Hype that comes with a pre-order, I see! Thank you so much! I'm genuinely incredibly excited for this project and I'm hoping to make it into a full series. Given the support I've seen so far, before I even make a formal video announcing it, I think that will be possible.
"Mon Empereur, as you ordered, we shall now execute any man carrying a Girardoni!" "What? No, I said Garibaldi. Those horrible little biscuits." "...They won't be invented until the 1850s." "That's this joke buggered then."
I'll bet that Napoleons reaction to air rifles would've been something like this "Holy shit, those Austrians are firing a lot of rounds. Find out what weapon they're using. I want that for my men." "Holy shit, that thing is expensive, let's not do that."
My favorite Napoleonic era myth is that there were no multi-shot firearms (or air rifles) back then and no one could ever see a time where firearms could hold multiple shots or fire rapidly. People really believe that all projectile weapons of the time were single shot muzzle loaders and no one had ever considered or even dreamt anything more was possible.
Yup, there were many guns like that, some even saw limited adoption by militaries, they were just too expensive for mass adoption. There were some multishot guns (Kalthoff repeater) in the 17th century already that got issued to some noblemans guards.
Matchlock revolvers, breechloading wheellock rifles, superimposed guns with sliding firelocks, multi-barrel guns with multiple triggers, multi-barrel guns with only ONE trigger, ect. The variety goes on for days, but most of those firearm types were too expensive to give to the average soldier.
There were plenty of attempts at multi-shot weapons back in those days, one that springs immediately to mind is the "Belton Repeating Musket" of the 1770s that worked like a Roman candle. But the Belton musket was a failure just as all the other attempts were failures and for a variety of reasons. Repeating weoapons had to wait for the introduction of the metallic cartridge, nothing else has worked before or since.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 "nothing but metallic cartridges worked"? I guess black powder revolvers didn't exist then? Repeating firearms absolutely predate metallic cartridges by a long shot. And very feasible ones.
If Wellington ever said that about Longbowmen, then it was most likely him talking in jest with his staff lamenting the sorry state of his allies abilities that he'd rather be burdened with English and Welsh Longbowmen than be burdened with his allies, because they're British and they'd at least stand their ground. This would probably be the context of the quote if it was ever spoken at all.
@@murrayscott9546 when Longbowmen were still a major thing, the Scots were still an independent nation. Thats the only reason I only mention Welsh and English.
Well, it's a bit difficult to get enough equipment when most of your country is under enemy occupation, in fact even on the "best" moment for Spain, right after the battle of Bailén, the Spanish provisional government (Junta Superior de Defensa - Supreme Defense Council) had to request a lot of equipment to the British (as the French still controlled half the country). Still, about "standing their ground", a Spanish regular battalion was better for that than an English battalion if anything. That said, I'm not sure if longbows, but the guerrillas did use basically any weapon they could get their hands on, since they were militias assembled around Spanish units which had found themselves on territory under theoretical enemy control (but due to the toughness of Spanish terrain were able to escape capture and regroup) or locally organised militia bands. Knives, sabers, older muzzle-loaders (called "trabucos" in Spanish) and the like were the order of the day. I wouldn't be surprised if there had been guerrilleros that resorted to bows due to lack of better armament. Heck, there was even a guerrilla band organised by a Scottish guy brandishing the sword of Francisco Pizarro (the Conquistador who conquered the Incas), namely the "Leal Legión Extremeña" (Loyal Extremaduran Legion) under Sir John Downie.
Part of what's funny about this legend is that the French fought bowmen among the Russian irregular cavalry and seemed to merely consider the use of bows and arrows a curiosity, not at all frightening or effective.
This is actually a beautiful video, not just because of the rich and fun content, but this shows Brandon's growth as a creator. The Royal Armouries bit was impressive as an illustrator of the point about how myths are made... but also congratulations on getting your video out there on such a large stage. I mean, the Royal Armouries is actually featured in one of your videos after spending time researching. Brandon has become more than just the "Patriot guy" of UA-cam. Of course, that review series is hilarious, relevant, and very dear to us all, but this is proof that Brandon F. has more reach and a lot more range to offer. Congratulations, Brandon. Brilliant start to 2024!
I suspect if Brandon was offered a job at the Royal Armouries he'd be a VERY happy young man indeed! (Honestly, you could lock me in there for the rest of my life and I'd never be bored! Kind of like Baldwin's Book Barn in West Chester PA but that's another story!)
Always a treat to see a guest appearance of Jonathan Ferguson, the Keeper of Firearms and Artillery in the Royal Armories museum in the UK which houses thousands of iconic weapons from throughout history.
Yeah, I personally love Johnathan Ferguson, the keeper of firearms and artillery in the royal armories museum in the UK which houses thousands of iconic weapons from throughout history, Johnathan Ferguson, the keeper of firearms and artillery in the royal armories museum in the UK which houses thousands of iconic weapons from throughout history is really good at talking about stuff he understands and I really wish I could go visit Johnathan Ferguson, the keeper of firearms and artillery in the royal armories museum in the UK which houses thousands of iconic weapons from throughout history one day.
One chain of logic that could lead to the girandoni myth. The limited small number, the artisan style construction, and the unique strengths(quiet and no powder) could point to the best usage being a weapon of assassination. Anyone with one of these guns must be an assassin. Assassins and spies are seen as not normal soldiers and at times were often killed. Myth is born.
Nah ur good, Ridley Scott should’ve had a life not spending 2 fucking years making a movie about a subject he had no interest in researching or reading about all for soulless corporate means to make money, 2 years and he’s said he never bothered reading up on it and stuck to just British bullshit myths and has now spread a super manipulative skewed history to a lot of ppl. What an insult to history, and to filmmaking. Honestly the more ive read up on Ridley as a director, it seems he was a huge asshole in real life, also he made 1492 and claimed it only failed becuz americans cant understand european accents. The gall on this motherfucker, he made two great movies and since then has teetered inbetween mediocre and shite, he makes beautiful films he just can’t write for shit or hire good scriptwriters
17:26 you mean the Jonathan Ferguson keeper of firearms and artillery at the Royal Armouries museum in the UK which houses a collection of thousands of iconic weapons from throughout history.
I was so shocked to hear the word "Fuddlore" on this channel I almost had a spit take. Its amazing how far back Fudd logic really goes when you take a look back at it.
"Grandugg, Grug make sharp rock and put on stick. Grug call weapon spear." "That weapon is damn gimmick, Grug. Bad tribe will laugh at Grug. No weapon better than warclub. Grandugg really gave bad tribe hell with warclub."
Brandon your sponsorship segments are legendary, I love them so much. Just the work and humor you put into them is amazing. Thank you, thank you for going the extra mile
Kransebes is also a myth that has been disproven multiple times. It was most likely just two regiments exchanging one volley due to poor vision and confusion, which commonly happened during the time, it happened to the Saxons at the Battle of Wagram as well
this reminds me of the apocryphal story that gavrilo princip only managed to assassinate archduke franz ferdinand because he left a sandwich shop at the exact time the duke's motorcade was passing by. sean munger has a great video about how that story was accidentally picked up from a historical fiction novel and then repeated again and again as fact; very much worth your while if you have twenty odd minutes to spare :)
Regarding the air rifle, it could theoretically be speculated that such a device might have been seen as an assassin's tool, which if so could maybe lend some plausibility to the idea of executing anyone caught with one. But of course that's just baseless conjecture on my part.
@kentknightofcaelin4537 more than likely it would have been an edged weapon or bow. Keep in mind, those still work just as well and are just as quiet plus a lot cheaper than a rifle. That's only my thought, I may be wrong
I sense that the whole "shotgun in WW1", whenever brought up by americans, is a way to amplify their role in a war where they saw few actual action. It's like the "Teufel Hunden" nickname, which has actually no german origin and was coined by the americans themselves.
There is a great desire these days for 'safe' patriotism in countries where genuine nationalism is considered chauvinistic. So you get the "America F yeah" stuff where patriotism is expressed by "badass" fake tall tales like the shotguns one or hitler being so BTFO'd by Jessie Owens that he didn't even look at him. I'm sure similar happens in a lot of similar countries.
similar thing happened with the USMC in WW! claiming that the germans gave them the scary / cool nickname devil dogs. When as early as 1921 people called B.S since there is no documented records or any use or recorded second hand reference of the germans in WW1 ever using that term.
The funny thing about the "bows are better than muskets" myth is that bows were used against muskets, just not by European powers. Indian armies had archers, Chinese, Africans, and they did meet with some success. But no one who had the option of using muskets chose to use bows instead.
3 main reasons guns replaced bows 1. Convenience guns were easier to learn to use then bows so a peasant could kill an armoured knight in little more then a day of training bows took months to learn well 2. Hybrid use it was both a ranged and melee weapon using either a bayonet or the butt of the firearm 3. Psychological effect the smoke the blast the fact that each volley that goes offin front of you either your comrades or you will fall.
The Chinese did use bows together with muskets (remember that gunpowder was invented in China), mainly because bows were better suited for their cavalry tactics than muskets. So the Chinese infantry used muskets while the cavalry used bows.
@@funkymonkeyman1000 the first factor you list was enough by itself in the opinion of many historians "To train a longbowman, you start with his grandfather" vs five minutes of "here's how the boomstick works"
"Bows can be better than muskets" is usually said by someone who's never fired a gun or bow. Long bows are exhausting, imagine picking up an 80 lb (36kg) object every time you shot. The professionals make it look easy but in a battle where you might need to fire 2 dozen arrows, I'm taking a musket every time. During the Sengoku Period of Japan (1467-1600) there was a huge transition from bows to muskets (except with Calvary, horse archery is still a tradition/sport/art in Japan today), the best Samurai were officers, administrators, and engineers who could quickly arm massive peasant armies. The musket was mostly considered a peasant weapon with few samurai adopting it, for example if you look at the painting of the last major battle, Sekigahara, you'll see some bowmen but no musket-men despite many being present at the battle. And the predominant weapon was of course still a long pointy stick, the romanticization and status symbol of the sword hadn't quite happened in Japan yet. Then during the Boshin War (1869), almost no one used a bow. Both sides used muskets and later rifles, but their were some clashes with swords and pointy sticks as well. In the art we see no bows, even from the more traditionalist Shogun faction, who would often paint their officers in traditional Samurai armor despite them generally wearing western British or French uniforms.
