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.
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.
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."
"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."
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.
wait what?? who is 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. Never heard of that guy
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
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
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."
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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 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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
The quote about Napoleon being shock about these air rifles reminds me of the quote about Napoleon dismissing the idea of steam powered ships. Same vain of the ideas that leaders or people rejecting an idea or invention we all use nowadays simply because they couldn't see the potential and modern people know o better now. Shout out to Leonard Nimoy in Civ 4
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 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.
I heard the longbowmen story at least twenty years ago but not as described. The story that I recall was that it relates to a letter to The Times asking why our army currently in Spain could not be armed with longbows instead of muskets? I was reading John Keegan's book The Face of Battle at the time, which covers Agincourt, Waterloo and the first day of the Somme, but whether it was actually in that book I can't remember, and I no longer have a copy of that book to double check.
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.
That first myth sounds a lot like a segment from All Quiet on the Western Front. "We overhaul the bayonets, that is the ones with a saw on the blunt edge. If the fellows over there catch a man with one of those, he's killed on sight. In the next sector, some of our men were found with their noses cut off and their eyes poked out with their own saw-bayonets. Their mouths and noses were stuffed with sawdust so that they suffocated. Some of the recruits have bayonets of this sort; we take them away and give them the ordinary kind." This speaks to an opposite characterization of such behavior, not that serrated bayonets were more effective, as they weren't, but instead that they were seen as barbaric and thus deserving of violent retribution. I find that much more believable in so far as plausible motivations.
The actual reason for those sawtooth bayonets was they were intended as multi-purpose engineer tools, not primarily as combat weapons. As it turned out you could chop through a piece of wood like a tree branch faster with a standard bayonet than you could saw through it with that engineer tool. Other armies before or since have tried making multi-purpose tools out of bayonets but it never worked out for any of them.
@@whensomethingcriesagain Oh absolutely! A German soldier caught with one of those things wasn't likely to be given the chance to explain he was an engineer and it was a tool of the trade. In a way a similar situation played out in WW2. German tankers wore a "death's head" insignia on their uniform collars as it was a traditional mark of elite cavalry regiments but when facing imminent capture late in the war they'd throw away those "death's head" insignias as they didn't want to be mistaken for SS men. There was a difference between the panzer and SS "death's head" insignias but an enemy soldier wouldn't be likely to know the difference. Better safe than sorry.
@@whensomethingcriesagain The British press made a big song and dance about the barbaric "butcher blades" carried by German soldiers. I was all propaganda of course and the saw-backed bayonets were, as you say, combination pioneer's tools which were issued on a one per squad basis to help with cutting wood for fuel and shelter - but that didn't stop British soldiers from executing Germans captured with pioneer's bayonets because they believed what they'd read in the papers.
"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.
I remember seeing something about a few much more crude looking air rifles being used in Spain by guerrillas as well, I'm sure not many but I would have to find that book again.
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 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 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?
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.)
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.
13:45 I'm familiar with the Wellington's Longbows myth, but I seem to have heard a different version than most other people. In the version I heard, an MP gets the bright idea to try to raise a force of English longbowmen to go fight Napoleon. The problem is that less than one hundred men can be found in the entire country who are anywhere near skilled (or strong) enough to have any conceivable use on the battlefield, and so the plan is cancelled. The "moral" of this version was actually pro-musket: even if the longbow was somehow superior in a mythical 1-VS-1 engagement, it couldn't be up-scaled for a Napoleonic battlefield. The weapon was too expensive, the arrows were too expensive, and proper training took so long that if a longbow unit took serious casualties even once, the men lost would be irreplaceable for several years. Meanwhile, musket-armed line infantry could be conscripted by the thousands, handed a mass-produced weapon, and trained up to basic competency in just a few weeks. "Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics", that sort of thing.
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.
DearBrandon F, As always I enjoyed your tutorial on a weapon that went with Lewis & Glark I had no idea it saw limited service in the Army again thank you for an excellent & informative talk
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.
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!
