Please for the love of God.. continue to talk about medieval hand gonnes, arquebusses, Culverines, Mons Meg, and black powder weaponry on this channel.. And next could you talk about the naphtha clay firebomb grenades used in the seige of Constantinople in the 15th century?
If you wear that kind of armour, you'll probably be fine after getting shot 10-15 times. Muskets were developed as specifically anti-armour guns and those fired at smallest a 20.5 mm ball when they were introduced and it could go up to 50 mm.
That's why these people only wear their armor only when in battlefield. And battle usually happen for like.. Maybe 5 hours or something around that or until the last man standing. So it's not that long. After the 5 hours battle, they usually retreat for a whole for a break. To plan something and reload their supply thingy. And at this time, they not wearing their armor. War is like Sport but deadly. Deadly extreme sport. It's weird to see some modern fictional character from game and animation wear medieval armor for like.. 24/7.
yes and they were already pretty popular in France by 1380 as well. The English used anti-infantry field artillery in the 1330s already. Guns were expensive and not powerful enough for a very long time however.
It was the Hussites that truly popularized guns, both hand held and field. They managed to beat far superior forces both in manpower, training and armour through the power of their guns, and Europe did take notice. Before that the guns were so unreliable and niche that they were seen by many as not at all worth the risk and investment.
Zac Hawkins I'm pretty confident they loaded the guns with actual teabags. Even though testicles are biodegradable, the sight of exploding nuts probably would have caused some distress among the spectators.
Tyynymyy You know what; you're probably right. Women, children and effeminate men would have run screaming from the exhibition. Also not a good way to get invited back next year.
It depends a lot on the specific time and location. I've read many German mercenary contracts from the 1450s and 1460s for a university project a few semester ago. These contracts also had lists with the names of the individual mercenaries and their equipment. Firearms were very, very rare in these texts (maybe 5%) although the mercenaries were described as "Bohemian mercenaries", which doesn't mean they were actually from Bohemia (easily to prove this with the name lists), but that they were able to fight in the style of the Hussites. Using wagon forts and so on. So it depends on a lot of factors, I guess. There was no mass production of firearms and both making and using them required a certain level of professionalism. I'm under the impression that the Hussites were more the exception than the rule, actually. It's also known that Swiss mercenaries used relatively few firearms, even around 1500. One anecdote: There was a battle between German Landsknechts and Swiss mercenaries near Bicocca (northern Italy) in 1522. The Landsknechts won and apparently used an unusual amount of handguns and cannons in that battle (although most of them still had pikes and halberds). The Swiss then wrote several satirical poems, calling the Landsknechts cowards for using so many guns instead of seeking the decision in melee combat. Don't think about this in modern terms, like when a state decides to buy new military equipment and 10 years later it's done. It was a far more asymmetrical and overall very slow process in the 15th century.
When I say fairly common and widespread, I meant they were well known and not an absolute rarity. Of course they would still be a small minority in armies until much later. The Bohrmian case must indeed be an exceptional case, it would be interesting to know how they came to use firearms so prominently. Did they make them thsemselves or smuggled them in? The Battle of Biccoca was at some point a bit of a national myth in Spain (the arquebusiers I think were mostly Spanish, the Landsknechts being in the pikemen ranks), to the point that the word "bicoca" entered the Spanish language to signify a bargain or something achieved without effort.
Early firearms was so simple that a village blacksmith would be able to make them, if he was told how. The availability of the powder was the big limiting factor.
@@thomasbaagaard I wouldn't say that. Steel tubes are more difficult to make than you might think. Particularly when they have to withstand the pressure from gunpowder.
I dissagree that the use of gunpoweder was why the french won the HYW, they had started to win long before Castillon. It was largelly a mix of a centralized army with clearer systems of payment and command structures, and actually adapting for once. At Patay, which was before Castillon, what they did was they scouted ahead as much as they could, and they left behind the infantry and attacked only with the cavalry before the English were ready. It was probably one of the mot exemplar cases of the devastating power of heavy cavalry charges, yet it was at the end of the HYW.
Pretty much. The french were pretty much incapacitated during a very long time due to Charles VI being insane, but Charles VII gathered competent people around himself, made peace with Burgundy, centralized the power and created a proffessional army and a streamlined levy system. All of that combined with the guns is what made him able to reconquer lost territories with super quick campaigns and win the war.
Sure, of course there were lots of factors. Guns were very important at the end though. The French army had a lot. The English army had few and did not adapt quickly.
It was a problem but probably less than for bows, which don't work at all when wet. They pretty quickly learned to keep their ready-use powder in waterproof cartridges, so if the rain let up or they had shelter to load under they could fire. Once a bowstring is wet it's useless for hours, and composite bows can literally fall to pieces if they get wet while under tension.
"bows, which don't work at all when wet." "Once a bowstring is wet it's useless for hours," Bro, are you making your archery equipment out of paper mache?
medieval bows used gut or sinew for bowstrings, and it stretches in damp weather. That said, bowmen wouldn't string their bow until absolutely necessary.