Along with everything else already mentioned, it is actually much easier to maintain logistics with muskets than with bows. Arrows are expensive, heavy, bulky, and you shoot a lot of them very quickly.
I don't believe the idea that the air rifle couldn't fit a bayonet, it may have not been made to fit a bayonet but that doesn't seem like a consequence of it's mechanism.
They were supposedly too fragile for bayonet combat, but obviously you could still stick a bayonet on one & use it. The rifle just might not shoot right afterward.
I’ve argued multiple times with my best friend about whether a squad of longbowmen would be useful on a Napoleonic battlefield. Next time he brings it up I’m just linking him to Brandon’s video. Congrats on the Jonathan Ferguson guest spot, by the way! Very cool and well deserved.
The focus on the Napoleonic wars is bizarre, since we have a perfectly serviceable historical record of the period that firearms were supplanting bows, and a number of comparisons made. Plus we have a series of wars in which longbowmen would have faced plenty of unarmoured musket troops, and the muskets that they were using were much inferior to those of Napoleon's time...... the British civil wars. Longbows performance during which proved so magnificent that pikemen would shed all of their armour by the end of the war. Overall the longbow of this time achieved the lofty status of becoming..... a footnote in history.
@@ghpstage3076Not exactly longbows, but during the Italian wars (early 16th century) crossbows were surpassed in many ways by arquebuses to the point of being decisive in battle.
The Girandoni air rifle sounds like it could have been rather effective for small units pursuimg limited scope but high effect objectives. I'm not sure how much of that there was in the napoleonic wars though.
To my knowledge small unit tactics did not exist in conventional warfare until WW1, probably because of a vulnerability to cavalry and the rigid top down leadership style of pre modern armies giving junior officers zero autonomy. I know someone will correct me if I’m wrong though
@@jamiemcerlain5897 Junior officers had zero autonomy because of the slow communication of the day. Tactical opportunities appear and disappear within minutes, so there's no time to send a runner with a letter. If the commander sees a company moving out of the line, he doesn't know if the lieutenant sees something he doesn't, or is being a fucking moron and is about to get all of his men killed. With the advent of radio, ground level officers can now radio in to command before doing something so everyone knows what's going on. The senior officers can also quickly inform the junior officers if there's something they can't see and avoid disaster
@@filmandfirearms Restrictions on the autonomy in pre-modern armies were political and doctrinal not technological. Autocratic governments are simply terrified of letting junior officers make decisions because it weakens their political control. Even in the age of radios there have been many cases of individual junior officers in more autocratic countries receiving orders over the radio directly from the highest levels of command. Meanwhile I have heard from an American platoon leader who fought in the Gulf War that they were given nearly complete autonomy in determining an completing their objectives and they said their platoon even in contact with their own company command most of the time let alone any higher leadership. In any case slow communication encourages more autonomy not less because if communications are slow then high command has no way to enforce the following of orders or even check if the orders are being followed in the first place.
I've seen the longbow story a couple of times over the years. My understanding was that it was some armchair general in England at the time of the peninsular war who came up with the idea, wrote a letter to a newspaper or the army, and was then promptly ignored. Yet rather than being forgotten by history, it somehow became surprisingly well know. But i read that story so long ago i dont remember where i saw it or the exact details.
I had never heard of either myth, and to be honest, it was this video that reminded me that somewhere a very long time ago I had read about experimental air rifles in the Habsburg army. Nevertheless, it was enlightening to learn that those myths I hadn't heard of are false. And I'm saying this without irony. Myths get into our way of understanding reality, past and present. Certainly, we all believe in some, and these are hard to identify. So, learning about the falsehood of other plausible sounding myths perhaps helps a little finding those we ourselves believe in. And ideally it makes us a bit more willing to challenge them.
Hey, don't knock myths. We wouldn't have all those great Greek myths, without someone just making it up ! Forgotten Weapons did a video of that Austrian 18th century air gun. Yes, production of these specialty weapons was pretty low.
I must admit, I did believe the longbows had some advantages over muskets for far too long. I also read a lot of Bernard Cornwell when I was younger. I suspect that those two sentences are related.
Muskets have better range and easier training requirements. Long bows have shorter range higher fire rate bows were definitely useful in guerrilla warfare. In America but they were not long bows
@smokedbeefandcheese4144 twice as many men with muskets will still always have a faster rate of fire than half as many men with bows. The musketeers will fire almost indefinitely without tiring. The archers will be physically exhausted by sustained fire. The musketeers can be ready to fire set their aim and wait, holding off fire for the right moment with no effort unlike a bow, making firing in formation much easier and more accurate. Think of all of the men working together like a big shotgun aiming for one position and you'll see why cohesive firing in formation was much more accurate. And there isn't the same suppressive effect when you know lots of arrows are clinking in one by one in a scattered way compared to knowing that if a platoon aims at your location there is a cloud of lead coming your way all at once. The latter limits the maneuvers of the enemy more effectively. Arrows simply don't deter determined melee attackers the way that guns do. Especially once you add a bayonet to the equation giving every soldier a built-in passable melee weapon for little cost and weight.
T'is law then, Wellington calling for archers is Shenanigans, by order of his grace Jonathan Ferguson, Keeper of Firearms and Artillery of the Royal Armouries Museum
This is a good example of how a cursory glance at historical "fun facts" makes people from the past look like uneducated simpletons, when looking at sources more deeply with context in mind shows they used rational thought like any of us, and were actually quite impressive when you consider their extremely limited information.
Yes people in history and modern tribals are just as intelligent as us, we just have access to more information, wich makes us smarter but not more intelligent.
Most people like to score points by knowing something others don't. I'm 55 this year and you wouldn't believe the amount of things I was taught/read/heard that I've since found out were horse dookie. Doesn't mean you shouldn't listen, just don't repeat it till you've checked.
One of my favorite demonstrations of practicality was the recent Atun Shei video about Civil War rifles. On paper, the Henry is this unstoppable Machine gun that was a rare sight except for certain well-practiced shooters in the US army and native nations. But actually using it is a headache- hard on the fingers, heavy, hard to reload the chamber. You have to work for that rate of fire. I recall an old documentary saying that the British were too stupid to use the Ferguson rifle, but actually looking at the reports and recreations of the weapon, it's very delicate, finicky, and expensive. It was a step in the right direction but it wasn't practical and Ferguson was killed before he could take another look at the design.
I found what the gent from the Royal Armories had to say VERY interesting indeed! And really, WHO knows how these myths concerning weapons get started and take on lives of their own? Back in the 1970's a gunwriter came up with a very good classification for the same: "Old husband's tales." Says it all, doesn't it? By the way, I couldn't help but notice the gent from the armory had a weapon on the table behind him that's got a number of myths of it's own, that STG-44 "Sturmgewehr." But discussion of that one's beyond the scope of this video! (Unless someone REALLY wants to run down that rabbit hole!) Great show as always Brandon, and Happy New Year!
@@BrandonF Go right ahead Brandon! As I said, it just says so much! "Old wives" don't talk about guns and warfare much but old husbands do! And about other things like cars, power tools, sports, you get it!
Maybee the thing with air rifles is more because use by killing in a "unethical, vile way" eg. "cowardly" sniping soldiers from a hiding with a silent weapon (there such air rifle would make much sense). I see parallels with people like enemy snipers, people with sharpened spades or flame thrower handlers or partisans in WWI & II which had not much mercy to expect if caught alive....
I think that the fact that these myths can be examined and busted is an example of how far things have come. Most of the myths almost certainly emerged from books written, probably in the 1920's and 1930's by enthusiasts, many academic, who never actually had first hand experience with the things that they were writing about. When they were writing, you could speculate about those things because you could be sure that almost no one would have access to a longbow or know how to use one. So the "fact" that the longbow is superior to a flintlock musket is taken to be true, and since whoever wrote the book was an expert(Only experts wrote books on such things) the myth continued. As far as the myth goes, the longbow was driven off the field by the need for longbowmen to train and not because of other reasons. Since there was no way to test that, the myth could continue, unquestioned and it would make perfect sense in that environment for Arthur Wellesy, a true englishman to want longbowmen on the field to beat the Frogs. I could see some advantage to crossbows for some scenarios in a siege, but longbows? Just no.
This comment section is the perfect example to absolutely prove Brandon's conclusion. Go through and read them, and count how many people are giving an opinion based on "I once read such & such, but I have lost the book" or "I once read this or that, but it was long ago and I don't remember where I read it". Soooo.......you're saying that you have something "historical" to tell, but you can't cite a source any better than your personal vague recollections.
Once heard that the French musket could only fire five times before it had to be cleaned, which is why Napoleon used the column attack so often. Could never get this verified, possible for early models but also Brown Bess propaganda.
I doubt it's true. Battlefield accounts don't seem to support it. American Revolution forces also used the same musket (called the Charleville) in the American war of independence and it served just fine. So... probably propaganda
If you have something important to say, you should lower the volume of the background music. Not sure what the purpose of that music at the end was, but it certainly didnt mask the self promotion, neither did it make easier to understand or tolerate. Just FYI...
The Musket/Longbow was discussed as a serious topic in the US Congress in revolutionary times! Bengerman Franklin actually spoke on arming our troops with long bows for a higher volume of fire. It did not pass. He was also in favor of the turkey as the national bird AND still eating them on holidays!
The modern day military myth that annoys me the most is that a .50 cal round can apparently take off your limb even if it misses you by a foot or so. This one is so prolific that i even heard it from ex-service members (not acctual war veterans).
The Girandoni would have been far more useful as a weapon when used in situations where prolonged engagements are not as likely, such as by personal guards and police forces, rather than the military.
The myth of the users of Girandoni rifles being executed on the spot combines two things and mixes them w/out the real context. Yes, people using them could and would be executed, but not regular soldiers. As you see, the Girandoni is a TYROLEAN weapon - and during 1809, the Tyrol was in an uprising against the franco-bavarian "opressors". The Tyroleans often fought like the spanish as guerrillas - and most of the time not in uniforms, but in their civillian clothes. That was the reason they were executed - partisans were frowned upon even back then as they do not too often conduct to the rules of war. And espescially in the Tyrol, Napoleon ordered the death sentences but ONLY FOR THE LEADERS, like Andreas Hofer and other ones. So, users of the Girandoni could be executed, but only if they were tyrolean partisans. Not every regular soldier that happened to wield one like the myth tells 😅
3:30 The "fingers of english longbowman" story is something I believed myself. Anyone knows if there is any truth to this anecdote and where it came from?