I think I've seen a couple of variations of the Wellington/longbow myth, I think on Wikipedia. One was that it was a general in the English Civil Wars/ Wars of the Three kingdoms in the mid-17th century, rather than Wellington who enquired about raising longbowmen. This would be more plausible, as that's a lot closer to the age when longbows were still used in war. The Wikipedia page for 'Longbow' still claims that they may have been used at the Battle of Tippermuir during that conflict. The other version of the myth was (I think) a quote from a military historian speculating about the impact trained longbowmen might have had on Napoleonic warfare- i.e. some guy's opinion, rather than an actual historic record. I wish I could remember better, but it was ages ago that I saw either one. I think people love to fixate on the impact particular weapons and small-scale tactics have on battles is because it makes them feel like if they were placed in that situation they could be smart and well-equipped enough to prevail. It's empowering for them as individuals. The depressing truth is that often in warfare the individual soldier is just a cog in the machine, and a lot of what happens to them is down to things outside of their control. This is particularly true of linear warfare, where soldiers were required to literally stand in rows and get shot at. It's a nightmarish and dehumanising idea and people don't like thinking about being in that situation. They'd much rather believe that they know this 'One secret trick for surviving the Battle of Austerlitz that Napoleon doesn't want you to know!' or whatever.
They were definitely used in the English civil war. Historian E.T Fox in his book Military Archery in the Seventeenth Century, which is mostly a reprint of three pre war letters to the crown, also offers a foreword where he offers a brief overview of the evidence of their presence and use in the civil wars, in letters, manifests and deeds. They were primarily a feature of militia rather than armies, but they did find use in armies, played important roles and had some successes. Fox mentions the case of Bridgenorth in Shropshire, where a force of militia archers caught Royalist musketmen fording a river and drove them off, that archers with fire arrows were a common sight at sieges, and that the Earl of Essex commissioned a Thomas Taylor to raise and command a force of archers, presumably for the parliamentary army itself. He also notes some unusual, perhaps experimental uses, for sending propaganda over the walls of besieged towns, sending messages and there has even been some suggestion that William Neade's 'Double Armed Man' (a pikeman with a bow strapped to his pike!) may have made a cameo. And that was in England. The wider wars of the three kingdoms saw fighting throughout Scotland and Ireland too, which were less well developed, and had populations that were less trusted with newer weapons. It is not hard to imagine far more bows used there. Ultimately however their impact must have been limited, because there was no resurgence in the use of armour among musketmen (who had long discarded it), pikemen actually shed their 3/4 plate by the end, and there was no appetite to retain archers in the wars aftermath.
@@ghpstage3076 I've seen another video that cites a few other occasions where bows were used during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, with sources listed, so yeah, you're 100% right. I can't remember the title or channel exactly, but it was a small history channel and the video title related to the concept of the 'double armed man', which was an idea circulated in early 17th century Britain of giving pikemen bows attached to their spears so they could shoot at the enemy until the lines drew close. It's all very weird, and very much worth looking into. I think we're both agreed that they didn't have much effect because there weren't many soldiers who were good at using them by the mid 17th century. But you're still right, and I'm still wrong!
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...
Merriweather Lewis had one of those air rifles on the Lewis and Clark expedition.He frequently demonstrated it for Indian tribes they encountered along the way.When asked how many times the gun could fire Lewis would reply that there was no limit to how many times it would fire.
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
I have a hardback Blanford Book of British Uniforms and one of the illustrations is for a proposed uniform for a Royal Corps of Archers C. 1802. The book was published in the 1960s, so it appears that the myth is even older than the 1980s. The text stresses that this was merely a proposal, never put into practice
That is very interesting! Would it be bold to ask you to email me a photo of that page? At BrandonF@nativeoak.org I wonder if the author/artist took a civilian or otherwise non-military group of archers and assumed it was intended for a military unit. There is a pretty snazzy portrait out there of George IV in all green with a longbow, as well as the "Royal Company of Archers" but a field unit they were (and are) certainly not! Edit: Strike that, it was the Earl of Morton, one of the Royal Company in that portrait- not George!
A myth I've heard is that during the final battles against Napoleon, I've often seen the Dutch soldiers often portrayed as cowards who constantly need rescue, even though they were some of the best fighters Wellington had and they saved his butt numerous times.
lol thank Sharpe for popularizing this myth. And British hubris too I guess for not trusting their Dutch and Belgian allies back then (most likely the British Army did trust them, but also needed a scapegoat).
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.
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).
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.
I recall as a youth in the 1960‘s hearing people who knew nothing of weaponry noting that the longbow‘s rate of fire and effective range was greater than a musket, and stating that the British army should have switched over. Of course, to be a longbowman, you had to start training as a child and keep at it forever, while you could go from peasant to proficient musketeer in a few months. Still bowmen or air riflemen could have been good night snipers, but the Peninsular Campaign did not lend itself to needing such. There is, as pointed out, no record of the use of either.