"The soldier involved in a skirmish, should never stay still, instead he must keep walking from here to there, in order that the enemy can't target him. That way, he will charge his arquebus, and shoot, and he should never shoot without taking the arquebus to his face, and he must not keep it up to his face for longer than the time needed to point at the target, and shoot, and get back at the reloading task."
I've had this question for a while; are they called Hand Guns because at the time a gun would have been a cannon? And these you obviously hold in your hands.
Pretty much yes. But we have to correct Matt here, these guns are already well 150 years into European handgun development (ca 1470-1480s) and handguns have been pretty popular 100 years earlier in the 1380s with the Hussites using this design first in the 1420s, and popularizing guns so much so that they replaced most German towns bows and crossbows to a degree where there were more guns than the aformentioned two weapons.
@@dirckthedork-knight1201 Gunner at that time stick with heavy infantry, They can get very close to target like this guy demonstration skirmisher tactics. Also armor at that time is near invulnerability to bow and crossbow.
Those guns are literally arquebuses. And in Central Europe, Bohemia, Hungary, and most of the HRE guns have already been very popular by the 1420s. But then again the first use of handguns can be dated to 1327, the first definite use of the cannon somewhat earlier the same decade, with Petrarch writing during the plague that they are as common as any other siege weapon.
No, the Ottomans were a very small tribe at the time when the guns were first used in Europe. Also interestingly enough we have widespread use of guns in Europe waaaaay before than in the Arabic world. In all honesty gunpowder technology came with the Mongols with almost 100% certainty.
Marcellus you do realize even the chinese the ones who invented gunpowders adopted guns from the arabs right? They had a good balance of gunners but very much prefered the bow, thats why even as late as the battle of lepant ottomans were more reliant on bows while europeans had improved guns to a much more efficent level
Which decade are these hand-guns roughly from? I guess they're from the latter half of the 15th century? Their shape looks rather advanced and they even have triggers. My idea of 15th century hand-held firearms are the "pistols" (píšťala, which literally means a flute or a pipe in Czech is where the word pistol comes from) used by Hussites (i.e. in the 20s-30s). Those look a lot simpler - they have no butts or triggers. Basically they are tiny cannon on sticks.
Given that armor wasn't bulletproof, you'd think a "charging knight" WOULD actually charge, considering surviving would be more important than worrying about being winded. Let's not forget, of course, that knights were expected to be athletic.
Given that the guns here are pretty weak, that armour is pretty much bulletproof against this. 2 mm of steel shaped in the form of medieval armour is easily NIJ Level IIa or II, pistol proof armour from the 16-17th centuries passes off as IIIa, musket proof pieces as Level III.
I was hoping for more of an outro at the end of the video as well. Would have liked to heard your opinion of the armour the knight was wearing. Would the shields the we using qualify as a pavise? They are basically performing the same role. Do any of your black powder firearms go that far back?
Hilariously in RPG's with obvious 15th century technology like Diablo, The Firearm is nowhere to be seen even though they were some of the most powerful weapons during that time. Gotta love how fiction depicts history, Yet in another Blizzard game, World of Warcraft, Simple muskets, flintlocks and blunderbusses have a rate of fire almost comparable to modern firearms but somehow the damage is comparable to bows and crossbows even though they were some of the most powerful weapons during that period, It would be interesting to see an RPG which firearms can penetrate armor and do high damage but low rate of fire.
According to Japanese sources (who got stuck with mid-16th century guns) 2 mm of wrought iron stops bullets. Now these guns have to stand against hardened plate out of medium-high carbon steel, that may be thicker, duplex or even triplex. And even the cheaper armours are low-medium carbon steel, not necessarily hardened. So yeah guns didn't simply kill armour.
PVKII is the only HEMA game I play, and the pirate faction uses black powder flintlock weapons, they have realistic load times, they use ram rods and everything, I've been hacked to death by greatswords and Dane axes while reloading tons of times. Check it out.
Has there ever been any confirmed kills from ramrods? I can imagine it was quite common for someone to be packing the charge, find someone 'upon them', freak out and fire with the ramrod down the barrel. As a projectile, I reckon it would be pretty damned effective (ignoring manufacture cost etc.)
mrstarfishh33 I think The Irish guy gets offered gold to betray them near then end of the episode and he says he cant take it because the king owes him back pay and he'd never be happy knowing that. The french guy says "you would die for a shilling?" and Harper says "That's what i signed up for". Then the Frenchman says something about there being two of them to some cavalry and he only has one rifle, but he shoots the rod on the second reload when they charge. Damn i have to go back and watch Sharp now lol.
That is actually a serious risk at reenactments, and it's one of the reasons they aim the guns up at such an angle when firing. Even wadding can cause an injury if you're close enough. Ramrods aren't aerodynamic and they aren't spun when fired so they make pretty poor projectiles. Imagine an arrow with no head and no fletching and that's about what a ramrod would be like. Historically most ramrods were wood with brass tips because the last thing you want to do around black powder is have two pieces of iron or steel rub together and strike sparks.