It's impossible to say for sure, but there isn't any evidence for it prior to the 19th century, while the time of English longbowmen coincides with a time when all non-noble prisoners of war were often just killed. Therefore, it seems unlikely.
I think it sounds plausible but it is probably just a myth. The usual tale told is that the French in 1415 said that they would cut off the first two fingers of any captured archers right hand, so he could never draw again. The myth then is that the archers on the morning of Agincourt waved their two fingers at the French to show they could still shoot. To this day the English version of the American "giving the finger" is two fingered. If it isn't true it should be! The English like it because it adds to the Agincourt myth of courage against great odds.
Sounds plausible until you find out that Longbow men war not rich and had no ransom value. So likely they were just killed in the fight. Ransom was quite a business in the 100 years war. Several unlanded nobles were able to make quite the living from it. Once you ransomed some Noble back to his family, he still had to raise enough cash to get his armour back.
The quiz show QI (I know, a quiz show is not a historical source, although QI tried to debunk myths where it could) claimed the "fingers of English longbowmen" story was of 20th Century origin (possibly in the comic history book 1066 and all that), and that the 2 fingered salute was just a local variant of the classic middle digit gesture, and shared its phallic meaning.
One of the Bow myth that movies/film tends to portray is that a rain of arrow could devastate column or line formation easily and that's make people think that bow are superior than musket because a rain of arrow could devastated a column or line formation of musket armed infantry. And this is so bother me
Just like with any military equipment in any army - it's not just the effectiveness of the weapon, it's the availability of the logistics and maintenance and replacement behind it. Each of those aspects also affect COST (which is usually at the top of decision making for technology adoption). In other words, to fully test the theory of "advanced weapons" truly making a difference, they would have to be tested over long and drawn out conflicts and results aggregated over the entire time. Not just a skirmish here and there.
The whole “horses won’t charge bayonets” thing annoys me personally. Horses happily charged pointy objects for centuries and could and did succeed even against squares. Squares are good formations, indeed, usually the best for cavalry but it’s not because horses don’t like charging infantry. Even at Waterloo we are told of British soldiers getting killed by cavalrymen. Squares are good rather because they can support each other and protect the flanks the musketry is just as important as the bayonet when dealing with cavalry. I always challenge people who believe this to provide evidence of instances where horses refused to charge (rather than cavalrymen driving horses away cause the men themselves do not want to die) and I have yet to find any such account. Trained warhorses can operate even after getting stabbed or shot. Imagine how impossible jousting would be or fighting lancers would be if warhorses (rather than your average horse) was afraid of pointy objects? Obviously in the Napoleonic era I would bet on well formed infantry in squares that is ready for the charge over an unsupported cavalry charge (a la Waterloo or the Battle of the Pyramids) but it’s not like it is in Total War where infantry can form a square on a dime and is invincible to cavalry charges. There is always nuance and a variety of possible scenarios.
Adjacent to this, the myth that the longbow could break any and every cavalry charge annoys me the same way, and the French were idiots for trying it in the 100 years war. In actuality, the French kept doing it because most of the time, a cavalry charge is devastating to longbowman. Armor for men and horse was able to stop the vast majority of arrows that strike them. Even when the horses weren’t barded, it’s much harder to “just kill the horse” than people spreading the myth believe. They’re large animals, and like you said, kept going even after being wounded (some many times). What the British actually made great use of in battles where the longbow shined was positioning, terrain and fortifications, not the weapon itself.
So a question that's been bugging me due to the sheer difficulty I've been met with when trying to look into it, what was the procedure when a soldier was met with a misfire or malfunction? Was there any difference between how a regular line musketeer was to deal with it as opposed to the skirmishing troops or horsemen, and was there any change in said procedure between the introduction of the matchlock and the hay-day of the percussion lock?
Let's be honest, the Girandoni may have been marketed as this _silent killer_ like many other Windbüchsen before it but in reality they all have been a fancy hunting rifles for easily spooked game and tacticool gadgets for bored Emperors.
What makes sense, what I got from a historical novel, is that the amount of cannons, their size, and the number of shots they can fire are what was considered important strategical information. If they have mortars and if they have some hidden reserves.
i think the german shotgun in ww1 thing is a bit of merging of two separate things, the fact they did to some degree complain about the american use of shotguns and the fact they had a far more serious issue on the eastern front that was the russians use of dum dum rounds which ironically the russians also complained that the austro hungrians and germans were using dum dum rounds. the dum dum round business did in fact occur and caused some pretty nasty threats by all sides to kill each others prisoners of war.
@@rockmusicman21Gas was used by both sides and the French were actually the first to use gas in 1914, but if you think that was contridictory read the american ww2 news article that flamethrowers were humane and painless.
Ah, I would like to say something about the Air-Rifle again if you don't mind. And there is something interesting we discovered; about the execution - yes, couldn't find any documents about it (yet) and I doubt we will find any truth. BUT what we did find out; one of our members of the k. k. IR3 possess a muster roll of one of the k. k. Jäger Bataillon. And as far as we have found out the Air-Rifle were indeed used, but in each Jäger-Bataillon. So we never had ONE Battalion full of these guns, they were only divided into small numbers in each Company or Platoon of all Jäger-Bataillone - because of the limitation as you already said. The exact date when they got decommissioned is not known yet. But as far as we can say it is to asume between 1802-1804, latest before Austerlitz - mostly because it was too costly and complex to manufacture and to keep it functional. Finding original documents is really rare or maybe not accessible. Sadly. There are books about this gun, but the lack of historical evidence where it has been used is frustrating. I guess it is similiar to the story about the Craspi Breechloader in the 1770s. It is said only 10,000 were produced for the regulars of the k. k. Army, commissioned by Joseph II, but also after few years they didn't continuing using it because of cost. As we can see - cost efficiency and availability for the mass was always in their priority, especially when money is short.
Terror just doesn't last long when you learn the nature of the enemy. The romans broke against elephants again and again until they learned how to defeat them with a steady hail of projectiles that wounded them enough to rout. The Aztecs broke against horses again and again until they learned they could be slowed down and were more vulnerable in urban warfare. The first time firearms were used in New Zealand by the Ngāpuhi, they forced the Toa of the Ngāti Whātua to duck for cover...until they realized they had to be reloaded after each fire. While the Ngapuhi were reloading, and they were inexperienced in reloading, the Ngati Whatua closed in with their daggers and spears and staffs and slaughtered them. Lucius Aemillius Paulus was confronted with the great Macedonian pike phalanx at Pydna and was absolutely terrified...but he was able to keep fighting and retreating until the battle moved to uneven terrain where the more agile Romans could get past the pikes.
I have been watching a lot of history youtubers busting myths and all the myths seem to always start from an author pick up some tidbit a rando talk up and put it into a book somewhere.
"a silly very stupid idea" Really? Sure, bowmen would be utterly crap employed conventionally, but even at a moments thought i can come up with several niche uses where bows could actually be useful. And one of the reasons for why they could be useful at all is that by Napoleonic times, armor was not common, as protecting against muskets were excessively difficult. Most of all, bows could be used for raiding where keeping quiet was important, like for doing a night raid on an enemy camp, only using bows until it becomes obvious the camp is waking up would mean more losses before the camp can get organised. But the closest to conventional use, would be to exploit that arrows arc, meaning they could be used to fire over, up or down terrain features. Another use would be exploiting the rapid shooting, preferably by forcing the enemy through a bottleneck where the bowmen would fire from a raised position, so as to also exploit the arcing, meaning that they would effectively be completely invisible to the enemies getting hit, meaning that you use regular forces just to put them in place, in a way that makes the enemy think that either they will be safe there, or that they must go through the position, which could be accomplished by causing a wildfire for example. Absolutely not saying it would be great and optimal use of manpower, but for a commander who knows the terrain where they expect to fight? And have some very good ideas how to exploit it? Absolutely not stupid. And if well prepared, could absolutely be very effective. As a more generalised option, of course not, in the 16th century, bows could at least to some extent compete with muskets, but by early 19th century, absolutely not. I can still think of some ways to use bows to defeat musketeers, but it would be very difficult and tricky to achieve in Napoleonic times. "wasn't so intelligent" No, if Wellington actually DID request such a thing, i'm pretty sure he would have had a very specific use in mind for them, that very much was not stupid. "where do they come from" Easy, when the early firearms came about, bows COULD EASILY be better if handled expertly enough(which wasn't entirely common). And obviously, if it was true then, well they were still using the same muskets 300 years later right? (*lol*) Because it wouldn't still be called a musket if they were blatantly more advanced right? The above is actually literally based on an argument i had to disabuse someone of. They literally thought that a 15th century matchlock musket was no different from a 19th century flintlock using minie ammo. So at least some of the myths comes from very simple common people getting into popular history without any real understanding what they're looking at.
The proper 16th-century heavy musket was far more powerful than a 19th century so-called musket, especially we believe period claims about its ability to pierce armor. This doesn't mean it was a superior weapon overall, of course, but the later firearm doesn't beat it all categories.
On the longbow thing, I do remember reading something that could have been the seed of the myth. The book was a fairly in depth one on the nuts and bolts of Napoleonic period warfare, it said tests were carried by the BoA at Woolwich of the relative qualities of the Brown Bess and longbow, 1797 I think. I will try to dig out the reference, it may have been a David Chandler book.
There was a test of the Brown Bess in the 1790s that was told to me by an English co-worker and friend who was also into muzzle-loading. As he put it those involved began cutting down the barrel of the Bess to see at what point the ballistic performance of the bullet fell off. Well, they cut the barrel down to 28 inches before a loss in performance appeared. So, the British Army knew at that point they didn't need to have 42 in barrels on the muskets anymore but decided to keep them long for the reach that was needed in a bayonet fight or as a defense against cavalry. With the exception of specialized longarms such as carbines and musketoons infantry barrel lengths wouldn't drop subatantially until the invention of smokeless powder.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706And even then. Rifles from the 1890s still were quite long, for instance the Mauser C93 used by Spain and some South American countries was 1.9 meters long (8.4 feet), and it used smokeless gunpowder. I'd say until trench warfare was generalised in WW1.