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.
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.
@12:38 So, I think I know where the confusion comes from: 1. Air rifles were given to the Tyroler-Jägers, and such Jägers spent much of the war fighting against the occupation of their homeland: these people, being militia, also very likely had air guns for their own personal use, maybe even whatever military ones could be found. The French would not have cared though, because they declared that anyone in Tyrol caught with a firearm would be executed, the rifles mattering less than the insurgency. 2. Napoleon banned air rifles for use as hunting weapons in France. Ironically enough, Napoleon might have done this for the same reason Austria wouldn't have used air rifles to begin with: everyone was desperate to have capable light infantry armed with rifles, and people only skilled with air guns would have been useless in that role. So, people combined the two.
The one place I could see someone knowledgable on the topic suggesting a formation of longbows like that: Facing invasion, asking if they could cobble together a force of archers who already are trained on and possess their weapons and could be fielded as a slightly useful militia force with no real training. Not saying it happened or would be a very good idea. But an act of desperation is where I could see it potentially being done.
@@kentknightofcaelin4537 They were still in use for sport and hunting. Were they common enough to form a military unit? I have no idea, but I also doubt most people who weren't raised in such communities would have any idea. And, again, it probably never happened and such a force would probably not be very effective. But the one place I could see an competent military leader calling for bowmen in Napoleonic Era Britain would be as a hastily raised militia (which generally aren't very effective at the best of times).
@@88porpoise Britain was unlikely to have been invaded in the first place, since if they were planning it the French navy would have to beat the larger, more powerful Royal Navy, and even if they had made plans for the instance, amateur archery seems an unlikely source of fighters. Not only were the bows they were using were sport bows, but it was more of a middle and upper class hobby which would severely restrict the numbers available, and by the Napoleonic era a lot of the costs and difficulties involved with equipping and training firearm troops had been gone through centuries of ironing out. However, what you are suggesting is exactly how archers were seen by a number of veteran captains in England from the late 16th to the middle of the 17th. They understood the important distinction between 'training' and 'practice' and saw that bows only required the latter, while also being incredibly accessible to the everyman... which is why a requirement for practice had been laid down in law in the first place. Or as William Neade said in 1625 "But sure I am, it is the cheapest weapon of all others, and the easiest both to be had, and to be practised." Some examples of what was being said along those lines, From the 1593 siege of Rouen captain Edmund Yorke wrote back to England with “If half the pioneers had pikes and the other half bows, they might do something beside digging, for ‘they be natural weapons and therefore need not teaching’.” Robert Barret in his 1598 military treatise wrote about keeping firearms and pikes for trained men while the remnant stocks of 'bills and bowes, which every man, or most men can handle, shall, (if neede require) be put in place of service befitting them weapons.' Markham Gervase in 1634 wrote a letter to the crown pleading to fill the large holes he saw in militias as being caused by disbanding archers to be filled with said men, claiming it could, at a minimum double the amount of ranged infantry in the trained bands, and that it could be done with 'most ease, without charge, trouble, or other difficulty, '
Posting this a little late but OH MY GOSH! Everyone I bring a suggestion: BUY A CAMEO FROM BRANDON! Just roasted my friend Jon with a cameo and it was hilarious! I highly suggest you guys buy one! So go and do it!!!
I"ve always really appreciate your dedication to historical accuracy and this video explains why.. I think a lot of people would consider these points to be "nitpicking the nitty-gritty.." And it sort of is... A bit of the "AAACCtuaalllyyy..." type meme. But for all the reasons you said, it's important to accurately attribute not only events, but intentions of the people doing them.. And changing small details to fit a narrative changes exactly that. The intentions, prejudices, ideas and concerns of the people being talked about.
Muskets vs Longbows, simple 50 arrows would weigh 12.5 lb, 50 musket balls about 3 lb. To make a musket ball, you pour molten lead through a hole in a sheet of steel at the top of a very tall tower, thus you can make thousands in one day. A good smith could probably make 15 arrow heads an hour and a fletcher could probably assemble about a dozen arrows an hour. Then there's the training, maybe a couple of weeks to learn how to fire a musket vs starting training at age 8 and practicing for a few hours every Sunday, to build up the strength to be able to shoot your 'clothyard shaft' for up to 300yards. So in conclusion, as a longbow shooter myself, I must say that muskets win EVERY time. Though, having a thousand trained longbowmen at Waterloo, might have had some impact, despite how bollocks the idea really is (as they would be useless after, maybe, 5 minutes!)
