Thank you Sir, for explaining in details the functionment of those old fire arms. Today they are less known among the public, but this is historical value.
I like old era weapons too :D if the flintlock musket was pretty hard to load the matchlock must've been an absolute nightmare to reload im the heat of battle!
Thanks for joining the conversation, and I'm glad you enjoyed the video. Matchlock videos are pretty uncommon. I think the main reason for this is because they were only used in North America for a few decades before they were supplanted by flintlocks. Matchlocks were great for arming a few thousand musketeers in European armies where you had easy supply lines. In North America keeping up with logistics of match made things more difficult. You cant just use any old rope you have to have specially treated match cord for these weapons to function reliably and shipping match all the way from England took up space that could be used for other goods needed in the colonies. There are also fewer matchlock reproductions out there which makes teaching about them today more difficult as well.
@@adankmeme651 that mostly comes down to training and tactics. Matchlocks did their job when used in combination with pikemen, cavalry and artillery on the European battlefield. Professional musketeers were flanked by armored swordsmen and pikemen who protected them while they were reloading. The musketeers also took turns firing at the enemy to help ensure they had enough time to reload.
@@kristopherpeters6703 The best match cord back in the day was made of hemp (less ash than cotton or linen) treated with a solution of lead sugar (aka, lead acetate) to “lead” the cord. [Source: Dittrich, R., Heilinger, H., & Köhler, TH., „Die Entwicklung der Handfeuerwaffe - Ein Überblick“, _Von alten Handfeuerwaffen: Entwicklung, Technik, Leistung: Katalog zur Sonder-ausstellung im Landeszaughaus,_ Veröffentlichungen des Landeszeughauses Graz, № 12 (Landesmuseum Johanneum Graz, 1989), p. 27.] As the availability of match cord wasn't guaranteed, the musketeer/arquebusier was expected to make match cord in the field by dissolving gunpowder (which is mostly saltpeter) in water, letting the solids settle out, wetting some available hemp, linen, or cotton cord in the supernatant solution, and allowing it to fully dry.
This is a great video. I've been looking for information on how accurate they were and this answered. I also like the mention about the side arm. I've read during the English civil war there were instances where forces would get too close and start going into a scrum. They couldn't draw their sword so they would flip it around and use it like a club. Then we have the native Americans who liked their gun stock war clubs but I'm not sure if that has any relation.
Yes, there are many examples of musketeers "clubbing" their muskets during a melee fight. However you risk damaging your musket 3000 miles away from home and swords are a much more effective weapon than a clubbed musket.
It took him almost a minute to load the musket and fire it-- And that's with dry powder-- Now, imagine a native warrior charging him with a war club, and yelling a war whoop!!!!! That soldier, or militia man wouldn't stand a chance----
Two aimed shots per minute, with an average of12 chargers on the bandolier. Does this mean musket formations would be expected to stand for only 5-6 minutes, shooting, before retiring behind pikemen to resupply? Tactically, were the muskets mostly used to shake a defending line before the pikes and/or cavalry advanced?
Thanks for the question. Yes. That's pretty much how they were used in the 17th century. Now we also have to look at the tactical differences between the European battlefield and the frontier of Virginia. In Europe the bulk of every army in the 17th century was composed of pikemen. All of the pikemen were wearing plate armor, helmets, carried pikes that were of similar length and were trained to fight each other with the same tactics no matter what country they were from. They are equally balanced fighters so you have to find a way to gain an advantage over the enemy. Cavalry were shock troops that were used for flanking, attacking artillery, and charging weak spots in the battle formations, but they were absolutely useless against pikes. Musketeers were support troops who fired at enemy pike blocks to cause disruption in the formations that could be exploited by your own pikemen, they were light infantry who went to the battlefield unarmored and were expected to move around much faster than the pike blocks. In Virginia, the English had to completely rethink their tactics. Pikes and cavalry were almost useless in the wilderness of Tidewater Virginia. The English came with the expectation to fight against Spain in Virginia and instead ended up fighting with the Powhatan Indians, who wouldn't engage the English in open fields like a European army. So musketeers became the primary soldiers of the Virginia Company and they started wearing armor to protect against Powhatan clubs and arrows. They were supported by armored swordsmen who would protect the musketeers while they were reloading. This flexibility of the English military tactics is a large part of the reason they were eventually able to control 1/4 of the earths population by the beginning of the 20th century.