Longbow is an amazing weapon, and as such is followed fervently by ardent fans, who could easily rival those of a katana, and from some distance to boot😉
A book spin-off for the 1970 film 'Waterloo' mentioned the longbow question and the author said it was much easier to train a soldier to shoot a musket than use a longbow effectively. I don't remember the author and can't find my copy of the book so don't know why it was raised in describing the battle. The cover had screen shots from the film front and back.
There is a story that Benjamin Franklin suggested using bows and arrows to fight the Brits during the American Revolution, but people claim he said a lot of things.
Mind you, air rifles were nothing new by this time, the Girandoni was simply the first air rifle adopted by an army. Air rifles themselves date back to the 1570's in actual production, earlier sketches existed, but I don't know if any of the sketches remain, though I do know none of the air rifles from those sketches remain- The earliest remaining ones are from the 1570's (maybe 60's, even), but they seem to have been a novelty/hunting tool if anything. There was a surge in the production of air rifles in the 1650's. Beyond that, you find occasional ones here and there, but not in significant numbers. Until the Girandoni shows up, at which point the technology was further looked into for improvements.
I would love to see a discussion between Brandon and Bernard Cornwall. Someone who, in his books, tried to keep things accurate. (Aside from where is hero needs to achieve something.)
There's also the fact that Girandoni air rifle delivered much less kinetic energy per shot than period muskets. The best replica I'm aware managed 190 J. I'm not sure that would penetrate heavy winter clothing at any significant range. & kinetic energy declined with each shot from the reservoir. It's possible the originals outperformed this replica, but there's no way that could have been close to as powerful as period muskets. If they'd ever gotten popular, it would have been easy to make a light & convenient suit of armor (perhaps of leather or fabric) that would protect against them completely apart from the exposed parts like the eyes.
their are myth today. one of my favorit myth is when pepole talk about the old service rifle. with a bigger bullit. it was totaly accurat and the enemy died even it it was shoot in the foot. Not like todays service rifle. with its toy calibre. what rifles i am talking about. It could be any two. from late 19th century and forward.
Evidence for Karensebes is really ambiguous as far as I know (with offical reports naming only 150 casualties and the loss of a few supply wagons). Other reports only emerge sixty years later. In any regard I would like to know if there are additonal sources about this incident.
The Girandoni was only a late comer in a very, very long line of extremely innovative firearms which were fabulously advanced for their day, but also impossible to mass manufacture. What is better 3 16th century Viscounts packing metallic cartridge repeaters or 2000 musketeers?
This reminds me of a problem I see often in reenacting. Someone will cherry pick an example of something that was rare and try to pass it off as more common just because they like it and want an excuse to use it.
The biggest downside of the Girandoni air rifle was it just wasn't that lethal compared to muskets. The mass and velocity(150gr @600fps) of those air guns produced wasn't competitive compared to a 500gr @1400fps(also you get the same issue with longbows). Combined with the price and technical complication it just wouldn't have been that useful for most battlefield scenarios. The air tanks running low I don't see as an issue though, since doctrinally, each Windbüchsejager was supposed to be issued with 3 tanks for a total of 90 shot between the three. Over the course of a battle that is a perfectly reasonable amount of ammunition to expect a skirmisher to discharged. Resupply would certainly take much longer to do since you would need to pump each one up, that being a very time consuming task.
what I heard about this rifle is that the soldier were too dumb to use it. There was so many repair and accident related to shot that it was removed from service in 1810. the distance that it was effective was low after some shots so it must have contributed a lot to make it difficult to train new soldier to be efficient in a short time after levy
I always thought the story was that they cut the finger off of crossbowmen because they were considered dishonorable and that's where the practice of sticking up your middle finger as an insult.
It's interesting that you used Goya's executions of the 3rd of May in your thumbnail. And... in 10:28 it is. One of the most iconic paintings in Spanish history.
Ok i guess it boils down to the effectivness/value ratio of a weapon system : Basically how much damage or effect can a weapon system do , And how valuable is it ? wich motivates how much the enemy will want to try and take it out The girardoni air rifle and the longbow have this on different ends of the spectrum : The GAR was a very effective weapon , but it's rarity and vulnerability meant that it would have been a pretty valuable and vulnerable target for the enemy , so they would be forced out of the face to face fight and onto the part of ambushing (let's face it every weapon is good at ambushing , even a piece of rope can be used in an ambush to choke someone) So really the guerilia is used by lesser forces to take out larger ones ... The long bow has sort of the opposite problem : While it would need a lower poundage to take out someone given muskets made armour almost usless , They would still be outmatched by a musket : an arrow doesn't have the momentum of a musket ball , And you can shoot a musket for longer than a bow , As well as the psychological aspect of muskets sounding a lot more effective than a bow , So again bows are less effective than muskets , they kill too slowly ... So they are yet again relegated to guerillia warfare ...
The Union Army actually had a cavalry regiment armed with lances for a while. I suppose someone thought it was a good idea but the lances turned out to be a clumsy PITA and were quickly gotten rid of.
I have never heard of Girandoni air rifle, it's a really fascinating invention! Basically an early BB gun capapble of killing someone! I think i will use the idea of this weapon for my fantasy world building. Of course weapon won't be used by armies but rather by mercenaries and rich sharpshooters. I think it would make sense in such usage
Imagine if when the Americans or Soviets first encountered German Sturmgewehrs in WW2 their first thought was to execute any German soldier found with one. That’s what the whole “Napoleon ordered the execution of Austrian soldiers found with Giradonis” myth sounds like. What the Americans and especially the Soviets actually did was say “woah! These things are awesome, we want some of those.” Not the most important takeaway from this video I realize, but that comparison made me chuckle when it occurred to me.
I can see the query 'are there enough longbowmen in England to make a company?' coming up in a conversation about the weapon & it's current use. Asking 'how many people still do this?' with the military unit just being a unit of measurement. Then the question is quoted out of context to make it sound like Wellington was requesting a unit of longbowmen. If any such conversation ever occurred with Wellington, & it was recorded, of course. It may not have.
I was clickbaited because of the thumbnail, due to which I thought you were gonna argue that the 2nd of May executions that Goya painted in what you call "Peninsular war" did not happen. As a Spanish historian, I was about to write a very long and angry paragraph lol
The American Civil War and the Henry Rifle is another example. While the Spencer was produce in 40 times those numbers. It was expensive, it was impossible to field strip, and was not a powerful cartridge.
The Girandoni Air Rifle seems good for hunting to supplement rations and possibly skirmishing and harassment patrols. Though the cost and hassle just make them unfeasible in a lot of cases. Maybe it that weird air compressor wagon worked out that might have made them more viable.
If the Girandoni had been as fantastic as its proponents say, and I say that as someone who really does like their concept, then Napoleon wouldn't have been executing people for using them, he'd have been buying up as many as he could.
book hype!
Hype that comes with a pre-order, I see! Thank you so much! I'm genuinely incredibly excited for this project and I'm hoping to make it into a full series. Given the support I've seen so far, before I even make a formal video announcing it, I think that will be possible.
Also hyped! Might preorder it…
You should- it comes with free shipping and a discount! Goes up to 17 a pop once the first set of pre-orders is sold. @@vice-grip
Fun fact: Wellington also tried to recruit swordsmen, because everyone knows that melee weapons do more damage than guns for balancing reasons.
And its faster to switch to your side...sword than reloading.
He did have swordsmen - cavalry lol
Not Wellington, but the leader of a Spanish militia unit fought using the sword of Francisco Pizarro.
Fun fact : he's also a beef.
And a shoe @@Andy-bz7ml
"Mon Empereur, as you ordered, we shall now execute any man carrying a Girardoni!"
"What? No, I said Garibaldi. Those horrible little biscuits."
"...They won't be invented until the 1850s."
"That's this joke buggered then."
That gives me Monty python
I'll bet that Napoleons reaction to air rifles would've been something like this
"Holy shit, those Austrians are firing a lot of rounds. Find out what weapon they're using. I want that for my men."
"Holy shit, that thing is expensive, let's not do that."
"Lets see...cost of air rifle parts.....cost of training and equiping more men with Charlesvilles. Yeah...."
My favorite Napoleonic era myth is that there were no multi-shot firearms (or air rifles) back then and no one could ever see a time where firearms could hold multiple shots or fire rapidly. People really believe that all projectile weapons of the time were single shot muzzle loaders and no one had ever considered or even dreamt anything more was possible.
Yup, there were many guns like that, some even saw limited adoption by militaries, they were just too expensive for mass adoption. There were some multishot guns (Kalthoff repeater) in the 17th century already that got issued to some noblemans guards.
Matchlock revolvers, breechloading wheellock rifles, superimposed guns with sliding firelocks, multi-barrel guns with multiple triggers, multi-barrel guns with only ONE trigger, ect.
The variety goes on for days, but most of those firearm types were too expensive to give to the average soldier.
There were plenty of attempts at multi-shot weapons back in those days, one that springs immediately to mind is the "Belton Repeating Musket" of the 1770s that worked like a Roman candle. But the Belton musket was a failure just as all the other attempts were failures and for a variety of reasons.
Repeating weoapons had to wait for the introduction of the metallic cartridge, nothing else has worked before or since.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 "nothing but metallic cartridges worked"? I guess black powder revolvers didn't exist then?
Repeating firearms absolutely predate metallic cartridges by a long shot. And very feasible ones.
And biggest spreader of said myth was probably people who are against the 2nd amendment
If Wellington ever said that about Longbowmen, then it was most likely him talking in jest with his staff lamenting the sorry state of his allies abilities that he'd rather be burdened with English and Welsh Longbowmen than be burdened with his allies, because they're British and they'd at least stand their ground. This would probably be the context of the quote if it was ever spoken at all.
English and Welsh, you say ? No other nation of the Isles noted fo their archery skills ?
@@murrayscott9546 when Longbowmen were still a major thing, the Scots were still an independent nation. Thats the only reason I only mention Welsh and English.
@@merlin4084 Sse your point, although history shows many mercenaries.
Well, it's a bit difficult to get enough equipment when most of your country is under enemy occupation, in fact even on the "best" moment for Spain, right after the battle of Bailén, the Spanish provisional government (Junta Superior de Defensa - Supreme Defense Council) had to request a lot of equipment to the British (as the French still controlled half the country). Still, about "standing their ground", a Spanish regular battalion was better for that than an English battalion if anything.