On the Napoleon with Girandoni Air Rifle myth: It's even more ridiculous knowing that Napoleon is a Gunnery School graduate. Sure, that means he's trained in Artillery. But I am willing to bet that he also studies Small Arms as well. Does anyone seriously saying that a General that is Majoring in Gunnery does not appreciate the usage of a more effective Small Arms option if he deemed it feasible? Yeah no, that myth does insults his intelligence
France threatening to cut off the Fingers of English Longbowmen can be ironic considering during the Ordonance Reforms, the French Ended up using Longbowmen too.
![True Size of Napoleon's Army - The Infantry [c. 1808] 3D DOCUMENTARY](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qR0sODDUT8U/mqdefault.jpg)
![True Size of Napoleon's Army - The Infantry [c. 1808] 3D DOCUMENTARY](/img/tr.png)
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
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
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
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...."
"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
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.
wait what?? who is 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. Never heard of that guy
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)
Napoleon “I can spend 30,000 men a month” Bonaparte absolutely wouldn’t have cared about an air rifle.
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.
Every time I see a sponsor sketch from Brandon it gets more unhinged, I love it
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.
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
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
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 true power of the Girandoni repeater will not be known until Mel Gibson releases his new movie, The Patriot 2- Loyalist Boogaloo.
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
Finally, the first Brandon F's video for Twenty-Hundred and Twenty Four in the Year of Our Lord!
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.
Thanks!
That's very generous of you, thank you! And also for your support by pre-ordering the book, I just saw it go through.
@@BrandonF my pleasure
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.
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.
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.
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
“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”.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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!
Ah... The ages old Wunderwaffen mythology.
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.
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.
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.
After the initial discharge, they need "extensive pumping to bring them back up to pressure..."
*Giggle smother* I'm a mature adult...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
"Fudd Lore". I haven't heard that phrase in a long time. A long time.
The quote about Napoleon being shock about these air rifles reminds me of the quote about Napoleon dismissing the idea of steam powered ships.
Same vain of the ideas that leaders or people rejecting an idea or invention we all use nowadays simply because they couldn't see the potential and modern people know o better now.
Shout out to Leonard Nimoy in Civ 4
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'm sure I've seen Jonathan in some documentaries before, an awesome guy with an awesome job!
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.
I heard the longbowmen story at least twenty years ago but not as described. The story that I recall was that it relates to a letter to The Times asking why our army currently in Spain could not be armed with longbows instead of muskets? I was reading John Keegan's book The Face of Battle at the time, which covers Agincourt, Waterloo and the first day of the Somme, but whether it was actually in that book I can't remember, and I no longer have a copy of that book to double check.
I always look forward to watching your videos when they show up in my feed.
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.
That first myth sounds a lot like a segment from All Quiet on the Western Front. "We overhaul the bayonets, that is the ones with a saw on the blunt edge. If the fellows over there catch a man with one of those, he's killed on sight. In the next sector, some of our men were found with their noses cut off and their eyes poked out with their own saw-bayonets. Their mouths and noses were stuffed with sawdust so that they suffocated. Some of the recruits have bayonets of this sort; we take them away and give them the ordinary kind."
This speaks to an opposite characterization of such behavior, not that serrated bayonets were more effective, as they weren't, but instead that they were seen as barbaric and thus deserving of violent retribution. I find that much more believable in so far as plausible motivations.
The actual reason for those sawtooth bayonets was they were intended as multi-purpose engineer tools, not primarily as combat weapons. As it turned out you could chop through a piece of wood like a tree branch faster with a standard bayonet than you could saw through it with that engineer tool.
Other armies before or since have tried making multi-purpose tools out of bayonets but it never worked out for any of them.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 It sure doesn't look that way to an enemy though, one can understand why they were seen as a barbaric tool on the battlefield
@@whensomethingcriesagain Oh absolutely! A German soldier caught with one of those things wasn't likely to be given the chance to explain he was an engineer and it was a tool of the trade.
