likely scenario would be a flash in the pan, worst case is you would do yourself in rather than take someone with you or instead of you.
There's also the hassle of up-ending the cartridge down the barrel but keeping just enough in the paper to prime the pan afterwards. Also, by priming the pan first, you're free to use the cartridge paper as a patch and/or wadding.
if you're talking to me Lats, if you read again you will notice that i agree with what you say. I wasn't talking to you btw but to public disgrace. mate xd
Very interesting demonstration.You don't see the matchlock fired very often.I wonder why they chose to prime first and load the bore second,but then again I guess the flash hole is safe until the match cord is introduced.
In later times, when they used a paper cartridge, they primed first so that you'd be certain that you would have enough powder to prime, load and fire the musket, and make it more efficient. As opposed to priming from a separate priming horn or flask.
@@TheAchilles26 No, that's why they drilled and drilled and drilled, to reduce the chances of such a thing happening. They had a very particular manual of arms to load and fire. During the loading, the match is held in the left hand, near the swell of the stock, and everything else was done with the right hand. The LAST thing done was to place the match in the serpentine, open the pan and fire.
Merci et bravo à Monsieur Morlin de donner les ordres en Français avec une belle maitrise de la langue. Et puis, quelle magnifique démonstration ! Bon, sur CapAndBall je n'ai vu que de superbes vidéos. Le seul défaut : cela peut rendre parfois un peu jaloux ;). Thank you to Mister Morlin for giving orders in French with a perfect accent. Then, what a amazing demonstration! Well, on CapAndBall, I only saw great videos. The only flaw: it can, sometimes, make me a little jealous;).
British re-enactors confirmed that it took 30 seconds for a trained musketeer to load and fire a matchlock musket for one aimed shot. The key words are, "trained" and "aimed", and one should add, 'experienced'. In the Far East where matchlock muskets remained in use between circa 1545 and roughly 1877, recorded in Korea, the length of time was the same, one minute to fire off two (2), aimed shots. A flintlock musketeer could fire three (3) aimed shots per minute because the shooter didn't have to handle a burning, match cord that was usually previously soaked in potassium.
The Dutch VOC soldiers had musket* disciplines very similar I think* I heard the term for a Dutch arquebus of the 1599 - 1600 era was Caliver but have been unable to corroborate. All I know is that a lead musket ball, of a calibre used by Dutch in the 1600s, was found on the WA coast very close to where the Dutch treasure ship the Gilt Dragon was wrecked in 1656An apparent 'expert on ancient European firearms' declared that the calibre was from an old smooth bore musket, and it had most likely been fired
Generally in the pike and shot era they would rotate guns to the front to keep up sustained fire. Cannons usually would only be fired at the beginning of the battle and if the crew could reload fast enough they might be able to get a second volley before they were engaged or the battle ended. We've come a long ways in how efficiently we kill each other since then.
It seems vainglorious and proud for atom man to boast so loud his prowess homocidal, when one remembers how for years, our sires, at wiping out their peers, were almost never idle.
I read that, the matchlock gunner could only get between 1-2 shots every two minutes. Obviously, if these guys worked fast, they might be able to get two shots every minute.
"the matchlock gunner could only get between 1-2 shots every two minutes." As I know, 1-2 shots in one minute (not two). Maybe the best gunners could 3.
Nothing's worse than a pendantic officer that insist on giving an order for each step of weapon charging and is made only worse when each soldier has a different weapon.
Who in the 30 years' war were they reenacting? It seems like France or Hispania (Spain), but I only say that because of it's resemblance to the Musketeers. If anyone knows please tell me.
+Mando'ade Verd Most everyone in the 30 Years war was indistinguishable. Uniforms were practically non-existant and troops were often resupplied with clothing in Germany.
1. Those are not rifles, but smoothbore muskets (however, rifling was existed, but very expensive at that times). 2. Becasue wheellock was expensive, and not common amongst foot soldiers.
I understand that back then, this was the routine, but, why didn't they stand behind a little cover and do this ? Yeah, it takes nerves of steel to do this but, I'll be damned if I'm going to stand in the middle of some treeless field and try to load my musket or pistol while the enemy is shooting at me. I guess you have to follow orders too though. Thanks for your video, nicely done .
17th century arquebuses were lighter and therefore also used from horse backs. Muskets were bigger and infantry weapons. But this is only true for the 17th century. The word "arquebus" in an early 16th century context for example meant a quite heavy and clumsy infantry weapon. So it really depends on the context. There isn't one specific type of arquebus, the term is very vague.