Arquebuses were not muskets. They were smaller. Muskets of the period were giant and weighed 20lbs or more. The turks had an even bigger gun called an 'abus gun'. In the later 1600 (or 1700s) they started calling the smaller guns muskets. Maybe because they got more powerful (gun barrels were lighter and stronger), though I don't know for sure.
Medieval muskets where seen as artillery (they are named after a bird of prey like cannons). They were too heavy to be used without support. Arquebuses where lighter. Later during the 1600s firearms got lighter, muskets where used by infantry while arquebuses became a weapon for cavalry.
However, what the narrator said is still true: getting there exhausted from sprinting will do you no good either as these guys will then greet you with what is essentially a heavy club. A good whack will be enough for you if you can't properly defend yourself.
I'm hardly an expert on military tactics, but if those gunners are mobile, armoured troops, with guns that could pierce plate, it seems pretty stupid to send men-at-arms on foot to deal with them in the first place, since the gunners outmatch them in mobility, so could retreat pretty safely, perhaps continuing to fire in the process. Cavalry would seem like a better option - if you even wait for the cavalry close within 40m for a first shot, you're not going to get a chance to run away, or try for a second shot.
First, they'd usually be deployed alongside pikemen and if charged they'd just run behind the pikemen, and second, that is one of the reasons field fortifications became so much more important starting around the end of the 15th century - put the gunners on top of a 6' or so earthen rampart and it becomes much harder to get at them. There's also the morale effect - the bulk of the charging infantry might get there intact, but the first few guys who start charging are about 95% likely to get shot. And medieval men-at-arms moved more as a mass of individuals than a drilled tactical body, that was really the biggest change from medieval to renaissance warfare.
He wouldn't be too exhausted frum an up tempo run towards the guys who might well kill him, it was only 40m. I think he just didn't want to get more sweat on his steel armor ;-)
I wouldn't say they outmatch plate-armed men-at-.arms or nobles in mobility; the kit would be about the same weight, or lighter, while the articulation of armor, especially in the torso area would be much better for plate. (in comparison to the coat of plates the chief gunner was wearing) All in all, gunners were few and closing 40m between volleys even on foot would be feasible. Also, as you said - cavalry.
10 arrows per minute, at best, you cannot possibly keep it up for any length of time, you are more likely to shoot 2-3 arrows over a longer period of time. Just saying the English shot off over 500 000 arrows in the Battle of Azincourt, barely killed anyone with it.
Archery did control who got to do what on the battlefield though. So it wasn't ineffective. Just that it probably was used pretty much like small arms fire is today. You pin the enemy down and then you bring in the cavalry, heavy infantry or today the airstrike.
Looking for a working replica of an early handgonne typical of 1350-1410. Does anyone sell one? Found some websites that looked like they hadn't been updated in years.
Hey there! There are 2 things I am wondering regarding this: When bows and guns were both used, were the regiments integrated? Did they serve different purposes? And one unrelated thing: How did archers shooting 100+lbs bows actually string their bows? Did they have a separate string? Did they use 2 people? Or were they just incredibly strong people?
For the first question, guns, bows and crossbows served the same purpose. Stringing a 100+ lbs bow isn't as hard as you'd think, if you can shoot it for a day, you can also probably string it.
Thanks! "if you can shoot it for a day, you can also probably string it." I am mostly wondering about the technique... Did they use a stringer? Or was there something completely different they did?
Guys always keep in mind that if you want to be invited again, always try to avoid killing someone by accident. With the exception of boars and Frenchmen for obvious reasons.
Man I can't imagine what it would be like to face these down for the first time in the period. I think I might piss my pants and back up a little bit lol
Scojo except these guys are already 220 years into the gunpowder period of Europe which was used since Bacon described it shortly after the Mongol invasions and the first use in war was definitely done by the 1320s with cannons being a common siege equipment by the 1340s according to Petrarch.
They probably would protect against guns at 70+ meters maybe less but guns were better than arrows and crossbow bolts for this reason that they tend to just blast through light cover unlike the aformentioned two objects.
+Marcellus I have no doubt it would blast a hole through but would it have enough energy left to incapacitate the gunner behind it (with or without armour)?
without armour, in the proclaimed ~40 meter range that shield would do largely nothing against guns, with armour on, you probably wouldn't get hurt at that range anyway (mostly your armour would get banged up)
Not the arquebusses here, but the later muskets originally were. Diffrent calibres were used for diffrent purposes, and muskets were the heavy duty stuff to badly punch someone, you consider a very offensive arsehole, that happens to be particularly thick skinned or armoured.
Blowing down the barrel - not looking. We only do that A) cos we know bloody well if the thing has gone off and B) it proves the touch-hole is clear straight away. Nothing worse than loading one of these things and then realising the touch-hole is blocked.. (there is a also a theory that your breath puts out any potential glowy bits left in the barrel - not sure I beleive that though)
First recorded use of firearms in Europe dates back to the early 14th century; given the nature of medieval sources (ie, they would have to record something, so would have either had to be an account or seen them themselves) and the problems of sources surviving, you can argue that they were likely in use a bit before then. The Hussites however were very instrumental in showing how they could be the main arm of a force and helped drive firearms into becoming very fashionable in Central Europe.