In a way a similar situation played out in WW2. German tankers wore a "death's head" insignia on their uniform collars as it was a traditional mark of elite cavalry regiments but when facing imminent capture late in the war they'd throw away those "death's head" insignias as they didn't want to be mistaken for SS men.
There was a difference between the panzer and SS "death's head" insignias but an enemy soldier wouldn't be likely to know the difference. Better safe than sorry.
@@whensomethingcriesagain The British press made a big song and dance about the barbaric "butcher blades" carried by German soldiers. I was all propaganda of course and the saw-backed bayonets were, as you say, combination pioneer's tools which were issued on a one per squad basis to help with cutting wood for fuel and shelter - but that didn't stop British soldiers from executing Germans captured with pioneer's bayonets because they believed what they'd read in the papers.
@@mattbowden4996 I guess they’d forgotten about the British 1879 Pattern Martini Henry Sawback Bayonet, by then.
"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.
Oh hey you finally did a myths video! Pity its not on the Revolutionary war, but its a start
I always wondered growing up why weren't bows used in these kinds of battles of dense infantry formations
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 !
I always skip sponsorships in videos, but yours was just too funny not to skip!
I remember seeing something about a few much more crude looking air rifles being used in Spain by guerrillas as well, I'm sure not many but I would have to find that book again.
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 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 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?
Love it when brandon goes Historical Mythbusters (now we need a petition to make that an actual series/video on the channel)
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.)
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.
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.
That sponsor segment absolutely shattered me as much as a French Navy Sailor being shattered by a British Grape shot
13:45 I'm familiar with the Wellington's Longbows myth, but I seem to have heard a different version than most other people.
In the version I heard, an MP gets the bright idea to try to raise a force of English longbowmen to go fight Napoleon. The problem is that less than one hundred men can be found in the entire country who are anywhere near skilled (or strong) enough to have any conceivable use on the battlefield, and so the plan is cancelled. The "moral" of this version was actually pro-musket: even if the longbow was somehow superior in a mythical 1-VS-1 engagement, it couldn't be up-scaled for a Napoleonic battlefield. The weapon was too expensive, the arrows were too expensive, and proper training took so long that if a longbow unit took serious casualties even once, the men lost would be irreplaceable for several years. Meanwhile, musket-armed line infantry could be conscripted by the thousands, handed a mass-produced weapon, and trained up to basic competency in just a few weeks. "Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics", that sort of thing.
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.
DearBrandon F,
As always I enjoyed your tutorial on a weapon that went with Lewis & Glark I had no idea it saw limited service in the Army again thank you for an excellent & informative talk
listening to little Timmy's war stories is all i need to understand the realities of war XD
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.
You would have to be an absolute madman to bring a longbow into a musket fight and live to tell the tale.
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.
I think I've seen a couple of variations of the Wellington/longbow myth, I think on Wikipedia. One was that it was a general in the English Civil Wars/ Wars of the Three kingdoms in the mid-17th century, rather than Wellington who enquired about raising longbowmen. This would be more plausible, as that's a lot closer to the age when longbows were still used in war. The Wikipedia page for 'Longbow' still claims that they may have been used at the Battle of Tippermuir during that conflict. The other version of the myth was (I think) a quote from a military historian speculating about the impact trained longbowmen might have had on Napoleonic warfare- i.e. some guy's opinion, rather than an actual historic record. I wish I could remember better, but it was ages ago that I saw either one.
I think people love to fixate on the impact particular weapons and small-scale tactics have on battles is because it makes them feel like if they were placed in that situation they could be smart and well-equipped enough to prevail. It's empowering for them as individuals. The depressing truth is that often in warfare the individual soldier is just a cog in the machine, and a lot of what happens to them is down to things outside of their control. This is particularly true of linear warfare, where soldiers were required to literally stand in rows and get shot at. It's a nightmarish and dehumanising idea and people don't like thinking about being in that situation. They'd much rather believe that they know this 'One secret trick for surviving the Battle of Austerlitz that Napoleon doesn't want you to know!' or whatever.
Longbows did indeed continue to see some military service during the English Civil War.
They were definitely used in the English civil war. Historian E.T Fox in his book Military Archery in the Seventeenth Century, which is mostly a reprint of three pre war letters to the crown, also offers a foreword where he offers a brief overview of the evidence of their presence and use in the civil wars, in letters, manifests and deeds. They were primarily a feature of militia rather than armies, but they did find use in armies, played important roles and had some successes.