+Nickname hier einfügen it originally meant 'hook gun' as you hooked a sort of hook over any convenient object, it was in effect a hand cannon and just as dangerous to the man holding it as to the man infront of it, I've seen a demonstration of one where a candle was fired at a two inch thick block of seasoned oak which the candle duly shattered into two large pieces and hunreds of splinters...
What is the point of the rod the first musketeer has? It's used to hold the gun, was the recoil on the matchlock that intense? Or is there a different purpose to it?
@@kristofantal8801 Heavy and not well balanced. @dominatorN4 The musket-rest helps you hold the musket level and steady. A full reenactment musket generally weighs about 8 kilos.
This is the perfect example of what "Well Regulated" in the time period of the matchlock and on through to the U.S. Revolution meant. Not the modern meaning that gun grabbers like to use. Thank you for posting this video.
In a world where killing people in war can now be done from a chair hundreds if not thousands of miles away. Unmanned vehicles, and "Smart" stuff. You have to respect the hell out of this.
No, it's "Le bassinet", confirmed by looking in a dictionnary from the middle ages: "1575 « pièce creuse de la batterie d'une arme à feu à silex, dans laquelle on met l'amorce " and "mousquet" with the older spelling being mosquet from the Italian: moschetto. 1568 mosquet (Arch. municipales de Bayonne, Reg. fr., I, 162 d'apr. K. Baldinger ds R. Ling. rom. t. 20, p. 83); 1571 mousquet (Inventaire des pièces d'artillerie des duchés de Lorraine et de Bar ds Journal de la Soc. d'archéol. lorraine, 1869, p. 109). Empr. à l'ital. moschetto, nom donné à une arme à feu portable dep. début xvies. (Sanudo ds Batt.), masc. formé sur moschetta « flèche de l'arbalète
What language are they speaking, just out of curiosity? It makes me think French, but doesn't sound French at all times, then I think it may be Dutch, but I'm not sure.
bademeister Thanks! I asked a French friend he confirmed for the very day I asked it, and he did say it is from a foreigner, sounds as if it was pronounced by an Hungarian or so.
Wait why is there documents on how they were used from the 17th century, like why are you still using matchlocks when muskets were readily avaliable.......
My question is how a unit like this would not get decimated by Horse archers? Most horse archers of late armor period could just ride in a circle pattern reload and shoot while moving.
The men with pikes wouldn't allow them to get close, and they would be hit with a shit ton of fire. They also would be limited to operating in completely open terrain. Basically the armies that used the two never would have fought much in the first place.
I'm not sure if all forces musket armed soldiers back then followed the lengthy ritual steps to firing their guns unless their commander was a stuck up strict asshole that flogged his men for the slightest wrong doing or something.
In those days, you would have files of ranks that would fire off volleys in rotation. For instance, you would have 8 ranks of 12 files. The first rank would fire their volley, turn, then march to the rear of their respective file and start the reloading procedure. Once that first rank would march to the rear, the next rank would fire then march to the rear and reload, etc. By the time the first rank had rotated its way back to the front rank, they would be reloaded and ready to go. The movie "Alatriste" illustrates that tactic nicely in the final battle during the last 15 minutes of the film.
it is for all the shooters to fire at the same time. these weapons were not really accurate, the important thing was to send a devastating "wall" of projectiles.
@@kristofantal8801 And it was faster to train a group of musketeers than a group of archers. You don't need to develop the muscle strength necessary to draw a warbow if you are armed with a musket. And with heavy crossbows you ran into problems with reload times as you would need a tool to help draw back the string into place. It became much more economical to arm your ranged troops with muskets over the alternatives.
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Sneaking [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ILUps2zDFU/mqdefault.jpg)
"READY THE BAGUETTE!"
Andrew Lay We stand no chance against those baguettes!...
Andrew Lay it means stick
1:23 ready the baguette, all the baguette! control e stomach
baguette means long thing in french what literly defines a ramrod
@@JWvdv Yes. That doesn't make it any less funny though.
1:23 I died when all of the sudden he said "ready the baguette"
+HOLYFEAR2001 I am going to edit that section so that it's my text tone!
French tis a silly language
The French have a more militaristic mind than they'll readily admit to then...
:P
"READY LA BAGUETTE!"