I read a book that said that the probably were the italians that imported gunpowder from Asia( since Venice had many connection with the orient) and the that were the first to actually use firearms and balistics, that would explain why many guns have names coming from italian( Bombard
The earliest definite use of the cannon is dated to around 1310-1320 (with possibility of use as early as 1260), the earliest use of the handgun 1327, the earliest gunpowder maker opens in 1328. Petrarch in 1344 writes that cannons are as common as any other (siege) weapon. Guns were pretty popular in France by the 1380s and they really kicked off in the 1400s and by the mid-15th century they were more popular than any other missile weapon save for the English who lived in a cave and were 100 years behind even though they used 20 cannons at the Siege of Calais in 1346.
For any extended period of time? I doubt it also. Could someone trained from birth shoot that many unaimed shots for a minute and be worthless for anything else afterward? Maybe. Adrenalin can do weird things. Maybe they ment something more along the lines of shooting three arrows in 8 seconds, a rate that, if continued for 60 seconds, would have equaled that many? There are first hand accounts for Native American archers having three or more arrows in the air simultaneously. Those are light bows by the standard of English warbows so it's possible that's not an apt analogy.
A very talented men on a good day maybe could do that. Two people in the world can also draw a 200 pound bow. Some other imaginery guy could perhaps shoot a hand gun from this video at 8 rounds per minute. But these should not be taken as a normal examples of the discipline ;-)
I can shoot 1 arrow accurately every 10 seconds, so that's 6 per minute. But I'm not a longbowman trained from birth like they were back then, so I don't know. People can do impressive things when they dedicate their entire life to mastering something. There are some really good Longbow shooters on UA-cam I speak to, I will ask one of them to test out the theory.
What percentage of a late medieval army was in full plate? I imagined the majority of them to be farmers, maybe with helmets if they had a generous lord. Clearly there was enough armour about to merit the move to guns though.
Isambardify majority of soldiers were either nobles or craftsmen (upper middle class). That is in the parts of Europe that I have interest in, the influence sphere of the Holy Roman Empire. Full plate could range from 20-60% but almost everyone had metal body armour and helmet by this period.
I understand heat fatigue and general overexertion are 'a thing' when wearing armour, but was that guy's stroll historically accurate? I can't discount if offhand (I wish I could) because of the widespread use of marching slowly into gunfire from this period up to WWI, but fuck...really?
At this point they didn't really exist. in extremis you'd see guys jamming their belt knives into the bore to give them reach, this evolved into what became known as a "plug bayonet". the socket bayonet, that leaves the gun able to fire, wasn't invented until I want to say the early-ish 17th century.
Fun fact - 'point blank' does not mean right up close. Also, those look like they could be flintlocks rigged with matchlocks. The brown bess took 15 seconds to load and shoot, and it was a flint lock; supposed to be the fastest. IM RIGHT ON THE INTERNET AGAIN
They are seriously misrepresenting the effective range of these guns, it is closer to 90-130 meters depending on the exact gun, but yeah against metal armour, even maille stops the balls of this at 40, plate at less than 10 meters (the breastplate will stop it at basically any range, including barrel on the breastplate, the thinner plates will give in sooner)
I agree, however there are only two reasons not to be more tactical with using that one shot. Pressure of enemy gunners, and apparent lack of another weapon. Were they not equipped with spears?
No you used what you brought and you were assigned based upon what you had. Of course armies wanted a certain amount of each. But for example to counteract the early low number of gunners, they were paid more. War was very much a private enterprise between wealthy individuals, hiring people based on their skills (conscription didn't exist until Napoleon). It was very much like modern MilCorps like Academie having at each other based on contracts to give a modern analogy. Fencing guilds often made deals with different powers that they will supply highly trained individuals to them and them only in exchange of high pay. Of course the crown always had an army, but that army in most places weren't peasants but low ranking nobility serving directly the king, the exception being England where they used freemen across the country. When it wasn't the case is when cities were under attack. Then you defended your home.
Please for the love of God.. continue to talk about medieval hand gonnes, arquebusses, Culverines, Mons Meg, and black powder weaponry on this channel.. And next could you talk about the naphtha clay firebomb grenades used in the seige of Constantinople in the 15th century?
I like the 1780 Girardoni air gun
ultraboy222 Greek fire was in use between 6th-10th century. In later years they had other cool stuff
@@MrPanos2000 like flamme thrower I believe
"but it's a little bit hot to be running in armor"
Mmm, the choice between being winded and being shot dead.. tough call.
If you wear that kind of armour, you'll probably be fine after getting shot 10-15 times. Muskets were developed as specifically anti-armour guns and those fired at smallest a 20.5 mm ball when they were introduced and it could go up to 50 mm.
That's why these people only wear their armor only when in battlefield.