Dear friend, I have an old japanese teppo, 130 cm long, 12.5 mm bore, Hormady 480 round balls with patch, 2.8 grams of Swiss black powder n. 3, but when I shoot I'm always afraid. Black powder and fuse don't get along. I miss the Samurai armor, but it, in Italy, costs around € 40,000..... I recommend you to use glasses to protect yourself. Saluti dal Tiro a Segno Nazionale di Milano, ciao
Thank you. Ironically I can't stand wearing that burgonet, but its the only period appropriate helmet that I have access to right now and it does look good on film lol.
Actually plug bayonets we're used for Matchlocks before it was replaced by the Flintlock for militaries of the day. Wasn't the most efficient invention of the day but it helped replace some pikemen on the battlefield.
Thanks for joining the discussion. Plug bayonets were used with matchlock muskets but they weren't introduced until the latter half of the 17th century. During the First Anglo Powhatan War in the 1610's they didn't exist yet. Most musketeers carried a musket, sword, and dagger while in the field.
@@kristopherpeters6703 your right to a degree it actually was used in the 30 Years' War near the end by different opponents. France is credited to the invention before the mid-1600s. However, reports of the invention traces back to China as early as 1610. So it's kinda debatable on when they were actually used or invented really??? At the time must of Europe really didn't have what you would consider standard professional armies at the time. Normally it was mercenary armies or bands of militia controlled by Feudal Lords or Nobility raised for a Monarch or a Principality. So those type of troops can carry anything real (atleast in Europe).
Archaeological sites in Virginia have turned up snaphaunce locks, so we know they were used in the early colonial period. However matchlocks were far more common then and now. Reproductions of snaphaunce muskets are very rare and very expensive.
@@kristopherpeters6703 Thank you. In the 1623/24 Muster Captain William Tucker reported 24 snaphance in his household (which was the most of anyone listed in the entire colony at that time). Based on history we know that Captain Tucker was commissioned by England to lead several raids against the Native Americans in retaliation for the 1622 massacre.
@@stucker1214 Matchlocks are insanely simple and durable guns. Even if you break the lock you can still use the match to ignite the gunpowder by hand. However they have one major flaw compared to all of the other firearms at the time. And that is the logistics of dealing with the match. Without properly made match cord they are basically useless. And keeping a steady flow of match cord into Virginia was a big task. So by the 1610s firelocks like snaphaunces were already becoming more popular in Virginia because they didn't need match cord. By the 1620s there were more firelocks than matchlocks, and by the middle of the century matchlocks were all but abandoned. The more affluent English immigrants to Virginia, like Captain Tucker, were bringing the bulk of the firelocks into Virginia in the 1610's and 20's by the 1630s they were proliferating. During the Second Anglo Powhatan War (following Opecancanough's uprising in 1622) and the Third Anglo Powhatan War in the 1640s most of the English combatants would have been armed with Snaphaunce and English Lock muskets, supplied by the more affluent members of the colony like Captain Tucker.
@@kristopherpeters6703 another severe drawback with machlocks are that they are not nearly as weather resistant as flintlocks. Keeping the match alight during rain or snow fall was not an easy task. And if you can't keep the match alight you are simply left with a large, unwealdy club.
@@Verdunveteran I would say the opposite, with good match it is hot and less susceptible to damp the way a flintlock is. Experience at the two JYF museums over 30 years of firing demos has shown us this. Match burns between 600-700 degrees, I find it very difficult to put out. What kind of match have you used? are you speaking from experience? (we almost never have problems with misfires in anything but very heavy rain and snow, )
In the old time 15th and 16th century soldiers were trained to used those arms. They were specialized squads, when other soldiers with pikes, swords, halebard, axes, protect you.