"READY LE BEURRE!"
"READY LA CONFITURE!"
"DEJEUNER!"
(45 minutes go by as the musketeers eat their lunch)
Gj23jk2
You are the first person in a while that made me legitimately laugh out loud!
I like the individual powder loads hanging in tubes from the foremost gunner. Seems like a time-saving innovation.
If I'm not mistaken, there were usually about 12 of them and they were often called 'apostles'.
Terrifying position to be in however. Drill for musketeers was extremely specific and careful because of the constantly burning matchcord being an everpresent danger with explosives hanging off you and everyone around you.
@Tactical Aioli At least back then you could get rich through plundering. Can't do that anymore..
It is so when he is killed the powder is easily taken by another soldier
@Tactical Aioli that was not pretty clothing for the period, 17th century fashion was extremely extravagant, pretty would be louis xiv clothes
By the time they finished firing those muskets, I read War & Peace 3 times cover to cover. No wonder why the 30-years war lasted so long
Fun fact, over the entirety of the Thirty Years' War, there was only time for 9 reloads.
actually those are just the basic moves, obviously a well trained soldier would do that in a matter of seconds
A good soldier could fire about every 1 minute and 30 seconds. Quite long by todays standards, you can see why the bullet and bolt action rifle where such revelations
@@GuyMaleMan i agree. Well, this is a heavy musket, designed to defeat cuirassier armor. If they use lighter arquebus, they might reload it faster.
@@GuyMaleMan lol what? A trained soldier fired 3 times a minute with a 20 second reload mate
call of duty: advanced Matchlock
I would shit myself with glee.
*****
Hit reload button. Wait five minutes. Press fire. Misfire, have to reload.
*****
The horrible shrieks of teenaged bro impatience from couches all across the globe would be audible from the International Space Station.
Would totally play that.
It would be a totally strange sensation, the absolute opposite of the usual CoD experience where you're basically Captain America.
The first battle experience is nothing but you watching other guys get shot, waiting for your chance to fire a single round.
Wonderful demonstration of the rich European history we don't often see in the US. Thanks!
No, in America (High School) we got to choose our classes. American history and government are the only required classes for social studies. So yes, some Americans can go their entire lives without knowing any European history.
I took AP European History (optional class) which covers the Renaissance until the end of the Cold War from a European Perspective. I also took Medieval and Ancient History (both optional), which covers both East Asia and Europe.
Another awesome class I took focused specifically on East Asia, mostly China, that is is because China has been the dominant cultural and economic power in that region for the majority of history and the present.
shut the fuck up racist white male
@@Chadaface what,s your problem with european history?
@@sergiorivillocarrere2685 i dont like white people
@@Chadaface So, you are racist.
Congrats for the quality of the french orders . These ones should be understand by french mother tongue users . This video is remarquable for the quality of the clothes and firearms . Thanks .
Even I understand the orders, and I'm not even French!
Un accent français très lourd hahah.
im not a native French speaker and i understood every order lol.
Indeed, i'm French and these orders are perfectly understandable despite a few mistakes. And i love the accent
Aymeric G please, can you write all that orders in french here in comments? We are looking it for theatre! Please, please, sir ))
Nicely done! I almost forgot about the wicked mode of firing. You have to give major credit for someone to stand and recharge their weapon while the opposing side is firing a volley at you...takes nerves of steel.
Musketeers were considered support troops back then, cav and pike men did most of the fighting back then, musketeers were position behind the pikes and were less likely to die, also the opposing army also did not have many musketeers either, muskets were also extremely inaccurate and were used mostly to scare the enemy and demorilise them, the wounds caused by these muskets must have been horrendous
@@armincal9834 Where did you get your misinformation? 1. Musketeers outnumbered pikemen, the pikemen supported the musketeers by defending them against cavalry, not the other way around. 2. Two pike squares almost never fought each other, it was considered "bad war." The muskets did all the killing, far from just scaring the enemy! 3. And no, they weren't behind the pikemen, how the hell would they be able to shoot? Two musketeer columns would flank one pike square. They were inaccurate, yes, that's why they used massed volleys to slowly whittle down the enemy ranks over many hours, until one side routed and ran for the hills. That's when the cavalry swooped in and slaughtered them before they could regroup.
@@everfaithful9272 which era are you talking about tho?
@@arminharper510 Judging from the high-waisted, short tabbed muskets, this looks to be about 1640. Ever-Faithful is spot on.