And battle usually happen for like.. Maybe 5 hours or something around that or until the last man standing.
So it's not that long.
After the 5 hours battle, they usually retreat for a whole for a break. To plan something and reload their supply thingy. And at this time, they not wearing their armor.
War is like Sport but deadly. Deadly extreme sport.
It's weird to see some modern fictional character from game and animation wear medieval armor for like.. 24/7.
As I remember such early firearms were used quite a lot in the Hussite wars and were really common in the Black Army of Hungary
Aldor there is manga talking exactly about the hussite wars and the adoption of firearms,but it portrays Jan Siska as a kind of an asshole
yes and they were already pretty popular in France by 1380 as well.
The English used anti-infantry field artillery in the 1330s already.
Guns were expensive and not powerful enough for a very long time however.
Dívčí Válka? Yeah, it's pretty dope
It was the Hussites that truly popularized guns, both hand held and field. They managed to beat far superior forces both in manpower, training and armour through the power of their guns, and Europe did take notice. Before that the guns were so unreliable and niche that they were seen by many as not at all worth the risk and investment.
Henry has come to see us! Jesus Christ be praised!
So that's why the french won the (100 year) war. The english were shooting teabags and the french were shooting onions and bread. ;-)
You don't want to be hit with a week-old baguette
Jukelo yo that shit is hard as steel
@@jukahri Definitely "weapon-grade"
I Love the Smell of Tea Bags in the Morning
"Frantic Ramming!"
littleratblue but no penetration
Those babies can penetrate from 40 meters away!! I've never penetrated anything beyond a few inches if I'm being honest.
I was wondering where you lot went. Usually your kind occupy first 5 comments. I was almost hoping you grew finally...
There's a serious lack of grabbing the butt in this video though.
Clearly he knows at this point and just wants to see what he can get away with.
"Notice he is not running. He does not want to be too exhausted when he gets there."
No, he prefers getting shot apparently.
Ever tried making a re enactor run? The only thing that works is a fancy dress evening at the beer tent, trust me on this
Ah , the oomph of blackpowder is so nice.
The sound is even better with a bullet in there, but of course not safe to do here.
i wonder what it would be like to be walking then random tea bags start falling from the sky
niq872 probably much the same as when I play most FPS games...
Zac Hawkins I'm pretty confident they loaded the guns with actual teabags. Even though testicles are biodegradable, the sight of exploding nuts probably would have caused some distress among the spectators.
Tyynymyy You know what; you're probably right. Women, children and effeminate men would have run screaming from the exhibition. Also not a good way to get invited back next year.
Just another Tuesday
#justbritishthings
HAND GONNES
HAND B GONE
YE AULD ENGLISCHE!
Guns were fairky common during the Hussite Wars in the 1420s so they were definitely widespread in Europe well before the 1460s
It depends a lot on the specific time and location. I've read many German mercenary contracts from the 1450s and 1460s for a university project a few semester ago. These contracts also had lists with the names of the individual mercenaries and their equipment. Firearms were very, very rare in these texts (maybe 5%) although the mercenaries were described as "Bohemian mercenaries", which doesn't mean they were actually from Bohemia (easily to prove this with the name lists), but that they were able to fight in the style of the Hussites. Using wagon forts and so on.
So it depends on a lot of factors, I guess. There was no mass production of firearms and both making and using them required a certain level of professionalism. I'm under the impression that the Hussites were more the exception than the rule, actually. It's also known that Swiss mercenaries used relatively few firearms, even around 1500. One anecdote: There was a battle between German Landsknechts and Swiss mercenaries near Bicocca (northern Italy) in 1522. The Landsknechts won and apparently used an unusual amount of handguns and cannons in that battle (although most of them still had pikes and halberds). The Swiss then wrote several satirical poems, calling the Landsknechts cowards for using so many guns instead of seeking the decision in melee combat.
Don't think about this in modern terms, like when a state decides to buy new military equipment and 10 years later it's done. It was a far more asymmetrical and overall very slow process in the 15th century.
When I say fairly common and widespread, I meant they were well known and not an absolute rarity. Of course they would still be a small minority in armies until much later. The Bohrmian case must indeed be an exceptional case, it would be interesting to know how they came to use firearms so prominently. Did they make them thsemselves or smuggled them in?
The Battle of Biccoca was at some point a bit of a national myth in Spain (the arquebusiers I think were mostly Spanish, the Landsknechts being in the pikemen ranks), to the point that the word "bicoca" entered the Spanish language to signify a bargain or something achieved without effort.
Early firearms was so simple that a village blacksmith would be able to make them, if he was told how.
The availability of the powder was the big limiting factor.
@@thomasbaagaard I wouldn't say that. Steel tubes are more difficult to make than you might think. Particularly when they have to withstand the pressure from gunpowder.
I think doing one about the use of firearms during the Hussite wars would be very interesting.
I keep hoping Othais from C&rsenal will cover that after he's done with WWI.
These guys have some great kits. Brigadines and helmets are really cool looking.
The ability to kill and tea bag your opponent in one shot.