Could you share the period source for that term? I have often wondered if this might be from Spanish soldiers. Because it absolutely is not an English term. Until 1960 at least.
@@fabricio-agrippa-zarate If it was a common term, it would be easy enough to quote, one actual source from 1600's would prove your point. Hope you can, professional historians have been trying to prove that for decades, and have failed. Therefore, we must conclude it's a modern invention.
@@fredscholpp5838 Many reenactors and even historians mistakenly apply the name “apostle” to the charges. This came from the bandolier being misnamed the “twelve apostles” because of the number of charges thereon. That term, frequently referred to in modern secondary source literature, came into use only in more recent times. There isn’t one source prior to the late 19th century mentioning this term which indicates that it originated in the Victorian era when Renaissance studies were gaining popularity. English History scholars of the time examined extant examples of bandoliers from the English Civil War preserved in the Tower of London and found they all had 12 charges; that was the standard in England during the 17th century. Being in the habit of romanticizing history and the fact that most wars were about religion, they rationalized the number of charges as being influenced by the number of Jesus’ disciples. To set the record straight, the number of charges was determined from the size of the musket, that is, the weight of the ball. Each musketeer was issued a pound of lead from which they would cast their ammunition. If they had a 1⅓ oz musket, a pound of lead would provide them with 12 balls. A “two-ounce” musket would have eight charges. Throughout Europe, the number of charges varied between 8 and 16. [Source: _Discourse on Spanish Musketry in the Late 16th Century,_ Don André Marek y Villarino de Brugge, Norwalk, MJV Enterprises ltd., Inc., 2022, p. 42.]
@@kristopherpeters6703 Man, if he blasted you would get a cloud of burnt powder right in your eyes. When loading a musket, you should keep it angled with the muzzle of the barrel towards the safe side, not in your face.
@@deejay554 Again, that's just the camera angle. If the camera was on my right side you would be able to see that the muzzle was pointed well away from my face.
I would think you would prime it after loading also what’s to keep the ball from rolling down the barrel after loading? Didn’t they patch them or at least used some wading?
The loading procedure I am demonstrating in the video is based on the Dutch arms manual created by Jacob de Ghyne in 1608. Nowhere in the manual is there any mention of a patch or wadding and the prevailing theory is that they simply weren't necessary on the battlefield. The entire time these men were loading and carrying their muskets in combat the muzzle was elevated. There would have been no opportunity for the ball to roll out since they didn't level the weapons until they were immediately ready to fire them, and using a patch or wadding would have slowed down the reloading process. Now if you were on sentry duty or hunting you might have used a patch or wadding but there is no evidence that I am aware of that they would use them in combat. The drill also calls for the weapon to be primed at the beginning of the loading process. I'm not sure why you would load before priming, unless you were on sentry duty or hunting and wanted to carry the weapon unprimed to reduce the chance of a negligent discharge.
@@kristopherpeters6703 if the ball is even slightly ahead of the powder charge, with a gap in between you are very likely to blow up the gun This is something that could happen if the ball was allowed to roll around
@@deadhorse1391 Having a gap between the ball and the powder will not blow a firearm up. In fact almost all modern brass cased smokeless ammunition has more volume inside the case than is needed for the appropriate powder load, meaning that there is a gap between the much more powerful smokeless powder and the bullet. Firearms only explode when the barrel is completely obstructed, they are drastically overcharged with powder, or there is a manufacturing default in the barrel. An unpatched ball on a standard powder charge cannot deform enough to completely obstruct the barrel. Without a patch or wadding you actually loose pressure because more gas escapes around the ball. There are three negative results from using an unpatched ball. 1) your bullet may be less accurate. 2) your bullet will have decreased velocity. 3) It could roll out of the barrel. None of these seem to have caused enough of a problem at the beginning of the 17th century to make soldiers want to patch their bullets in combat.
@@kristopherpeters6703 Yes, they would have prized rate of fire and simplicity of the manual of arms (training, firing under combat stress) over the marginal advantages conferred by patching the ball.