Fox mentions the case of Bridgenorth in Shropshire, where a force of militia archers caught Royalist musketmen fording a river and drove them off, that archers with fire arrows were a common sight at sieges, and that the Earl of Essex commissioned a Thomas Taylor to raise and command a force of archers, presumably for the parliamentary army itself. He also notes some unusual, perhaps experimental uses, for sending propaganda over the walls of besieged towns, sending messages and there has even been some suggestion that William Neade's 'Double Armed Man' (a pikeman with a bow strapped to his pike!) may have made a cameo.
And that was in England. The wider wars of the three kingdoms saw fighting throughout Scotland and Ireland too, which were less well developed, and had populations that were less trusted with newer weapons. It is not hard to imagine far more bows used there.
Ultimately however their impact must have been limited, because there was no resurgence in the use of armour among musketmen (who had long discarded it), pikemen actually shed their 3/4 plate by the end, and there was no appetite to retain archers in the wars aftermath.
@@ghpstage3076 I've seen another video that cites a few other occasions where bows were used during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, with sources listed, so yeah, you're 100% right. I can't remember the title or channel exactly, but it was a small history channel and the video title related to the concept of the 'double armed man', which was an idea circulated in early 17th century Britain of giving pikemen bows attached to their spears so they could shoot at the enemy until the lines drew close. It's all very weird, and very much worth looking into.
I think we're both agreed that they didn't have much effect because there weren't many soldiers who were good at using them by the mid 17th century. But you're still right, and I'm still wrong!
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...
Merriweather Lewis had one of those air rifles on the Lewis and Clark expedition.He frequently demonstrated it for Indian tribes they encountered along the way.When asked how many times the gun could fire Lewis would reply that there was no limit to how many times it would fire.
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
I have a hardback Blanford Book of British Uniforms and one of the illustrations is for a proposed uniform for a Royal Corps of Archers C. 1802. The book was published in the 1960s, so it appears that the myth is even older than the 1980s. The text stresses that this was merely a proposal, never put into practice
That is very interesting! Would it be bold to ask you to email me a photo of that page? At BrandonF@nativeoak.org
I wonder if the author/artist took a civilian or otherwise non-military group of archers and assumed it was intended for a military unit. There is a pretty snazzy portrait out there of George IV in all green with a longbow, as well as the "Royal Company of Archers" but a field unit they were (and are) certainly not!
Edit: Strike that, it was the Earl of Morton, one of the Royal Company in that portrait- not George!
A myth I've heard is that during the final battles against Napoleon, I've often seen the Dutch soldiers often portrayed as cowards who constantly need rescue, even though they were some of the best fighters Wellington had and they saved his butt numerous times.
lol thank Sharpe for popularizing this myth. And British hubris too I guess for not trusting their Dutch and Belgian allies back then (most likely the British Army did trust them, but also needed a scapegoat).
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.
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).
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.
you make some of the most interesting content on youtube. keep up the great work!
I recall as a youth in the 1960‘s hearing people who knew nothing of weaponry noting that the longbow‘s rate of fire and effective range was greater than a musket, and stating that the British army should have switched over. Of course, to be a longbowman, you had to start training as a child and keep at it forever, while you could go from peasant to proficient musketeer in a few months. Still bowmen or air riflemen could have been good night snipers, but the Peninsular Campaign did not lend itself to needing such. There is, as pointed out, no record of the use of either.
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.
The Scottish accent was not on my bingo card.
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.
@12:38 So, I think I know where the confusion comes from:
1. Air rifles were given to the Tyroler-Jägers, and such Jägers spent much of the war fighting against the occupation of their homeland: these people, being militia, also very likely had air guns for their own personal use, maybe even whatever military ones could be found. The French would not have cared though, because they declared that anyone in Tyrol caught with a firearm would be executed, the rifles mattering less than the insurgency.
2. Napoleon banned air rifles for use as hunting weapons in France. Ironically enough, Napoleon might have done this for the same reason Austria wouldn't have used air rifles to begin with: everyone was desperate to have capable light infantry armed with rifles, and people only skilled with air guns would have been useless in that role.
So, people combined the two.
The one place I could see someone knowledgable on the topic suggesting a formation of longbows like that:
Facing invasion, asking if they could cobble together a force of archers who already are trained on and possess their weapons and could be fielded as a slightly useful militia force with no real training.