I dissagree that the use of gunpoweder was why the french won the HYW, they had started to win long before Castillon. It was largelly a mix of a centralized army with clearer systems of payment and command structures, and actually adapting for once. At Patay, which was before Castillon, what they did was they scouted ahead as much as they could, and they left behind the infantry and attacked only with the cavalry before the English were ready. It was probably one of the mot exemplar cases of the devastating power of heavy cavalry charges, yet it was at the end of the HYW.
Pretty much. The french were pretty much incapacitated during a very long time due to Charles VI being insane, but Charles VII gathered competent people around himself, made peace with Burgundy, centralized the power and created a proffessional army and a streamlined levy system. All of that combined with the guns is what made him able to reconquer lost territories with super quick campaigns and win the war.
Sure, of course there were lots of factors. Guns were very important at the end though. The French army had a lot. The English army had few and did not adapt quickly.
Disregarding the fact that both sides have been using guns since the beginning, though the French used more at the end.
Fortunately for the powder, it was not raining!
Not just that damp air or fog can screw with powder.
Even in the early days of brass cartridges it was a problem, so much so that 1 out of 5 shots may not have fired at all.
It was a problem but probably less than for bows, which don't work at all when wet. They pretty quickly learned to keep their ready-use powder in waterproof cartridges, so if the rain let up or they had shelter to load under they could fire. Once a bowstring is wet it's useless for hours, and composite bows can literally fall to pieces if they get wet while under tension.
"bows, which don't work at all when wet."
"Once a bowstring is wet it's useless for hours,"
Bro, are you making your archery equipment out of paper mache?
medieval bows used gut or sinew for bowstrings, and it stretches in damp weather. That said, bowmen wouldn't string their bow until absolutely necessary.
"The soldier involved in a skirmish, should never stay still, instead he must keep walking from here to there, in order that the enemy can't target him. That way, he will charge his arquebus, and shoot, and he should never shoot without taking the arquebus to his face, and he must not keep it up to his face for longer than the time needed to point at the target, and shoot, and get back at the reloading task."
We, in Bohemia, were using firearms since 1370s. Those were called "píšťala" and that's where the word "pistol" came from.
I have never seen such kind of demonstration here in Italy. Very interesting!
Nicely done. Thanks for the upload Matt.
What makes a good soldier is one who can fire 3 shots a minute in any weather.
~Sharpe
I've had this question for a while; are they called Hand Guns because at the time a gun would have been a cannon? And these you obviously hold in your hands.
Pretty much yes. But we have to correct Matt here, these guns are already well 150 years into European handgun development (ca 1470-1480s) and handguns have been pretty popular 100 years earlier in the 1380s with the Hussites using this design first in the 1420s, and popularizing guns so much so that they replaced most German towns bows and crossbows to a degree where there were more guns than the aformentioned two weapons.
This are arquebuses though.
Been waiting for something on matchlocks for years, many thanks. Awesome.
Fascinating!
Interesting that this is much faster than late medieval crossbows.
But at the same time much less accurate
@@dirckthedork-knight1201 Gunner at that time stick with heavy infantry, They can get very close to target like this guy demonstration skirmisher tactics. Also armor at that time is near invulnerability to bow and crossbow.
This is perfect timing. I just started building and testing some air powered "handgonnes" for larp.
Can you make a video about wheel locks of the Renaissance?
Watch Gun Jesus' video on it.
So interesting to watch!
glad to see no one forgot to take the ram rod out :-D
thats a nice tree in the background keeping everyone cool
Those guns are literally arquebuses. And in Central Europe, Bohemia, Hungary, and most of the HRE guns have already been very popular by the 1420s.
But then again the first use of handguns can be dated to 1327, the first definite use of the cannon somewhat earlier the same decade, with Petrarch writing during the plague that they are as common as any other siege weapon.
Marcellus first guns in europe were developed and used mainly in italy, cant remember if it was venice or naples who adopted it from the ottomans
No, the Ottomans were a very small tribe at the time when the guns were first used in Europe. Also interestingly enough we have widespread use of guns in Europe waaaaay before than in the Arabic world.
In all honesty gunpowder technology came with the Mongols with almost 100% certainty.
Marcellus you do realize even the chinese the ones who invented gunpowders adopted guns from the arabs right? They had a good balance of gunners but very much prefered the bow, thats why even as late as the battle of lepant ottomans were more reliant on bows while europeans had improved guns to a much more efficent level
@@RockerMarcee96 and mongols invaded the islamic world too, no?
Wouldn't those guys have swords and bucklers on them?
Or any other sidearm & shit
swords for sure, buckler, quite possibly.
I'd guess so, but unnecessary in a demonstration.
For a sidearm they would have had a pair of six shot revolvers.
deagle sidearms
Loved thw vid!
Which decade are these hand-guns roughly from? I guess they're from the latter half of the 15th century? Their shape looks rather advanced and they even have triggers. My idea of 15th century hand-held firearms are the "pistols" (píšťala, which literally means a flute or a pipe in Czech is where the word pistol comes from) used by Hussites (i.e. in the 20s-30s). Those look a lot simpler - they have no butts or triggers. Basically they are tiny cannon on sticks.