Why "lock". The answer is easy. Back in the late middle ages and centuries after till the industrial revolution and a more liberal society and economy strict rules determinted which craftsman (and -woman) was allowed to produce what. The barrels were the work of a (black)smith, who worked at his forge with hammers and anvils; but all mechanical things with moving parts would be made by a locksmith who had files, drills and was allowed to cut screws. Even when guilds of gunsmiths were introduced that allowed them to build all parts the names for the mechanical parts the term "lock" was kept. In the modern German language the term "Schlosser" for anyone who does mechanical work is still the rule. A "Kfz-Schlosser" repairs your motorcar and an "Industrieschlosser" maintains all kind of machinery.
Well there were bayonets at the time, but these were the plug ones, they would literally fit inside the barrel making it unable to shoot ,They were still not quite popular but they were there as a niche
At some point they developed Bayonets that would be placed in the actual barrel itself, can't remember which country of Models were developed, but I saw that somewhere a long time ago.
Thanks for the comment. You are correct, in the second half of the 17th century the first "plug bayonets" began to appear. They were basically daggers with tapered handles designed to fit into the muzzle of a musket and turn the weapon into a short pike or spear. The biggest problem with plug bayonets was that they would sometimes get stuck in the weapon's muzzle making it impossible to continue firing. Bayonets didn't become common battlefield weapons until the beginning of the 18th century when the "ring bayonet" was introduced. These bayonets had rings or collars that would fit around the muzzle of the musket and allow you to continue shooting while the bayonet was attached. We have another video where I demonstrate the use of a plug bayonet. Check it out here ruclips.net/video/AoSnVFeq81k/видео.html
I fired a blank charge for this video. I went through the full motions of loading a ball as part of the demonstration. As far as we can tell they did not regularly use a patch or wad in combat at the beginning of the 17th century. In 1608 the Dutch artist Jacob de Ghyne created a series of illustrations that were used as a training manual for musketeers and calivermen fighting the Spanish. Nowhere in the loading process is there any mention of a patch or wadding.
@@kristopherpeters6703 Interesting! Because they definitely understood the benefit of having it sealed. Even back in the early days of siege canons they sealed the shot with mud and straw. Thanks for the reply sir.
I have heard many times and from many different credible sources that the small wooden powder bottles were called "apostles" due to each musketeer carrying 12 of them. Is there a reason you do not use this terminology?
The individual wooden or copper bottles on the bandoleer are called chargers because they hold a single charge of gunpowder. There was no set number of chargers on any bandoleer in the 17th century. There are examples varying from 9-16 chargers. Calling them "Apostles" is a modern colloquialism.
@@kristopherpeters6703 Thank you, I had thought that someone would most likely try to carry the most ammo into combat that they could. Or at least that there woulnt be a limmit.
The English Colonists also used Morion helmets in the 17th century, in fact most European nations (Dutch, French, Swedes) equip soldiers with Morion helmets so it wasn’t only the Spanish that used them.
Thank you Sir, for explaining in details the functionment of those old fire arms. Today they are less known among the public, but this is historical value.
Matchlocks are awesome. Thank you for this.
Information about them seems uncommon compared to other black powder firearms.
I like old era weapons too :D if the flintlock musket was pretty hard to load the matchlock must've been an absolute nightmare to reload im the heat of battle!
Thanks for joining the conversation, and I'm glad you enjoyed the video. Matchlock videos are pretty uncommon. I think the main reason for this is because they were only used in North America for a few decades before they were supplanted by flintlocks. Matchlocks were great for arming a few thousand musketeers in European armies where you had easy supply lines. In North America keeping up with logistics of match made things more difficult. You cant just use any old rope you have to have specially treated match cord for these weapons to function reliably and shipping match all the way from England took up space that could be used for other goods needed in the colonies. There are also fewer matchlock reproductions out there which makes teaching about them today more difficult as well.
@@adankmeme651 that mostly comes down to training and tactics. Matchlocks did their job when used in combination with pikemen, cavalry and artillery on the European battlefield. Professional musketeers were flanked by armored swordsmen and pikemen who protected them while they were reloading. The musketeers also took turns firing at the enemy to help ensure they had enough time to reload.