That said, I'm not sure if longbows, but the guerrillas did use basically any weapon they could get their hands on, since they were militias assembled around Spanish units which had found themselves on territory under theoretical enemy control (but due to the toughness of Spanish terrain were able to escape capture and regroup) or locally organised militia bands. Knives, sabers, older muzzle-loaders (called "trabucos" in Spanish) and the like were the order of the day. I wouldn't be surprised if there had been guerrilleros that resorted to bows due to lack of better armament. Heck, there was even a guerrilla band organised by a Scottish guy brandishing the sword of Francisco Pizarro (the Conquistador who conquered the Incas), namely the "Leal Legión Extremeña" (Loyal Extremaduran Legion) under Sir John Downie.
Part of what's funny about this legend is that the French fought bowmen among the Russian irregular cavalry and seemed to merely consider the use of bows and arrows a curiosity, not at all frightening or effective.
This is actually a beautiful video, not just because of the rich and fun content, but this shows Brandon's growth as a creator. The Royal Armouries bit was impressive as an illustrator of the point about how myths are made... but also congratulations on getting your video out there on such a large stage. I mean, the Royal Armouries is actually featured in one of your videos after spending time researching. Brandon has become more than just the "Patriot guy" of UA-cam. Of course, that review series is hilarious, relevant, and very dear to us all, but this is proof that Brandon F. has more reach and a lot more range to offer. Congratulations, Brandon. Brilliant start to 2024!
That is a very nice way to look at it, thank you! I am hoping that the book project can also come to represent a real turning point.
I suspect if Brandon was offered a job at the Royal Armouries he'd be a VERY happy young man indeed!
(Honestly, you could lock me in there for the rest of my life and I'd never be bored! Kind of like Baldwin's Book Barn in West Chester PA but that's another story!)
Always a treat to see a guest appearance of Jonathan Ferguson, the Keeper of Firearms and Artillery in the Royal Armories museum in the UK which houses thousands of iconic weapons from throughout history.
Yeah, I personally love Johnathan Ferguson, the keeper of firearms and artillery in the royal armories museum in the UK which houses thousands of iconic weapons from throughout history, Johnathan Ferguson, the keeper of firearms and artillery in the royal armories museum in the UK which houses thousands of iconic weapons from throughout history is really good at talking about stuff he understands and I really wish I could go visit Johnathan Ferguson, the keeper of firearms and artillery in the royal armories museum in the UK which houses thousands of iconic weapons from throughout history one day.
One chain of logic that could lead to the girandoni myth. The limited small number, the artisan style construction, and the unique strengths(quiet and no powder) could point to the best usage being a weapon of assassination. Anyone with one of these guns must be an assassin. Assassins and spies are seen as not normal soldiers and at times were often killed. Myth is born.
I was trawling through the comments in case someone had beaten me to this exact thought!
An assassin or an elite light infantry unit (jäger)
My favorite myth is that Napoleon fired artillery at the pyramids for...kicks? It makes me excited. Wow, I should just get a life.
It was part of a renovation and reconstruction project that was canceled due to a lack of funding.
Dude had some amazing aim since the pyramids were 8 miles away
Nah ur good, Ridley Scott should’ve had a life not spending 2 fucking years making a movie about a subject he had no interest in researching or reading about all for soulless corporate means to make money, 2 years and he’s said he never bothered reading up on it and stuck to just British bullshit myths and has now spread a super manipulative skewed history to a lot of ppl. What an insult to history, and to filmmaking. Honestly the more ive read up on Ridley as a director, it seems he was a huge asshole in real life, also he made 1492 and claimed it only failed becuz americans cant understand european accents. The gall on this motherfucker, he made two great movies and since then has teetered inbetween mediocre and shite, he makes beautiful films he just can’t write for shit or hire good scriptwriters
I've always heard that it was the Sphinx he had his troops shoot at and that was (supposedly) the Sphinx lost its nose.
17:26 you mean the Jonathan Ferguson keeper of firearms and artillery at the Royal Armouries museum in the UK which houses a collection of thousands of iconic weapons from throughout history.
You need to read this with the climax of „vordt of the boreal valley“ soundtrack from darksouls
Napoleon “I can spend 30,000 men a month” Bonaparte absolutely wouldn’t have cared about an air rifle.
I was so shocked to hear the word "Fuddlore" on this channel I almost had a spit take.
Its amazing how far back Fudd logic really goes when you take a look back at it.
"Grandugg, Grug make sharp rock and put on stick. Grug call weapon spear."
"That weapon is damn gimmick, Grug. Bad tribe will laugh at Grug. No weapon better than warclub. Grandugg really gave bad tribe hell with warclub."
Fudd lore probably goes as far back as the very beginning of human beginnings
Brandon your sponsorship segments are legendary, I love them so much. Just the work and humor you put into them is amazing.
Thank you, thank you for going the extra mile
Oh dear. What fresh devilry has Little Timmy found himself in?
Edit: Orphaned piglets sure do show up a lot in one's haversack.
Umm, yes, but the product is too limited. I can not use it if I can not carry 5k in cash in it.
Kransebes is also a myth that has been disproven multiple times. It was most likely just two regiments exchanging one volley due to poor vision and confusion, which commonly happened during the time, it happened to the Saxons at the Battle of Wagram as well
Every time I see a sponsor sketch from Brandon it gets more unhinged, I love it
this reminds me of the apocryphal story that gavrilo princip only managed to assassinate archduke franz ferdinand because he left a sandwich shop at the exact time the duke's motorcade was passing by. sean munger has a great video about how that story was accidentally picked up from a historical fiction novel and then repeated again and again as fact; very much worth your while if you have twenty odd minutes to spare :)
Excuse me but.... what. My whole adult life has been a lie.
Regarding the air rifle, it could theoretically be speculated that such a device might have been seen as an assassin's tool, which if so could maybe lend some plausibility to the idea of executing anyone caught with one. But of course that's just baseless conjecture on my part.
No, that would've been the actual rifles.
@kentknightofcaelin4537 more than likely it would have been an edged weapon or bow. Keep in mind, those still work just as well and are just as quiet plus a lot cheaper than a rifle. That's only my thought, I may be wrong
I sense that the whole "shotgun in WW1", whenever brought up by americans, is a way to amplify their role in a war where they saw few actual action. It's like the "Teufel Hunden" nickname, which has actually no german origin and was coined by the americans themselves.
There is a great desire these days for 'safe' patriotism in countries where genuine nationalism is considered chauvinistic. So you get the "America F yeah" stuff where patriotism is expressed by "badass" fake tall tales like the shotguns one or hitler being so BTFO'd by Jessie Owens that he didn't even look at him. I'm sure similar happens in a lot of similar countries.
Ikr the Germans were fine with the use of airplanes, flamethrower, mustard gas, etc. But this shotgun is apparently too OP.
similar thing happened with the USMC in WW! claiming that the germans gave them the scary / cool nickname devil dogs. When as early as 1921 people called B.S since there is no documented records or any use or recorded second hand reference of the germans in WW1 ever using that term.
@@TheChuckfuc they wanted it nerfed into development hell.
Saying the Americans saw few actual action is a bit insulting, and exaggerated
The funny thing about the "bows are better than muskets" myth is that bows were used against muskets, just not by European powers. Indian armies had archers, Chinese, Africans, and they did meet with some success. But no one who had the option of using muskets chose to use bows instead.
3 main reasons guns replaced bows 1. Convenience guns were easier to learn to use then bows so a peasant could kill an armoured knight in little more then a day of training bows took months to learn well 2. Hybrid use it was both a ranged and melee weapon using either a bayonet or the butt of the firearm 3. Psychological effect the smoke the blast the fact that each volley that goes offin front of you either your comrades or you will fall.
The Chinese did use bows together with muskets (remember that gunpowder was invented in China), mainly because bows were better suited for their cavalry tactics than muskets. So the Chinese infantry used muskets while the cavalry used bows.
@@funkymonkeyman1000 the first factor you list was enough by itself in the opinion of many historians
"To train a longbowman, you start with his grandfather" vs five minutes of "here's how the boomstick works"
"Bows can be better than muskets" is usually said by someone who's never fired a gun or bow. Long bows are exhausting, imagine picking up an 80 lb (36kg) object every time you shot. The professionals make it look easy but in a battle where you might need to fire 2 dozen arrows, I'm taking a musket every time.
During the Sengoku Period of Japan (1467-1600) there was a huge transition from bows to muskets (except with Calvary, horse archery is still a tradition/sport/art in Japan today), the best Samurai were officers, administrators, and engineers who could quickly arm massive peasant armies. The musket was mostly considered a peasant weapon with few samurai adopting it, for example if you look at the painting of the last major battle, Sekigahara, you'll see some bowmen but no musket-men despite many being present at the battle. And the predominant weapon was of course still a long pointy stick, the romanticization and status symbol of the sword hadn't quite happened in Japan yet. Then during the Boshin War (1869), almost no one used a bow. Both sides used muskets and later rifles, but their were some clashes with swords and pointy sticks as well. In the art we see no bows, even from the more traditionalist Shogun faction, who would often paint their officers in traditional Samurai armor despite them generally wearing western British or French uniforms.
Along with everything else already mentioned, it is actually much easier to maintain logistics with muskets than with bows. Arrows are expensive, heavy, bulky, and you shoot a lot of them very quickly.
I don't believe the idea that the air rifle couldn't fit a bayonet, it may have not been made to fit a bayonet but that doesn't seem like a consequence of it's mechanism.
They were supposedly too fragile for bayonet combat, but obviously you could still stick a bayonet on one & use it. The rifle just might not shoot right afterward.
Could the longbow myth have anything to do with Ben Franklin's letter to General Charles Lee suggesting the use of bows in the Continental Army?
Ol' Ben's suggestion of longbowmen was made with his tongue firmly in his cheek. 😂
I’ve argued multiple times with my best friend about whether a squad of longbowmen would be useful on a Napoleonic battlefield. Next time he brings it up I’m just linking him to Brandon’s video.
Congrats on the Jonathan Ferguson guest spot, by the way! Very cool and well deserved.