1470-1480, but this design was already used in the 1420s by the Hussites.
B I G I R O N
douglas knupp To the town of Aqua Fria rode a stranger one fine day.
Hardly spoke to folks around him, didn't have too much to say
Boltgun...
Mars Boltgun
Boltgun, servitor worthy person.
Saw a demonstration of a caliver at Kenilworth Castle a while back, did it make a bang!
You better do a video on that basket hilt sword above that arming sword
Given that armor wasn't bulletproof, you'd think a "charging knight" WOULD actually charge, considering surviving would be more important than worrying about being winded. Let's not forget, of course, that knights were expected to be athletic.
Given that the guns here are pretty weak, that armour is pretty much bulletproof against this. 2 mm of steel shaped in the form of medieval armour is easily NIJ Level IIa or II, pistol proof armour from the 16-17th centuries passes off as IIIa, musket proof pieces as Level III.
Check those numbers. Skallagrim has done some tests of those and you're overestimating the antique pistol.
It was the NRA who did the testing back in the 70s on antique armour.
I was hoping for more of an outro at the end of the video as well. Would have liked to heard your opinion of the armour the knight was wearing. Would the shields the we using qualify as a pavise? They are basically performing the same role. Do any of your black powder firearms go that far back?
This was timely, I've been on a massive early black powder kick lately.
Hilariously in RPG's with obvious 15th century technology like Diablo, The Firearm is nowhere to be seen even though they were some of the most powerful weapons during that time.
Gotta love how fiction depicts history, Yet in another Blizzard game, World of Warcraft, Simple muskets, flintlocks and blunderbusses have a rate of fire almost comparable to modern firearms but somehow the damage is comparable to bows and crossbows even though they were some of the most powerful weapons during that period, It would be interesting to see an RPG which firearms can penetrate armor and do high damage but low rate of fire.
According to Japanese sources (who got stuck with mid-16th century guns) 2 mm of wrought iron stops bullets. Now these guns have to stand against hardened plate out of medium-high carbon steel, that may be thicker, duplex or even triplex. And even the cheaper armours are low-medium carbon steel, not necessarily hardened.
So yeah guns didn't simply kill armour.
PVKII is the only HEMA game I play, and the pirate faction uses black powder flintlock weapons, they have realistic load times, they use ram rods and everything, I've been hacked to death by greatswords and Dane axes while reloading tons of times.
Check it out.
Cool!
Leonard de Quirm was spotted in the crowd.
"Better to be dead than dead tired, that's my motto!" -Lord Barkley
Interessantissimo! Grazie mille
Michele Di Simine it is rare to find italians here
I like history and swords. :)
Immaginavo
Cool matt 😆
I was hoping they would look more like the barrel on the end of a stick ones in that tapestry you showed.
good video.
Has there ever been any confirmed kills from ramrods? I can imagine it was quite common for someone to be packing the charge, find someone 'upon them', freak out and fire with the ramrod down the barrel. As a projectile, I reckon it would be pretty damned effective (ignoring manufacture cost etc.)
kungfuasgaeilge This is not quite an answer but I am pretty sure in one of the Sharpe's episodes he does that.
mrstarfishh33 yeah, the first one (maybe others as well)
Manic Demise Oh yeah when he first rescues Wellington!
mrstarfishh33 I think The Irish guy gets offered gold to betray them near then end of the episode and he says he cant take it because the king owes him back pay and he'd never be happy knowing that. The french guy says "you would die for a shilling?" and Harper says "That's what i signed up for". Then the Frenchman says something about there being two of them to some cavalry and he only has one rifle, but he shoots the rod on the second reload when they charge. Damn i have to go back and watch Sharp now lol.
That is actually a serious risk at reenactments, and it's one of the reasons they aim the guns up at such an angle when firing. Even wadding can cause an injury if you're close enough.
Ramrods aren't aerodynamic and they aren't spun when fired so they make pretty poor projectiles. Imagine an arrow with no head and no fletching and that's about what a ramrod would be like. Historically most ramrods were wood with brass tips because the last thing you want to do around black powder is have two pieces of iron or steel rub together and strike sparks.
These are arquebuses.
+Jeremy A They said in the video that they actually do have locks and triggers, but just aren't using them for this demonstration.
Yes, they're matchlock arquebuses, I think. Not sure if they count as muskets.
Arquebuses were not muskets. They were smaller. Muskets of the period were giant and weighed 20lbs or more. The turks had an even bigger gun called an 'abus gun'.
In the later 1600 (or 1700s) they started calling the smaller guns muskets. Maybe because they got more powerful (gun barrels were lighter and stronger), though I don't know for sure.
Well there are some mid-16th century muskets with literally 2 inch bores. Firing almost a pound of powder with each shot.
Medieval muskets where seen as artillery (they are named after a bird of prey like cannons). They were too heavy to be used without support. Arquebuses where lighter. Later during the 1600s firearms got lighter, muskets where used by infantry while arquebuses became a weapon for cavalry.