@@everfaithful9272 They weren't even that inaccurate. They were obviously extremely inaccurate compared to the modern rifles we're used to. But they were a lot more accurate than the bows and crossbows people had been using up to that point, as is attested by essentially everyone that was on either end of them.
2:13 sights and sounds of history.
The Three Musketeers!
One pistol
This is what we never see in movies. It was lenghty process and if done wrong, there was big danger for everybody around.
Très belle démonstration.
On se croirait en 1610, 1620 sous Louis XIII et le cardinal de Richelieu, ou au Québec.
Les ordres en français sont bien compréhensible. Bel effort linguistique.
Bravo messieurs.
(Very nice demonstration.
It feels like 1610, 1620, under Louis XIII and Cardinal Richelieu, or in Quebec.
The orders in French are quite understandable. Nice linguistic effort.
Well done gentlemen.)
It amazes me how much weapons advanced in 5 centuries
Im a new subscriber and amazing video!
Aaah, so that's why they were always battling in multiple row formation, the front row fires and the back row reloads. I didn't realize reloading these things was such a pain in the butt
And they didn't even use live ammo, just touched off the powder charge is all. So add another ten seconds.
@@Chris-2-of-3, no need to add any time, as period accounts specify a roughly one minute reload time. These guys were noticeably slower than that for various reasons, including the fact that they're moving at demonstration speeds intead of combat speeds
Not really. The aim is to get as many guns to bear as possible. Muskets have very low range, so a spread out line is inefficient and not all guns will be able to hit a target putting pressure on one point in the line. So instead they half or third or even quarter the line’s length, allowing everyone to be in better range of the target.
Line battles made the British army deadly, they would get reeaaaaally close to the enemy, then discharge rifles at a deadly range, then make a bayonet charge. They would destroy any foe they found in their way. The discipline to march so close to an enemy mowing your fellow red coats is admirable, they mostly won in the end of each battle.
This lot did very well. These are the most temperamental, potentially dangerous weapons you ever saw. It's unbelievable how easily something can go wrong.
Very cool video. And I don't just mean those crazy looking pants that guy on the left is wearing. I think the matchlock is a very intriguing and underrated weapon. You just don't see a lot of people talking about them. But honestly I don't know which would be harder.... having to follow these slow instructions in the heat of battle knowing that the enemy is going to be upon you in seconds; or having to wear those crazy pants all day long! Be sure to pass along our gratitude to your friends for helping you put together this video. They did a spectacular job!
AK107DX
Hi, this is only partially true. The greatest power of the infantry forming a 2 or 3 person deep line is the volley, not the individual shots. Until these commads are used on the battlefield, the officers have chance to issue commands to the tropps. If the "fire at will" starts no more commanding is possible due to the noise.
***** Musket formation in the 16th and 17th Century were as many a 10 ranks deep. The front rank would present and fire on command then counter march through the fomation to the rear reloading as they went. The next rank would step up to the line, present and fire on command, then countermarch while reloading. This revolving would continue until the battle was over or the musketeers ran out of powder and shot. In this manner the company could fire a concentrated volley every few seconds while reloading and keeping good order, but the officer in command did not have to give each and every command nor were the musketeers slowed down by the drill commands being given.
Matt Leiby
Hi Matt, You are right. What I wrote is only true for early and mid 16th century tactics. Thanks for the info.
***** If I'm not mistaken, you'd have the front. Fank that fired kneel to get out of the way, too, in some cases.
Gorgeous rifles there, sad to see no matchlock kits available. They look fun, and it'd be nice to have at least one one gun that didn't rely on caps (which can be a bit hard to find) I can make my own match easier then caps.
+DFX2KX Ever considered a flint lock plenty of reproduction Brown Bess muskets about.
Very nice! I always enjoy shooting my Matchlocks. I like that others do share that love of old arms.
I allways wanted a matchlock musket.
Matchlocks deserve more attention. Asian countries had some particularly advanced and very interesting matchlocks.
No wonder it was so tempting to stick with longbows back then. I know training a proficient longbowman took years, but good gravy would I not want to try this under combat!
That's why they had massed infantry fire. First line fires, starts to reload while second line fires, third line fires, etc. It was very effective.
who was "sticking with longbows" in the XVII century, sorry?
paolo rossi I mean people definitely still used bows
Not really ..not on a battlefield...and not if they had the chance to get muskets.