The focus on the Napoleonic wars is bizarre, since we have a perfectly serviceable historical record of the period that firearms were supplanting bows, and a number of comparisons made. Plus we have a series of wars in which longbowmen would have faced plenty of unarmoured musket troops, and the muskets that they were using were much inferior to those of Napoleon's time...... the British civil wars.
Longbows performance during which proved so magnificent that pikemen would shed all of their armour by the end of the war. Overall the longbow of this time achieved the lofty status of becoming..... a footnote in history.
@@ghpstage3076Not exactly longbows, but during the Italian wars (early 16th century) crossbows were surpassed in many ways by arquebuses to the point of being decisive in battle.
Finally, the first Brandon F's video for Twenty-Hundred and Twenty Four in the Year of Our Lord!
The Girandoni air rifle sounds like it could have been rather effective for small units pursuimg limited scope but high effect objectives. I'm not sure how much of that there was in the napoleonic wars though.
They had rifles for that already though
To my knowledge small unit tactics did not exist in conventional warfare until WW1, probably because of a vulnerability to cavalry and the rigid top down leadership style of pre modern armies giving junior officers zero autonomy. I know someone will correct me if I’m wrong though
@@jamiemcerlain5897 Junior officers had zero autonomy because of the slow communication of the day. Tactical opportunities appear and disappear within minutes, so there's no time to send a runner with a letter. If the commander sees a company moving out of the line, he doesn't know if the lieutenant sees something he doesn't, or is being a fucking moron and is about to get all of his men killed. With the advent of radio, ground level officers can now radio in to command before doing something so everyone knows what's going on. The senior officers can also quickly inform the junior officers if there's something they can't see and avoid disaster
It probably will be more for "day of the jackal" style assasins.
@@filmandfirearms Restrictions on the autonomy in pre-modern armies were political and doctrinal not technological. Autocratic governments are simply terrified of letting junior officers make decisions because it weakens their political control. Even in the age of radios there have been many cases of individual junior officers in more autocratic countries receiving orders over the radio directly from the highest levels of command. Meanwhile I have heard from an American platoon leader who fought in the Gulf War that they were given nearly complete autonomy in determining an completing their objectives and they said their platoon even in contact with their own company command most of the time let alone any higher leadership.
In any case slow communication encourages more autonomy not less because if communications are slow then high command has no way to enforce the following of orders or even check if the orders are being followed in the first place.
I've seen the longbow story a couple of times over the years. My understanding was that it was some armchair general in England at the time of the peninsular war who came up with the idea, wrote a letter to a newspaper or the army, and was then promptly ignored. Yet rather than being forgotten by history, it somehow became surprisingly well know. But i read that story so long ago i dont remember where i saw it or the exact details.
I had never heard of either myth, and to be honest, it was this video that reminded me that somewhere a very long time ago I had read about experimental air rifles in the Habsburg army. Nevertheless, it was enlightening to learn that those myths I hadn't heard of are false. And I'm saying this without irony. Myths get into our way of understanding reality, past and present.
Certainly, we all believe in some, and these are hard to identify. So, learning about the falsehood of other plausible sounding myths perhaps helps a little finding those we ourselves believe in. And ideally it makes us a bit more willing to challenge them.
Hey, don't knock myths. We wouldn't have all those great Greek myths, without someone just making it up !
Forgotten Weapons did a video of that Austrian 18th century air gun. Yes, production of these specialty weapons was pretty low.
I must admit, I did believe the longbows had some advantages over muskets for far too long. I also read a lot of Bernard Cornwell when I was younger. I suspect that those two sentences are related.
Muskets have better range and easier training requirements. Long bows have shorter range higher fire rate bows were definitely useful in guerrilla warfare. In America but they were not long bows
Oh don't worry, I know better now! Thanks though!
So you're saying Far Cry 3 is unrealistic
@@smokedbeefandcheese4144 Also, bows are quiet.
@smokedbeefandcheese4144 twice as many men with muskets will still always have a faster rate of fire than half as many men with bows. The musketeers will fire almost indefinitely without tiring. The archers will be physically exhausted by sustained fire.
The musketeers can be ready to fire set their aim and wait, holding off fire for the right moment with no effort unlike a bow, making firing in formation much easier and more accurate. Think of all of the men working together like a big shotgun aiming for one position and you'll see why cohesive firing in formation was much more accurate.
And there isn't the same suppressive effect when you know lots of arrows are clinking in one by one in a scattered way compared to knowing that if a platoon aims at your location there is a cloud of lead coming your way all at once. The latter limits the maneuvers of the enemy more effectively.
Arrows simply don't deter determined melee attackers the way that guns do. Especially once you add a bayonet to the equation giving every soldier a built-in passable melee weapon for little cost and weight.
can you do a video on the effect of high speed rail in napoleans conquests
Isn't it kind of obvious already though? It was key to his entire method of concentrating his forces at the turning points of battle.
“Black Betty” would make a good marching ditty! No source just pictured it in my brain. Don’t quote me cause, you know “ain’t said sh*t”.
T'is law then, Wellington calling for archers is Shenanigans, by order of his grace Jonathan Ferguson, Keeper of Firearms and Artillery of the Royal Armouries Museum
This is a good example of how a cursory glance at historical "fun facts" makes people from the past look like uneducated simpletons, when looking at sources more deeply with context in mind shows they used rational thought like any of us, and were actually quite impressive when you consider their extremely limited information.
Yes people in history and modern tribals are just as intelligent as us, we just have access to more information, wich makes us smarter but not more intelligent.
Most people like to score points by knowing something others don't. I'm 55 this year and you wouldn't believe the amount of things I was taught/read/heard that I've since found out were horse dookie. Doesn't mean you shouldn't listen, just don't repeat it till you've checked.
One of my favorite demonstrations of practicality was the recent Atun Shei video about Civil War rifles. On paper, the Henry is this unstoppable Machine gun that was a rare sight except for certain well-practiced shooters in the US army and native nations. But actually using it is a headache- hard on the fingers, heavy, hard to reload the chamber. You have to work for that rate of fire.
I recall an old documentary saying that the British were too stupid to use the Ferguson rifle, but actually looking at the reports and recreations of the weapon, it's very delicate, finicky, and expensive. It was a step in the right direction but it wasn't practical and Ferguson was killed before he could take another look at the design.
I found what the gent from the Royal Armories had to say VERY interesting indeed! And really, WHO knows how these myths concerning weapons get started and take on lives of their own? Back in the 1970's a gunwriter came up with a very good classification for the same:
"Old husband's tales." Says it all, doesn't it?
By the way, I couldn't help but notice the gent from the armory had a weapon on the table behind him that's got a number of myths of it's own, that STG-44 "Sturmgewehr." But discussion of that one's beyond the scope of this video!
(Unless someone REALLY wants to run down that rabbit hole!)
Great show as always Brandon, and Happy New Year!
I like "Old Husband Tales"! I may have to steal that one!
@@BrandonF Go right ahead Brandon! As I said, it just says so much! "Old wives" don't talk about guns and warfare much but old husbands do! And about other things like cars, power tools, sports, you get it!
That must of been Johnathan Ferguson’s emotional support sturmghewer.
Brandon Herrara did a really good video on the STG44 and its "relation" to the AK
@@Specter_1125 All that top-quality British hardware in the Royal Armoury and he needs a Fritzgewehr for an emotional support piece? Bloody 'ell!
Maybee the thing with air rifles is more because use by killing in a "unethical, vile way" eg. "cowardly" sniping soldiers from a hiding with a silent weapon (there such air rifle would make much sense). I see parallels with people like enemy snipers, people with sharpened spades or flame thrower handlers or partisans in WWI & II which had not much mercy to expect if caught alive....
I think that the fact that these myths can be examined and busted is an example of how far things have come. Most of the myths almost certainly emerged from books written, probably in the 1920's and 1930's by enthusiasts, many academic, who never actually had first hand experience with the things that they were writing about. When they were writing, you could speculate about those things because you could be sure that almost no one would have access to a longbow or know how to use one. So the "fact" that the longbow is superior to a flintlock musket is taken to be true, and since whoever wrote the book was an expert(Only experts wrote books on such things) the myth continued. As far as the myth goes, the longbow was driven off the field by the need for longbowmen to train and not because of other reasons. Since there was no way to test that, the myth could continue, unquestioned and it would make perfect sense in that environment for Arthur Wellesy, a true englishman to want longbowmen on the field to beat the Frogs. I could see some advantage to crossbows for some scenarios in a siege, but longbows? Just no.
This comment section is the perfect example to absolutely prove Brandon's conclusion.
Go through and read them, and count how many people are giving an opinion based on "I once read such & such, but I have lost the book" or "I once read this or that, but it was long ago and I don't remember where I read it".
Soooo.......you're saying that you have something "historical" to tell, but you can't cite a source any better than your personal vague recollections.
Oh hey you finally did a myths video! Pity its not on the Revolutionary war, but its a start
After the initial discharge, they need "extensive pumping to bring them back up to pressure..."
*Giggle smother* I'm a mature adult...
Love it when brandon goes Historical Mythbusters (now we need a petition to make that an actual series/video on the channel)
Once heard that the French musket could only fire five times before it had to be cleaned, which is why Napoleon used the column attack so often. Could never get this verified, possible for early models but also Brown Bess propaganda.
I doubt it's true. Battlefield accounts don't seem to support it. American Revolution forces also used the same musket (called the Charleville) in the American war of independence and it served just fine. So... probably propaganda
If you have something important to say, you should lower the volume of the background music. Not sure what the purpose of that music at the end was, but it certainly didnt mask the self promotion, neither did it make easier to understand or tolerate. Just FYI...
I love the story arc of Timmy during the ad segments , i hope to see him prosper as a brave veteran in the British Army !
The Musket/Longbow was discussed as a serious topic in the US Congress in revolutionary times! Bengerman Franklin actually spoke on arming our troops with long bows for a higher volume of fire. It did not pass. He was also in favor of the turkey as the national bird AND still eating them on holidays!
Did they realise how long it takes to train longbow man.
The modern day military myth that annoys me the most is that a .50 cal round can apparently take off your limb even if it misses you by a foot or so. This one is so prolific that i even heard it from ex-service members (not acctual war veterans).
The Girandoni would have been far more useful as a weapon when used in situations where prolonged engagements are not as likely, such as by personal guards and police forces, rather than the military.