@@kristopherpeters6703 The best match cord back in the day was made of hemp (less ash than cotton or linen) treated with a solution of lead sugar (aka, lead acetate) to “lead” the cord. [Source: Dittrich, R., Heilinger, H., & Köhler, TH., „Die Entwicklung der Handfeuerwaffe - Ein Überblick“, _Von alten Handfeuerwaffen: Entwicklung, Technik, Leistung: Katalog zur Sonder-ausstellung im Landeszaughaus,_ Veröffentlichungen des Landeszeughauses Graz, № 12 (Landesmuseum Johanneum Graz, 1989), p. 27.] As the availability of match cord wasn't guaranteed, the musketeer/arquebusier was expected to make match cord in the field by dissolving gunpowder (which is mostly saltpeter) in water, letting the solids settle out, wetting some available hemp, linen, or cotton cord in the supernatant solution, and allowing it to fully dry.
This is a great video. I've been looking for information on how accurate they were and this answered. I also like the mention about the side arm. I've read during the English civil war there were instances where forces would get too close and start going into a scrum. They couldn't draw their sword so they would flip it around and use it like a club. Then we have the native Americans who liked their gun stock war clubs but I'm not sure if that has any relation.
Yes, there are many examples of musketeers "clubbing" their muskets during a melee fight. However you risk damaging your musket 3000 miles away from home and swords are a much more effective weapon than a clubbed musket.
Trump2024 👍
It took him almost a minute to load the musket and fire it-- And that's with dry powder-- Now, imagine a native warrior charging him with a war club, and yelling a war whoop!!!!! That soldier, or militia man wouldn't stand a chance----
Two aimed shots per minute, with an average of12 chargers on the bandolier. Does this mean musket formations would be expected to stand for only 5-6 minutes, shooting, before retiring behind pikemen to resupply? Tactically, were the muskets mostly used to shake a defending line before the pikes and/or cavalry advanced?
Thanks for the question. Yes. That's pretty much how they were used in the 17th century. Now we also have to look at the tactical differences between the European battlefield and the frontier of Virginia. In Europe the bulk of every army in the 17th century was composed of pikemen. All of the pikemen were wearing plate armor, helmets, carried pikes that were of similar length and were trained to fight each other with the same tactics no matter what country they were from. They are equally balanced fighters so you have to find a way to gain an advantage over the enemy. Cavalry were shock troops that were used for flanking, attacking artillery, and charging weak spots in the battle formations, but they were absolutely useless against pikes. Musketeers were support troops who fired at enemy pike blocks to cause disruption in the formations that could be exploited by your own pikemen, they were light infantry who went to the battlefield unarmored and were expected to move around much faster than the pike blocks.
In Virginia, the English had to completely rethink their tactics. Pikes and cavalry were almost useless in the wilderness of Tidewater Virginia. The English came with the expectation to fight against Spain in Virginia and instead ended up fighting with the Powhatan Indians, who wouldn't engage the English in open fields like a European army. So musketeers became the primary soldiers of the Virginia Company and they started wearing armor to protect against Powhatan clubs and arrows. They were supported by armored swordsmen who would protect the musketeers while they were reloading. This flexibility of the English military tactics is a large part of the reason they were eventually able to control 1/4 of the earths population by the beginning of the 20th century.
Really enjoyed this video, thank you
I like your little videos! Very informative! And that Windlass Steelcraft Munich Town Guards sword looks damn pretty to!
Thanks for the demonstration!
Thank you for the video. Very cool.
Dear friend, I have an old japanese teppo, 130 cm long, 12.5 mm bore, Hormady 480 round balls with patch, 2.8 grams of Swiss black powder n. 3, but when I shoot I'm always afraid. Black powder and fuse don't get along. I miss the Samurai armor, but it, in Italy, costs around € 40,000..... I recommend you to use glasses to protect yourself. Saluti dal Tiro a Segno Nazionale di Milano, ciao
Good video. Helped me a lot. Thank you.
I love your outfit impression , especially that helmet ! Badass bro !