The use of the bows have been greatly reduced in the 16th century.
His french is good i must say. I can understand almost everything
Archers fire 2-3 arrows when cavalery massacred them, because arrows can not be ablle penetrated knight armour from long distance. When aguebusiers fire one voley whitch was capable stop cavalery charge. This is the reason why muskets reolaces longbow.
_SiBI _ People don't realise how hard it is to actually snipe with a bow, takes months to train that muscle for it.
@@cloroxbleach9222 well, more like years because it takes a lot of practice to gain skill especially with war bows. As for rifles mere weeks to months to train.
@@cloroxbleach9222 Sorry i dont agree with you. On English coutriside every man knew use longbow in middle ages. They didnt have shortage of skilled longbowmen. Longbow dissapered because artilery replaced them as muskets replaced pikes and swords.
@@ales811507 The longbow fell out of use in England gradually, over the course of the 16th century, due to a proliferation of munitions-grade armour, and was replaced by the arquebus/musket. There are several edicts given during the reign of Henry VIII, commanding the commons to keep to the butts on Sundays - the repetition suggests they were slacking off. After Flodden 1513, when the storm of longbow arrows failed to stop the Scottish advance, the time of the longbow drew to a close. The Royal Navy was still using them to shoot fire arrows (a goodly bunch was found on the Mary Rose, along with about a dozen muskets) up to the time of the Armada. I also recall there was a problem getting Spanish Yew, which was preferred to English Yew, after the Divorce.
Artillery did play some part, though the pike was kept around (at a reduced ratio - mainly as protection from cavalry) until the bayonet was invented.
@@KM-hw6tw Artilery replaced longbow as long range weapon. Muskets replaces pikes as standart infantry weapon. Longbow dissapear not because shortage of arrows or good wood, It was repalced because artilery outranged longbow and they must leave their secured pozition after obstaclest etc.
That was AWESOME!!! No wonder the archers and crossbowmen felt a little out-gunned!!
Shooting twice in 3 minutes is good. Deadly and beautiful!
You often dont hear about 15 to 18 century period.I seen people divide it into 15- middle of 17 century period of reneisance and golden age of spain and ottomans.And middle of 17-18 century period until the industrial age
Funny how the way the man's prononciation might be closer to the french accent of the era (up to 19th century) then the modern common accent
Might be Quebec
It's a hungarian accent.
It's French but spoken by someone who has a different native language.
@@HepCatJack oui, cest un accent hongrois.
1:21 did he actually say something about a baguette?
I think it's the ramrod.
Jaalco
LOL okay. so "baguette" means something like "rod" or "stick" , makes sense
+ultor europae Well it is a French manual. Later refinements to the procedure no doubt included a restorative sip of cognac and a quick bite of fromage et escargots. ;-)
I suppose they had to shout "stand still till I load the gun" to the enemy.
They rotated...
Gunpowder troops rarely stood alone on a 16th and 17th century battlefield. There would a group of pikemen and other infantry to protect them from infantry and calvary charges while they were reloading. And then there was the implementation of countermarching where the first line of gunmen headed to the back of their formation after they had fired to reload, allowing the next line to fire and so on. The Spanish Tercios used this technique to devestating effect during this time period.
Awesome piece of history here. Great work!
No wonder it's called the 30 years war
😆😅🤣😂
Fascinating. One can see what infantrymen had to go through with those tedious and cumbersome weapons.
But, they were still the most advanced battlefield weapon of the time, and took far less time to train someone to use, unlike the sword or the bow.
he didn't say "ready the bagette" he said: "prenez le baguette" which means "take the baguette"
As a safety precaution, I would have charged the pan last rather than first. With the lit match so close to powder in the pan, charging the barrel must be nerve racking to say the least...lol
As a modern time shooter I would do the the same. But when the guns were loaded from paper cartridges this was the first thing to do after biting the cartridge end off.
The biggest safety concern in those days was keeping the lit match out of the serpentine and between the fingers of the shooter's left hand until after the pan was primed and the main charge was loaded down the barrel. I personally witnessed an inadequately trained and drilled re-enactor load the way you suggested and nearly blew his hand off as well as the head of the guy standing next to him. This guy loaded the main charge down the muzzle first, brought the weapon around and primed the pan with the match mere inches away when suddenly, BOOM.In the video above, note which directions the muzzles are pointing while the shooters are priming the pan. If there was a ball in the barrel and you had an unintentional ignition... well..., whereas if the pan is loaded first, the most likely scenario would be a flash in the pan, worst case is you would do yourself in rather than take someone with you or instead of you.