Not saying it happened or would be a very good idea. But an act of desperation is where I could see it potentially being done.
Well yeah, but that would require people to be already skilled with bow and arrow. Which... why would they be?
@@kentknightofcaelin4537 They were still in use for sport and hunting. Were they common enough to form a military unit? I have no idea, but I also doubt most people who weren't raised in such communities would have any idea.
And, again, it probably never happened and such a force would probably not be very effective. But the one place I could see an competent military leader calling for bowmen in Napoleonic Era Britain would be as a hastily raised militia (which generally aren't very effective at the best of times).
@@88porpoise Britain was unlikely to have been invaded in the first place, since if they were planning it the French navy would have to beat the larger, more powerful Royal Navy, and even if they had made plans for the instance, amateur archery seems an unlikely source of fighters. Not only were the bows they were using were sport bows, but it was more of a middle and upper class hobby which would severely restrict the numbers available, and by the Napoleonic era a lot of the costs and difficulties involved with equipping and training firearm troops had been gone through centuries of ironing out.
However, what you are suggesting is exactly how archers were seen by a number of veteran captains in England from the late 16th to the middle of the 17th. They understood the important distinction between 'training' and 'practice' and saw that bows only required the latter, while also being incredibly accessible to the everyman... which is why a requirement for practice had been laid down in law in the first place. Or as William Neade said in 1625
"But sure I am, it is the cheapest weapon of all others, and the easiest both to be had, and to be practised."
Some examples of what was being said along those lines,
From the 1593 siege of Rouen captain Edmund Yorke wrote back to England with
“If half the pioneers had pikes and the other half bows, they might do something beside digging, for ‘they be natural weapons and therefore need not teaching’.”
Robert Barret in his 1598 military treatise wrote about keeping firearms and pikes for trained men while the remnant stocks of 'bills and bowes, which every man, or most men can handle, shall, (if neede require) be put in place of service befitting them weapons.'
Markham Gervase in 1634 wrote a letter to the crown pleading to fill the large holes he saw in militias as being caused by disbanding archers to be filled with said men, claiming it could, at a minimum double the amount of ranged infantry in the trained bands, and that it could be done with 'most ease, without charge, trouble, or other difficulty, '
Posting this a little late but OH MY GOSH! Everyone I bring a suggestion:
BUY A CAMEO FROM BRANDON!
Just roasted my friend Jon with a cameo and it was hilarious! I highly suggest you guys buy one! So go and do it!!!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I"ve always really appreciate your dedication to historical accuracy and this video explains why.. I think a lot of people would consider these points to be "nitpicking the nitty-gritty.." And it sort of is... A bit of the "AAACCtuaalllyyy..." type meme. But for all the reasons you said, it's important to accurately attribute not only events, but intentions of the people doing them.. And changing small details to fit a narrative changes exactly that. The intentions, prejudices, ideas and concerns of the people being talked about.
Your videos are funny, educational, and very well presented. Well done and keep up the fantastic work!
Muskets vs Longbows, simple 50 arrows would weigh 12.5 lb, 50 musket balls about 3 lb. To make a musket ball, you pour molten lead through a hole in a sheet of steel at the top of a very tall tower, thus you can make thousands in one day. A good smith could probably make 15 arrow heads an hour and a fletcher could probably assemble about a dozen arrows an hour. Then there's the training, maybe a couple of weeks to learn how to fire a musket vs starting training at age 8 and practicing for a few hours every Sunday, to build up the strength to be able to shoot your 'clothyard shaft' for up to 300yards.
So in conclusion, as a longbow shooter myself, I must say that muskets win EVERY time. Though, having a thousand trained longbowmen at Waterloo, might have had some impact, despite how bollocks the idea really is (as they would be useless after, maybe, 5 minutes!)
Very informative and entertaining
On the Napoleon with Girandoni Air Rifle myth:
It's even more ridiculous knowing that Napoleon is a Gunnery School graduate. Sure, that means he's trained in Artillery. But I am willing to bet that he also studies Small Arms as well. Does anyone seriously saying that a General that is Majoring in Gunnery does not appreciate the usage of a more effective Small Arms option if he deemed it feasible?
Yeah no, that myth does insults his intelligence
France threatening to cut off the Fingers of English Longbowmen can be ironic considering during the Ordonance Reforms, the French Ended up using Longbowmen too.