Thank you. Ironically I can't stand wearing that burgonet, but its the only period appropriate helmet that I have access to right now and it does look good on film lol.
You look lovely with your hat Sir.
Good stuff
Actually plug bayonets we're used for Matchlocks before it was replaced by the Flintlock for militaries of the day. Wasn't the most efficient invention of the day but it helped replace some pikemen on the battlefield.
Thanks for joining the discussion. Plug bayonets were used with matchlock muskets but they weren't introduced until the latter half of the 17th century. During the First Anglo Powhatan War in the 1610's they didn't exist yet. Most musketeers carried a musket, sword, and dagger while in the field.
@@kristopherpeters6703 your right to a degree it actually was used in the 30 Years' War near the end by different opponents. France is credited to the invention before the mid-1600s. However, reports of the invention traces back to China as early as 1610. So it's kinda debatable on when they were actually used or invented really??? At the time must of Europe really didn't have what you would consider standard professional armies at the time. Normally it was mercenary armies or bands of militia controlled by Feudal Lords or Nobility raised for a Monarch or a Principality. So those type of troops can carry anything real (atleast in Europe).
Awesome
This is so awesome!!! Do you happen to have a "snappance" in your collection of that period. Would love to see that demonstration.
Archaeological sites in Virginia have turned up snaphaunce locks, so we know they were used in the early colonial period. However matchlocks were far more common then and now. Reproductions of snaphaunce muskets are very rare and very expensive.
@@kristopherpeters6703 Thank you. In the 1623/24 Muster Captain William Tucker reported 24 snaphance in his household (which was the most of anyone listed in the entire colony at that time). Based on history we know that Captain Tucker was commissioned by England to lead several raids against the Native Americans in retaliation for the 1622 massacre.
@@stucker1214 Matchlocks are insanely simple and durable guns. Even if you break the lock you can still use the match to ignite the gunpowder by hand. However they have one major flaw compared to all of the other firearms at the time. And that is the logistics of dealing with the match. Without properly made match cord they are basically useless. And keeping a steady flow of match cord into Virginia was a big task. So by the 1610s firelocks like snaphaunces were already becoming more popular in Virginia because they didn't need match cord. By the 1620s there were more firelocks than matchlocks, and by the middle of the century matchlocks were all but abandoned. The more affluent English immigrants to Virginia, like Captain Tucker, were bringing the bulk of the firelocks into Virginia in the 1610's and 20's by the 1630s they were proliferating. During the Second Anglo Powhatan War (following Opecancanough's uprising in 1622) and the Third Anglo Powhatan War in the 1640s most of the English combatants would have been armed with Snaphaunce and English Lock muskets, supplied by the more affluent members of the colony like Captain Tucker.
@@kristopherpeters6703 another severe drawback with machlocks are that they are not nearly as weather resistant as flintlocks. Keeping the match alight during rain or snow fall was not an easy task. And if you can't keep the match alight you are simply left with a large, unwealdy club.
@@Verdunveteran I would say the opposite, with good match it is hot and less susceptible to damp the way a flintlock is. Experience at the two JYF museums over 30 years of firing demos has shown us this. Match burns between 600-700 degrees, I find it very difficult to put out. What kind of match have you used? are you speaking from experience? (we almost never have problems with misfires in anything but very heavy rain and snow, )
Great info!
now imagine doing that, carefully and calmly, while a few thousand other guys are charging you with murderous intent
You wont be alone. Plus there would probably be a whole rank of pikemen facing the cavarly charge infront of you.
In the old time 15th and 16th century soldiers were trained to used those arms. They were specialized squads, when other soldiers with pikes, swords, halebard, axes, protect you.
@@lvlc6023 yeah
In Spain, the band of ammo was called "los doce apóstoles" (the twelve apostles).
Could you share the period source for that term? I have often wondered if this might be from Spanish soldiers. Because it absolutely is not an English term. Until 1960 at least.
@@fredscholpp5838 it's from the 1600s.
@@fabricio-agrippa-zarate If it was a common term, it would be easy enough to quote, one actual source from 1600's would prove your point. Hope you can, professional historians have been trying to prove that for decades, and have failed. Therefore, we must conclude it's a modern invention.