There's also the hassle of up-ending the cartridge down the barrel but keeping just enough in the paper to prime the pan afterwards. Also, by priming the pan first, you're free to use the cartridge paper as a patch and/or wadding.
better have the primer go off without the main charge in the barrel then the other way round mate
if you're talking to me Lats, if you read again you will notice that i agree with what you say. I wasn't talking to you btw but to public disgrace.
mate xd
Very interesting demonstration.You don't see the matchlock fired very often.I wonder why they chose to prime first and load the bore second,but then again I guess the flash hole is safe until the match cord is introduced.
In later times, when they used a paper cartridge, they primed first so that you'd be certain that you would have enough powder to prime, load and fire the musket, and make it more efficient. As opposed to priming from a separate priming horn or flask.
Loading the bore first has significant risk of accidentally shooting each other when priming.
@@TheAchilles26 No, that's why they drilled and drilled and drilled, to reduce the chances of such a thing happening. They had a very particular manual of arms to load and fire. During the loading, the match is held in the left hand, near the swell of the stock, and everything else was done with the right hand. The LAST thing done was to place the match in the serpentine, open the pan and fire.
Merci et bravo à Monsieur Morlin de donner les ordres en Français avec une belle maitrise de la langue. Et puis, quelle magnifique démonstration ! Bon, sur CapAndBall je n'ai vu que de superbes vidéos. Le seul défaut : cela peut rendre parfois un peu jaloux ;).
Thank you to Mister Morlin for giving orders in French with a perfect accent. Then, what a amazing demonstration! Well, on CapAndBall, I only saw great videos. The only flaw: it can, sometimes, make me a little jealous;).
As a french speaker, I find their accents hilarious xD; but great video nonetheless.
I am french... and It took me 1 min to understand he was speaking french... lol
Same 😂
British re-enactors confirmed that it took 30 seconds for a trained musketeer to load and fire a matchlock musket for one aimed shot. The key words are, "trained" and "aimed", and one should add, 'experienced'.
In the Far East where matchlock muskets remained in use between circa 1545 and roughly 1877, recorded in Korea, the length of time was the same, one minute to fire off two (2), aimed shots.
A flintlock musketeer could fire three (3) aimed shots per minute because the shooter didn't have to handle a burning, match cord that was usually previously soaked in potassium.
Great demonstration!! and three at a time. Congratulations!!
The Dutch VOC soldiers had musket* disciplines very similar I think* I heard the term for a Dutch arquebus of the 1599 - 1600 era was Caliver but have been unable to corroborate. All I know is that a lead musket ball, of a calibre used by Dutch in the 1600s, was found on the WA coast very close to where the Dutch treasure ship the Gilt Dragon was wrecked in 1656An apparent 'expert on ancient European firearms' declared that the calibre was from an old smooth bore musket, and it had most likely been fired
Check out Wapenhandelinghe van Roers Musquetten ende Spiessen by Jacob de Gheyn II(1565-1629)
Thank you for this great video. Something we don't see every day.
My friend who plays pubg too much: yeah this is definitely bolt action rifle
Generally in the pike and shot era they would rotate guns to the front to keep up sustained fire.
Cannons usually would only be fired at the beginning of the battle and if the crew could reload fast enough they might be able to get a second volley before they were engaged or the battle ended.
We've come a long ways in how efficiently we kill each other since then.
It seems vainglorious and proud for atom man to boast so loud his prowess homocidal, when one remembers how for years, our sires, at wiping out their peers, were almost never idle.
I like that dude's mc Hammer pants 👍
I have a stock and barrel that are going to be a .58 caliber "caliver" style matchlock carbine soon. Just need the weather to not be so cold!
in kneeling position may make shooting more accurate i think
Ak 47: hey look kids its your great great great great great great great great grand daddy
*I can't believe they're still alive*
I read that, the matchlock gunner could only get between 1-2 shots every two minutes. Obviously, if these guys worked fast, they might be able to get two shots every minute.
"the matchlock gunner could only get between 1-2 shots every two minutes." As I know, 1-2 shots in one minute (not two). Maybe the best gunners could 3.
Great video with the perfect "mode opératoire en Français du 18ième siècle" Best regards from France ! " en joue , voilà !"