Great video! (Even though I am now experiencing PTSD flashbacks at the mention of “Black Betty.”
The myth of the users of Girandoni rifles being executed on the spot combines two things and mixes them w/out the real context. Yes, people using them could and would be executed, but not regular soldiers. As you see, the Girandoni is a TYROLEAN weapon - and during 1809, the Tyrol was in an uprising against the franco-bavarian "opressors". The Tyroleans often fought like the spanish as guerrillas - and most of the time not in uniforms, but in their civillian clothes. That was the reason they were executed - partisans were frowned upon even back then as they do not too often conduct to the rules of war. And espescially in the Tyrol, Napoleon ordered the death sentences but ONLY FOR THE LEADERS, like Andreas Hofer and other ones. So, users of the Girandoni could be executed, but only if they were tyrolean partisans. Not every regular soldier that happened to wield one like the myth tells 😅
3:30 The "fingers of english longbowman" story is something I believed myself. Anyone knows if there is any truth to this anecdote and where it came from?
It's impossible to say for sure, but there isn't any evidence for it prior to the 19th century, while the time of English longbowmen coincides with a time when all non-noble prisoners of war were often just killed. Therefore, it seems unlikely.
I think it sounds plausible but it is probably just a myth. The usual tale told is that the French in 1415 said that they would cut off the first two fingers of any captured archers right hand, so he could never draw again. The myth then is that the archers on the morning of Agincourt waved their two fingers at the French to show they could still shoot. To this day the English version of the American "giving the finger" is two fingered. If it isn't true it should be! The English like it because it adds to the Agincourt myth of courage against great odds.
@@garylancaster8612could also be the sort of thing that happened a few times in a small scale and over time got blown up into a huge thing.
Sounds plausible until you find out that Longbow men war not rich and had no ransom value. So likely they were just killed in the fight. Ransom was quite a business in the 100 years war. Several unlanded nobles were able to make quite the living from it. Once you ransomed some Noble back to his family, he still had to raise enough cash to get his armour back.
The quiz show QI (I know, a quiz show is not a historical source, although QI tried to debunk myths where it could) claimed the "fingers of English longbowmen" story was of 20th Century origin (possibly in the comic history book 1066 and all that), and that the 2 fingered salute was just a local variant of the classic middle digit gesture, and shared its phallic meaning.
One of the Bow myth that movies/film tends to portray is that a rain of arrow could devastate column or line formation easily and that's make people think that bow are superior than musket because a rain of arrow could devastated a column or line formation of musket armed infantry. And this is so bother me
Just like with any military equipment in any army - it's not just the effectiveness of the weapon, it's the availability of the logistics and maintenance and replacement behind it. Each of those aspects also affect COST (which is usually at the top of decision making for technology adoption). In other words, to fully test the theory of "advanced weapons" truly making a difference, they would have to be tested over long and drawn out conflicts and results aggregated over the entire time. Not just a skirmish here and there.
The whole “horses won’t charge bayonets” thing annoys me personally. Horses happily charged pointy objects for centuries and could and did succeed even against squares. Squares are good formations, indeed, usually the best for cavalry but it’s not because horses don’t like charging infantry. Even at Waterloo we are told of British soldiers getting killed by cavalrymen. Squares are good rather because they can support each other and protect the flanks the musketry is just as important as the bayonet when dealing with cavalry.
I always challenge people who believe this to provide evidence of instances where horses refused to charge (rather than cavalrymen driving horses away cause the men themselves do not want to die) and I have yet to find any such account. Trained warhorses can operate even after getting stabbed or shot. Imagine how impossible jousting would be or fighting lancers would be if warhorses (rather than your average horse) was afraid of pointy objects?
Obviously in the Napoleonic era I would bet on well formed infantry in squares that is ready for the charge over an unsupported cavalry charge (a la Waterloo or the Battle of the Pyramids) but it’s not like it is in Total War where infantry can form a square on a dime and is invincible to cavalry charges. There is always nuance and a variety of possible scenarios.
More like the riders wouldn't do it if the charged line didn't break going by the first person accounts of Napoleonic melees.
@@RJLbwb Yup exactly. And ideally from the cavalry’s perspective it should be supported with artillery and/or infantry.
Adjacent to this, the myth that the longbow could break any and every cavalry charge annoys me the same way, and the French were idiots for trying it in the 100 years war.
In actuality, the French kept doing it because most of the time, a cavalry charge is devastating to longbowman. Armor for men and horse was able to stop the vast majority of arrows that strike them. Even when the horses weren’t barded, it’s much harder to “just kill the horse” than people spreading the myth believe. They’re large animals, and like you said, kept going even after being wounded (some many times).
What the British actually made great use of in battles where the longbow shined was positioning, terrain and fortifications, not the weapon itself.
So a question that's been bugging me due to the sheer difficulty I've been met with when trying to look into it, what was the procedure when a soldier was met with a misfire or malfunction? Was there any difference between how a regular line musketeer was to deal with it as opposed to the skirmishing troops or horsemen, and was there any change in said procedure between the introduction of the matchlock and the hay-day of the percussion lock?
Let's be honest, the Girandoni may have been marketed as this _silent killer_ like many other Windbüchsen before it but in reality they all have been a fancy hunting rifles for easily spooked game and tacticool gadgets for bored Emperors.
What makes sense, what I got from a historical novel, is that the amount of cannons, their size, and the number of shots they can fire are what was considered important strategical information. If they have mortars and if they have some hidden reserves.
i think the german shotgun in ww1 thing is a bit of merging of two separate things, the fact they did to some degree complain about the american use of shotguns and the fact they had a far more serious issue on the eastern front that was the russians use of dum dum rounds which ironically the russians also complained that the austro hungrians and germans were using dum dum rounds. the dum dum round business did in fact occur and caused some pretty nasty threats by all sides to kill each others prisoners of war.
Mustard gas and phosgene a ok. Hollow point bullets? How dare you sir!
@@rockmusicman21 pretty much.
@@rockmusicman21Gas was used by both sides and the French were actually the first to use gas in 1914, but if you think that was contridictory read the american ww2 news article that flamethrowers were humane and painless.
Ah... The ages old Wunderwaffen mythology.
Ah, I would like to say something about the Air-Rifle again if you don't mind. And there is something interesting we discovered; about the execution - yes, couldn't find any documents about it (yet) and I doubt we will find any truth. BUT what we did find out; one of our members of the k. k. IR3 possess a muster roll of one of the k. k. Jäger Bataillon. And as far as we have found out the Air-Rifle were indeed used, but in each Jäger-Bataillon. So we never had ONE Battalion full of these guns, they were only divided into small numbers in each Company or Platoon of all Jäger-Bataillone - because of the limitation as you already said. The exact date when they got decommissioned is not known yet. But as far as we can say it is to asume between 1802-1804, latest before Austerlitz - mostly because it was too costly and complex to manufacture and to keep it functional.
Finding original documents is really rare or maybe not accessible. Sadly. There are books about this gun, but the lack of historical evidence where it has been used is frustrating.
I guess it is similiar to the story about the Craspi Breechloader in the 1770s. It is said only 10,000 were produced for the regulars of the k. k. Army, commissioned by Joseph II, but also after few years they didn't continuing using it because of cost. As we can see - cost efficiency and availability for the mass was always in their priority, especially when money is short.
The Scottish accent was not on my bingo card.
Terror just doesn't last long when you learn the nature of the enemy. The romans broke against elephants again and again until they learned how to defeat them with a steady hail of projectiles that wounded them enough to rout. The Aztecs broke against horses again and again until they learned they could be slowed down and were more vulnerable in urban warfare. The first time firearms were used in New Zealand by the Ngāpuhi, they forced the Toa of the Ngāti Whātua to duck for cover...until they realized they had to be reloaded after each fire. While the Ngapuhi were reloading, and they were inexperienced in reloading, the Ngati Whatua closed in with their daggers and spears and staffs and slaughtered them. Lucius Aemillius Paulus was confronted with the great Macedonian pike phalanx at Pydna and was absolutely terrified...but he was able to keep fighting and retreating until the battle moved to uneven terrain where the more agile Romans could get past the pikes.
I have been watching a lot of history youtubers busting myths and all the myths seem to always start from an author pick up some tidbit a rando talk up and put it into a book somewhere.
"a silly very stupid idea"
Really? Sure, bowmen would be utterly crap employed conventionally, but even at a moments thought i can come up with several niche uses where bows could actually be useful.
And one of the reasons for why they could be useful at all is that by Napoleonic times, armor was not common, as protecting against muskets were excessively difficult.
Most of all, bows could be used for raiding where keeping quiet was important, like for doing a night raid on an enemy camp, only using bows until it becomes obvious the camp is waking up would mean more losses before the camp can get organised.
But the closest to conventional use, would be to exploit that arrows arc, meaning they could be used to fire over, up or down terrain features.
Another use would be exploiting the rapid shooting, preferably by forcing the enemy through a bottleneck where the bowmen would fire from a raised position, so as to also exploit the arcing, meaning that they would effectively be completely invisible to the enemies getting hit, meaning that you use regular forces just to put them in place, in a way that makes the enemy think that either they will be safe there, or that they must go through the position, which could be accomplished by causing a wildfire for example.
Absolutely not saying it would be great and optimal use of manpower, but for a commander who knows the terrain where they expect to fight? And have some very good ideas how to exploit it? Absolutely not stupid.
And if well prepared, could absolutely be very effective.
As a more generalised option, of course not, in the 16th century, bows could at least to some extent compete with muskets, but by early 19th century, absolutely not.
I can still think of some ways to use bows to defeat musketeers, but it would be very difficult and tricky to achieve in Napoleonic times.
"wasn't so intelligent"
No, if Wellington actually DID request such a thing, i'm pretty sure he would have had a very specific use in mind for them, that very much was not stupid.
"where do they come from"
Easy, when the early firearms came about, bows COULD EASILY be better if handled expertly enough(which wasn't entirely common).
And obviously, if it was true then, well they were still using the same muskets 300 years later right? (*lol*)
Because it wouldn't still be called a musket if they were blatantly more advanced right?
The above is actually literally based on an argument i had to disabuse someone of.
They literally thought that a 15th century matchlock musket was no different from a 19th century flintlock using minie ammo.