@@fredscholpp5838 Many reenactors and even historians mistakenly apply the name “apostle” to the charges. This came from the bandolier being misnamed the “twelve apostles” because of the number of charges thereon. That term, frequently referred to in modern secondary source literature, came into use only in more recent times. There isn’t one source prior to the late 19th century mentioning this term which indicates that it originated in the Victorian era when Renaissance studies were gaining popularity. English History scholars of the time examined extant examples of bandoliers from the English Civil War preserved in the Tower of London and found they all had 12 charges; that was the standard in England during the 17th century. Being in the habit of romanticizing history and the fact that most wars were about religion, they rationalized the number of charges as being influenced by the number of Jesus’ disciples. To set the record straight, the number of charges was determined from the size of the musket, that is, the weight of the ball. Each musketeer was issued a pound of lead from which they would cast their ammunition. If they had a 1⅓ oz musket, a pound of lead would provide them with 12 balls. A “two-ounce” musket would have eight charges. Throughout Europe, the number of charges varied between 8 and 16. [Source: _Discourse on Spanish Musketry in the Late 16th Century,_ Don André Marek y Villarino de Brugge, Norwalk, MJV Enterprises ltd., Inc., 2022, p. 42.]
It may looks easy, but imagine do this with screaming and explosions all around you......
I like how at 2:57 he decides to point it at his face XD
That's just the camera angle. At no point was the muzzle of the musket anywhere near my face.
@@kristopherpeters6703
Man, if he blasted you would get a cloud of burnt powder right in your eyes. When loading a musket, you should keep it angled with the muzzle of the barrel towards the safe side, not in your face.
@@deejay554 Again, that's just the camera angle. If the camera was on my right side you would be able to see that the muzzle was pointed well away from my face.
muskets were popular also because they were cheaper than crossbows.
Safety First.
I would think you would prime it after loading also what’s to keep the ball from rolling down the barrel after loading? Didn’t they patch them or at least used some wading?
The loading procedure I am demonstrating in the video is based on the Dutch arms manual created by Jacob de Ghyne in 1608. Nowhere in the manual is there any mention of a patch or wadding and the prevailing theory is that they simply weren't necessary on the battlefield. The entire time these men were loading and carrying their muskets in combat the muzzle was elevated. There would have been no opportunity for the ball to roll out since they didn't level the weapons until they were immediately ready to fire them, and using a patch or wadding would have slowed down the reloading process. Now if you were on sentry duty or hunting you might have used a patch or wadding but there is no evidence that I am aware of that they would use them in combat. The drill also calls for the weapon to be primed at the beginning of the loading process. I'm not sure why you would load before priming, unless you were on sentry duty or hunting and wanted to carry the weapon unprimed to reduce the chance of a negligent discharge.
@@kristopherpeters6703 if the ball is even slightly ahead of the powder charge, with a gap in between you are very likely to blow up the gun
This is something that could happen if the ball was allowed to roll around
@@deadhorse1391 Having a gap between the ball and the powder will not blow a firearm up. In fact almost all modern brass cased smokeless ammunition has more volume inside the case than is needed for the appropriate powder load, meaning that there is a gap between the much more powerful smokeless powder and the bullet. Firearms only explode when the barrel is completely obstructed, they are drastically overcharged with powder, or there is a manufacturing default in the barrel. An unpatched ball on a standard powder charge cannot deform enough to completely obstruct the barrel. Without a patch or wadding you actually loose pressure because more gas escapes around the ball. There are three negative results from using an unpatched ball. 1) your bullet may be less accurate. 2) your bullet will have decreased velocity. 3) It could roll out of the barrel. None of these seem to have caused enough of a problem at the beginning of the 17th century to make soldiers want to patch their bullets in combat.
@@kristopherpeters6703 thanks for that explanation
@@kristopherpeters6703 Yes, they would have prized rate of fire and simplicity of the manual of arms (training, firing under combat stress) over the marginal advantages conferred by patching the ball.