I'm disappointed they didn't actually pulls out a Baguatte
wheellock pistol the matchlock muskets 😮
Very cool video gentlemen.
Excellent to see. THANKS
And in three hundreds years flat
Would each action be ordered separate in battle
Seems like it would slow down reloading
Beautiful!
I didn't know that French bread also meant ramrod. :O
Fantastic!!!! Thank You.
What's the language they are speaking? It doesn't sound like modern French. Is it an archaic French dialect, or is it Occitan or something?
Well, thanks for trying to speak french ! I won't point the mistakes, because it's nice to see that you tried !
I'm not even french and I can hear the thick accent. But other than that this was real cool.
actually his accent (hungarian I guess), is quite similar to the old french one, like French Canadian.
Nice vid. Definitely don't see that everyday on RUclips.
Your channel is awesome!!!!
what are the similarities and differences between arquebus and musket?
Originally, the musket was a heavier version of the arquebuse...
1 round per 3 minutes. That can't be legal in California.
No kidding.
I had a matchlock, and hated it. Damn thing wouldn't fire half the time.
European Cosplay is "Next Level".
Nothing's worse than a pendantic officer that insist on giving an order for each step of weapon charging and is made only worse when each soldier has a different weapon.
We've come a long way, haven't we...
En français dans le texte 👍!
And he don’t say : « ready the baguette ! « but « prenez la baguette ! » who is, in french, correct.
Who in the 30 years' war were they reenacting? It seems like France or Hispania (Spain), but I only say that because of it's resemblance to the Musketeers. If anyone knows please tell me.
+Mando'ade Verd
Most everyone in the 30 Years war was indistinguishable. Uniforms were practically non-existant and troops were often resupplied with clothing in Germany.
Why only pistol is wheelock and rifle is matchlock?
1. Those are not rifles, but smoothbore muskets (however, rifling was existed, but very expensive at that times). 2. Becasue wheellock was expensive, and not common amongst foot soldiers.
I understand that back then, this was the routine, but, why didn't they stand behind a little cover and do this ? Yeah, it takes nerves of steel to do this but, I'll be damned if I'm going to stand in the middle of some treeless field and try to load my musket or pistol while the enemy is shooting at me. I guess you have to follow orders too though. Thanks for your video, nicely done .
Centuries ago soldiers were loading and reloading their weapons for centuries..
Guys which is the main difference between the dark brown musket and an arquebus?,their appearance is very similar.sorry but my english is not the best
17th century arquebuses were lighter and therefore also used from horse backs. Muskets were bigger and infantry weapons. But this is only true for the 17th century. The word "arquebus" in an early 16th century context for example meant a quite heavy and clumsy infantry weapon. So it really depends on the context. There isn't one specific type of arquebus, the term is very vague.
+Nickname hier einfügen it originally meant 'hook gun' as you hooked a sort of hook over any convenient object, it was in effect a hand cannon and just as dangerous to the man holding it as to the man infront of it, I've seen a demonstration of one where a candle was fired at a two inch thick block of seasoned oak which the candle duly shattered into two large pieces and hunreds of splinters...
peter forden
Yep, that's the earlier usage of the word I mentioned.
The wheelocks on the arquebus go round and round, round and round, round and round...
the red coat guy was confused lmao
What is the point of the rod the first musketeer has? It's used to hold the gun, was the recoil on the matchlock that intense? Or is there a different purpose to it?
dominatorN4 Damned gun weighted 20 lbs.
That...makes sense then.
@@dominatorN4 Yes, it's a musket stand. The muskets were heavy between the mid-16th century and the mid-17th century.
@@kristofantal8801 Heavy and not well balanced. @dominatorN4 The musket-rest helps you hold the musket level and steady. A full reenactment musket generally weighs about 8 kilos.
This is the perfect example of what "Well Regulated" in the time period of the matchlock and on through to the U.S. Revolution meant. Not the modern meaning that gun grabbers like to use. Thank you for posting this video.
*****
"in the time period of the matchlock AND ON THROUGH to the U.S. Revolution"... Read the words.
Pfletch83 yes. We should teach every US citizen to fire a matchlock rifle or a flintlock musket
Yep that way they'll be more appreciative of what we have these days in regards to firearms tech.
you dumb fuck..Burgers did their revolutions 100 years after this...