So at least some of the myths comes from very simple common people getting into popular history without any real understanding what they're looking at.
The proper 16th-century heavy musket was far more powerful than a 19th century so-called musket, especially we believe period claims about its ability to pierce armor. This doesn't mean it was a superior weapon overall, of course, but the later firearm doesn't beat it all categories.
On the longbow thing, I do remember reading something that could have been the seed of the myth. The book was a fairly in depth one on the nuts and bolts of Napoleonic period warfare, it said tests were carried by the BoA at Woolwich of the relative qualities of the Brown Bess and longbow, 1797 I think. I will try to dig out the reference, it may have been a David Chandler book.
If you could find it, that would be a fantastic thing to look into! Please let me know if you do.
I certainly will.@@BrandonF
There was a test of the Brown Bess in the 1790s that was told to me by an English co-worker and friend who was also into muzzle-loading. As he put it those involved began cutting down the barrel of the Bess to see at what point the ballistic performance of the bullet fell off.
Well, they cut the barrel down to 28 inches before a loss in performance appeared. So, the British Army knew at that point they didn't need to have 42 in barrels on the muskets anymore but decided to keep them long for the reach that was needed in a bayonet fight or as a defense against cavalry. With the exception of specialized longarms such as carbines and musketoons infantry barrel lengths wouldn't drop subatantially until the invention of smokeless powder.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706And even then. Rifles from the 1890s still were quite long, for instance the Mauser C93 used by Spain and some South American countries was 1.9 meters long (8.4 feet), and it used smokeless gunpowder. I'd say until trench warfare was generalised in WW1.
Longbow is an amazing weapon, and as such is followed fervently by ardent fans, who could easily rival those of a katana, and from some distance to boot😉
The true power of the Girandoni repeater will not be known until Mel Gibson releases his new movie, The Patriot 2- Loyalist Boogaloo.
A book spin-off for the 1970 film 'Waterloo' mentioned the longbow question and the author said it was much easier to train a soldier to shoot a musket than use a longbow effectively. I don't remember the author and can't find my copy of the book so don't know why it was raised in describing the battle. The cover had screen shots from the film front and back.
There is a story that Benjamin Franklin suggested using bows and arrows to fight the Brits during the American Revolution, but people claim he said a lot of things.
Mind you, air rifles were nothing new by this time, the Girandoni was simply the first air rifle adopted by an army.
Air rifles themselves date back to the 1570's in actual production, earlier sketches existed, but I don't know if any of the sketches remain, though I do know none of the air rifles from those sketches remain-
The earliest remaining ones are from the 1570's (maybe 60's, even), but they seem to have been a novelty/hunting tool if anything. There was a surge in the production of air rifles in the 1650's.
Beyond that, you find occasional ones here and there, but not in significant numbers. Until the Girandoni shows up, at which point the technology was further looked into for improvements.
I would love to see a discussion between Brandon and Bernard Cornwall. Someone who, in his books, tried to keep things accurate. (Aside from where is hero needs to achieve something.)
There's also the fact that Girandoni air rifle delivered much less kinetic energy per shot than period muskets. The best replica I'm aware managed 190 J. I'm not sure that would penetrate heavy winter clothing at any significant range. & kinetic energy declined with each shot from the reservoir. It's possible the originals outperformed this replica, but there's no way that could have been close to as powerful as period muskets. If they'd ever gotten popular, it would have been easy to make a light & convenient suit of armor (perhaps of leather or fabric) that would protect against them completely apart from the exposed parts like the eyes.
Not finished watching yet (clearly) 😅 but it's pretty neat so far! Keep it up, Brandon!
their are myth today. one of my favorit myth is when pepole talk about the old service rifle. with a bigger bullit. it was totaly accurat and the enemy died even it it was shoot in the foot. Not like todays service rifle. with its toy calibre. what rifles i am talking about. It could be any two. from late 19th century and forward.
5.56 is better that 7.62 for Assault rifles. Some people Just need to Accept that already.
Evidence for Karensebes is really ambiguous as far as I know (with offical reports naming only 150 casualties and the loss of a few supply wagons). Other reports only emerge sixty years later. In any regard I would like to know if there are additonal sources about this incident.
"Fudd Lore". I haven't heard that phrase in a long time. A long time.
How much is "one corps of bowmen" anyway?
IT'S JOHNATHAN!!!! IT'S JOHNATHAN FERGUSON!!!!
listening to little Timmy's war stories is all i need to understand the realities of war XD
Hey brandon
Hi
@@BrandonF yo brandon updates on patriot video?
@@BrandonF do a video about the WW1 shotgun myth
I regret I have only one like to give your ¨collab¨ with that cool Royal Armories guy.
The Girandoni was only a late comer in a very, very long line of extremely innovative firearms which were fabulously advanced for their day, but also impossible to mass manufacture.
What is better 3 16th century Viscounts packing metallic cartridge repeaters or 2000 musketeers?
Can you maybe do a video about WW2 myths? There's quite a few of them that really get on my nerves
One could make a series debunking WW 2 myths.
@@Lonovavir yeah
The saga of little Timmy continues! The TCU is strong!
This reminds me of a problem I see often in reenacting. Someone will cherry pick an example of something that was rare and try to pass it off as more common just because they like it and want an excuse to use it.
The biggest downside of the Girandoni air rifle was it just wasn't that lethal compared to muskets. The mass and velocity(150gr @600fps) of those air guns produced wasn't competitive compared to a 500gr @1400fps(also you get the same issue with longbows). Combined with the price and technical complication it just wouldn't have been that useful for most battlefield scenarios. The air tanks running low I don't see as an issue though, since doctrinally, each Windbüchsejager was supposed to be issued with 3 tanks for a total of 90 shot between the three. Over the course of a battle that is a perfectly reasonable amount of ammunition to expect a skirmisher to discharged. Resupply would certainly take much longer to do since you would need to pump each one up, that being a very time consuming task.
what I heard about this rifle is that the soldier were too dumb to use it. There was so many repair and accident related to shot that it was removed from service in 1810. the distance that it was effective was low after some shots so it must have contributed a lot to make it difficult to train new soldier to be efficient in a short time after levy
I always thought the story was that they cut the finger off of crossbowmen because they were considered dishonorable and that's where the practice of sticking up your middle finger as an insult.
Not one finger, but two fingers which were used to draw the bow. The 2 finger salute is an expression of defiance
I've seen accounts of the single middle finger as an insult going back at least to Roman times, essentially as a phallic gesture.
two fingers of a bowman, which is why sticking two fingers up as a v sign is used to express "go away in short sharp jerky motions" in the UK
It's interesting that you used Goya's executions of the 3rd of May in your thumbnail. And... in 10:28 it is. One of the most iconic paintings in Spanish history.
yeah, I was really confused about that, like he was going to say those executions didn't happen
@@cfv7461 Those executions definitely happened, they're extremely well docummented.
Ok i guess it boils down to the effectivness/value ratio of a weapon system :
Basically how much damage or effect can a weapon system do ,
And how valuable is it ?
wich motivates how much the enemy will want to try and take it out
The girardoni air rifle and the longbow have this on different ends of the spectrum :
The GAR was a very effective weapon , but it's rarity and vulnerability meant that it would have been a pretty valuable and vulnerable target for the enemy , so they would be forced out of the face to face fight and onto the part of ambushing (let's face it every weapon is good at ambushing , even a piece of rope can be used in an ambush to choke someone)
So really the guerilia is used by lesser forces to take out larger ones ...
The long bow has sort of the opposite problem :
While it would need a lower poundage to take out someone given muskets made armour almost usless ,
They would still be outmatched by a musket : an arrow doesn't have the momentum of a musket ball ,
And you can shoot a musket for longer than a bow ,
As well as the psychological aspect of muskets sounding a lot more effective than a bow ,
So again bows are less effective than muskets , they kill too slowly ...
So they are yet again relegated to guerillia warfare ...
I think in 1862 it was authorized to have a couple companies of pikemen in CSA regiments, it never happened for obvious reasons.
The Union Army actually had a cavalry regiment armed with lances for a while. I suppose someone thought it was a good idea but the lances turned out to be a clumsy PITA and were quickly gotten rid of.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706some militaries maintained the use of lancers through WW1. They had their place.
Obviously in Europe they did or they wouldn't have kept them.
I have never heard of Girandoni air rifle, it's a really fascinating invention! Basically an early BB gun capapble of killing someone!
I think i will use the idea of this weapon for my fantasy world building. Of course weapon won't be used by armies but rather by mercenaries and rich sharpshooters. I think it would make sense in such usage
Imagine if when the Americans or Soviets first encountered German Sturmgewehrs in WW2 their first thought was to execute any German soldier found with one. That’s what the whole “Napoleon ordered the execution of Austrian soldiers found with Giradonis” myth sounds like. What the Americans and especially the Soviets actually did was say “woah! These things are awesome, we want some of those.”
Not the most important takeaway from this video I realize, but that comparison made me chuckle when it occurred to me.
Man, you shoulda made a follow-up video with Fergusons collab. Would've got tons of views haha at the time.
I can see the query 'are there enough longbowmen in England to make a company?' coming up in a conversation about the weapon & it's current use. Asking 'how many people still do this?' with the military unit just being a unit of measurement. Then the question is quoted out of context to make it sound like Wellington was requesting a unit of longbowmen.
If any such conversation ever occurred with Wellington, & it was recorded, of course. It may not have.
You are a marketing genius.
I was clickbaited because of the thumbnail, due to which I thought you were gonna argue that the 2nd of May executions that Goya painted in what you call "Peninsular war" did not happen. As a Spanish historian, I was about to write a very long and angry paragraph lol
Apologies for that! I had a hard time finding a good image of a Napoleonic French firing squad!
The American Civil War and the Henry Rifle is another example. While the Spencer was produce in 40 times those numbers. It was expensive, it was impossible to field strip, and was not a powerful cartridge.
The Girandoni Air Rifle seems good for hunting to supplement rations and possibly skirmishing and harassment patrols. Though the cost and hassle just make them unfeasible in a lot of cases. Maybe it that weird air compressor wagon worked out that might have made them more viable.
If the Girandoni had been as fantastic as its proponents say, and I say that as someone who really does like their concept, then Napoleon wouldn't have been executing people for using them, he'd have been buying up as many as he could.