Why "lock". The answer is easy. Back in the late middle ages and centuries after till the industrial revolution and a more liberal society and economy strict rules determinted which craftsman (and -woman) was allowed to produce what. The barrels were the work of a (black)smith, who worked at his forge with hammers and anvils; but all mechanical things with moving parts would be made by a locksmith who had files, drills and was allowed to cut screws. Even when guilds of gunsmiths were introduced that allowed them to build all parts the names for the mechanical parts the term "lock" was kept. In the modern German language the term "Schlosser" for anyone who does mechanical work is still the rule. A "Kfz-Schlosser" repairs your motorcar and an "Industrieschlosser" maintains all kind of machinery.
Well there were bayonets at the time, but these were the plug ones, they would literally fit inside the barrel making it unable to shoot ,They were still not quite popular but they were there as a niche
Not in 1610-14, but definitely they were used later.
At some point they developed Bayonets that would be placed in the actual barrel itself, can't remember which country of Models were developed, but I saw that somewhere a long time ago.
Thanks for the comment. You are correct, in the second half of the 17th century the first "plug bayonets" began to appear. They were basically daggers with tapered handles designed to fit into the muzzle of a musket and turn the weapon into a short pike or spear. The biggest problem with plug bayonets was that they would sometimes get stuck in the weapon's muzzle making it impossible to continue firing. Bayonets didn't become common battlefield weapons until the beginning of the 18th century when the "ring bayonet" was introduced. These bayonets had rings or collars that would fit around the muzzle of the musket and allow you to continue shooting while the bayonet was attached. We have another video where I demonstrate the use of a plug bayonet. Check it out here ruclips.net/video/AoSnVFeq81k/видео.html
Fascinating history of the modernization of weapons, and warfare!!!
The ball went down so easy that it seems like if you tipped the barrel down it would roll right out! They hadn't started using wads then either?
I fired a blank charge for this video. I went through the full motions of loading a ball as part of the demonstration. As far as we can tell they did not regularly use a patch or wad in combat at the beginning of the 17th century. In 1608 the Dutch artist Jacob de Ghyne created a series of illustrations that were used as a training manual for musketeers and calivermen fighting the Spanish. Nowhere in the loading process is there any mention of a patch or wadding.
@@kristopherpeters6703 Interesting! Because they definitely understood the benefit of having it sealed. Even back in the early days of siege canons they sealed the shot with mud and straw.
Thanks for the reply sir.
I have heard many times and from many different credible sources that the small wooden powder bottles were called "apostles" due to each musketeer carrying 12 of them.
Is there a reason you do not use this terminology?
The individual wooden or copper bottles on the bandoleer are called chargers because they hold a single charge of gunpowder. There was no set number of chargers on any bandoleer in the 17th century. There are examples varying from 9-16 chargers. Calling them "Apostles" is a modern colloquialism.
@@kristopherpeters6703 Thank you, I had thought that someone would most likely try to carry the most ammo into combat that they could.
Or at least that there woulnt be a limmit.
The English civil war brought me here
The Anglo Powhatan war brought me here lol
Call me a Cavalier. I associate doglocks with the civil war for some reason. Although I am quite confident that matches were more common.
@@D0nnyy The Hampton History Museum has a new video up about the First Anglo Powhatan War.
Facts
If ww3 breaks ...you see me chargin with a matchlock.....
And everyone will say.....
Thats a crazy sick sonbitch...but cool.
let me see open flame, black gun powder all you need is a beer and what can go wrong?
The Spanish helmet really
What about it?
@@admiralackbar3615 I'm just pointing out that it's the Spanish helmet and he doesn't have to wear it
@@TCB405 Oh okay.
Spanish is based stop hating they had cool architecture and armor design and civilized the new world.
The English Colonists also used Morion helmets in the 17th century, in fact most European nations (Dutch, French, Swedes) equip soldiers with Morion helmets so it wasn’t only the Spanish that used them.
Trump2024 👍
I’d hate carrying twelve grenades around your chest whilst holding a burning cord in your hand lol
Well it not like he's going to go full Arabic warrior style
2nd I dont want to go kaboom