Yeah. No. Founding fathers didn't include a list of stipulations man. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Fabulous guns
That took a whole 2 minutes and 13 seconds to load.
by the time they fired their next shot, they'll have 10 arrows sticking in their chests.
By who? :D
My dumbass thought they were speaking Hungarian until I heard baguette.
In a world where killing people in war can now be done from a chair hundreds if not thousands of miles away. Unmanned vehicles, and "Smart" stuff. You have to respect the hell out of this.
It's not bassinette, mousquette, it's bassinay , mousquay , thanks .
No, it's "Le bassinet", confirmed by looking in a dictionnary from the middle ages: "1575 « pièce creuse de la batterie d'une arme à feu à silex, dans laquelle on met l'amorce "
and "mousquet" with the older spelling being mosquet from the Italian: moschetto.
1568 mosquet (Arch. municipales de Bayonne, Reg. fr., I, 162 d'apr. K. Baldinger ds R. Ling. rom. t. 20, p. 83); 1571 mousquet (Inventaire des pièces d'artillerie des duchés de Lorraine et de Bar ds Journal de la Soc. d'archéol. lorraine, 1869, p. 109). Empr. à l'ital. moschetto, nom donné à une arme à feu portable dep. début xvies. (Sanudo ds Batt.), masc. formé sur moschetta « flèche de l'arbalète
All that and then they miss the target.
middle man lost his "lighter" on the last one lol
Very cool.
What language are they speaking, just out of curiosity? It makes me think French, but doesn't sound French at all times, then I think it may be Dutch, but I'm not sure.
bademeister
Thanks! I asked a French friend he confirmed for the very day I asked it, and he did say it is from a foreigner, sounds as if it was pronounced by an Hungarian or so.
Eduard Bodnar And it was pronounced by a HUngarian :)
***** Wow. I wonder how can one guess that easily.
""It makes me think French, but doesn't sound French "
I m french and i laught .....
Druisteen Do
I said "at all times", you french Swine.
Wait why is there documents on how they were used from the 17th century, like why are you still using matchlocks when muskets were readily avaliable.......
Matchlocks are muskets. You mean flintlocks.
And matxhlocks are much cheaper to build.
and da ting goes SKKKRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAA PAPAPAPAPAPAPA
3:12 how close was he to firing his weapon right there?
At 3:19 you can see that he was sliding out the pan cover of the musket, which prevents that from happening
Gabriel Cruz gotcha. Makes sense now. Didn’t see that action til you pointed it out. Thanks!
My question is how a unit like this would not get decimated by Horse archers? Most horse archers of late armor period could just ride in a circle pattern reload and shoot while moving.
The men with pikes wouldn't allow them to get close, and they would be hit with a shit ton of fire. They also would be limited to operating in completely open terrain.
Basically the armies that used the two never would have fought much in the first place.
What time period ya think around 1600??
Yes, correct. Very late 16th to very early 17th centruy.
@@kristofantal8801 Judging by the hats, falling band collars and cut of the doublets about 1627 - 1640 AD
I'm not sure if all forces musket armed soldiers back then followed the lengthy ritual steps to firing their guns unless their commander was a stuck up strict asshole that flogged his men for the slightest wrong doing or something.
Imagine doing that while being shot at!
In those days, you would have files of ranks that would fire off volleys in rotation. For instance, you would have 8 ranks of 12 files. The first rank would fire their volley, turn, then march to the rear of their respective file and start the reloading procedure. Once that first rank would march to the rear, the next rank would fire then march to the rear and reload, etc. By the time the first rank had rotated its way back to the front rank, they would be reloaded and ready to go. The movie "Alatriste" illustrates that tactic nicely in the final battle during the last 15 minutes of the film.
immediately after they surrender to the germans
trop génial merci a vous tous
why were there commands for every thing
it is for all the shooters to fire at the same time. these weapons were not really accurate, the important thing was to send a devastating "wall" of projectiles.
To make sure everyone does them especially in the heat of battle
It's surprising that these primitive fire arms could make the bows and crossbows disappear from the battlefield so soon.
Because for example bows and crossbows were ineffective against plate armors...
@@kristofantal8801 And it was faster to train a group of musketeers than a group of archers. You don't need to develop the muscle strength necessary to draw a warbow if you are armed with a musket. And with heavy crossbows you ran into problems with reload times as you would need a tool to help draw back the string into place. It became much more economical to arm your ranged troops with muskets over the alternatives.