I'd imagine a few tea bags have been fired in anger by the English over the years...
Keep in mind that at close range, wadding alone, without a ball, can be fatal....
I came here for píšťala's and war wagons...
Cmon Leon!
those are some... interesting looking soldiers.
Nice Blackadder I outfit.
It's actually idiotic for the armoured warrior NOT to be running at them.
However, what the narrator said is still true: getting there exhausted from sprinting will do you no good either as these guys will then greet you with what is essentially a heavy club. A good whack will be enough for you if you can't properly defend yourself.
I'm hardly an expert on military tactics, but if those gunners are mobile, armoured troops, with guns that could pierce plate, it seems pretty stupid to send men-at-arms on foot to deal with them in the first place, since the gunners outmatch them in mobility, so could retreat pretty safely, perhaps continuing to fire in the process. Cavalry would seem like a better option - if you even wait for the cavalry close within 40m for a first shot, you're not going to get a chance to run away, or try for a second shot.
First, they'd usually be deployed alongside pikemen and if charged they'd just run behind the pikemen, and second, that is one of the reasons field fortifications became so much more important starting around the end of the 15th century - put the gunners on top of a 6' or so earthen rampart and it becomes much harder to get at them.
There's also the morale effect - the bulk of the charging infantry might get there intact, but the first few guys who start charging are about 95% likely to get shot. And medieval men-at-arms moved more as a mass of individuals than a drilled tactical body, that was really the biggest change from medieval to renaissance warfare.
He wouldn't be too exhausted frum an up tempo run towards the guys who might well kill him, it was only 40m. I think he just didn't want to get more sweat on his steel armor ;-)
I wouldn't say they outmatch plate-armed men-at-.arms or nobles in mobility; the kit would be about the same weight, or lighter, while the articulation of armor, especially in the torso area would be much better for plate. (in comparison to the coat of plates the chief gunner was wearing)
All in all, gunners were few and closing 40m between volleys even on foot would be feasible. Also, as you said - cavalry.
Have a care!
I LOVE GUNS
what kind of black powder used in this demonstration? historically accurate dust-like poudre or modern "safe" granular powder?
I doubt you can even purchase the old serpentine powder these days.
Olde worlde black powder - 4FA to be precise.
Corned (granular) powder is an invention that goes back to the 14th century btw.
Hey Matt, I don't know if you're reading but could you make a video about how to beat a big shield like the scutum?
By shoving your own big shield up against it and stabbing around it
An archer getting off sixteen shots a minute... that sounds like a pipe dream. At least if it's a longbow.
I heard 10 arrows per minute at best per minute
Yeah. Sounds more realistic, if that.
10 arrows per minute, at best, you cannot possibly keep it up for any length of time, you are more likely to shoot 2-3 arrows over a longer period of time. Just saying the English shot off over 500 000 arrows in the Battle of Azincourt, barely killed anyone with it.
Archery did control who got to do what on the battlefield though. So it wasn't ineffective. Just that it probably was used pretty much like small arms fire is today. You pin the enemy down and then you bring in the cavalry, heavy infantry or today the airstrike.
Yes that is pretty much how it was used, because a rogue arrow may still hurt you badly.
Looking for a working replica of an early handgonne typical of 1350-1410. Does anyone sell one? Found some websites that looked like they hadn't been updated in years.
Hey there!
There are 2 things I am wondering regarding this: When bows and guns were both used, were the regiments integrated? Did they serve different purposes?
And one unrelated thing: How did archers shooting 100+lbs bows actually string their bows? Did they have a separate string? Did they use 2 people? Or were they just incredibly strong people?
For the first question, guns, bows and crossbows served the same purpose.
Stringing a 100+ lbs bow isn't as hard as you'd think, if you can shoot it for a day, you can also probably string it.
Thanks!
"if you can shoot it for a day, you can also probably string it." I am mostly wondering about the technique... Did they use a stringer? Or was there something completely different they did?
William Marshall is a famous 12-13th century knight. I dont blame them for using the name like, its an awesome name.
Guys always keep in mind that if you want to be invited again, always try to avoid killing someone by accident. With the exception of boars and Frenchmen for obvious reasons.
Yes, killing the spectators tends to put a damper on things! LOL
What are the crutches that seem to be sewn onto the announcer’s jacket? Crutches, or shooting sticks?
They are actual crutches!
2:55 Love that fruity pavise, but if I was caught with that in California, I'd never live it down.
Are we going to see their foot combat next?
If you come to one of the shows where we do that, sure!
What were they shouting before firing?
Man I can't imagine what it would be like to face these down for the first time in the period. I think I might piss my pants and back up a little bit lol
Scojo except these guys are already 220 years into the gunpowder period of Europe which was used since Bacon described it shortly after the Mongol invasions and the first use in war was definitely done by the 1320s with cannons being a common siege equipment by the 1340s according to Petrarch.
I would be running at them, so would he..
How old was the oldest blade that you held in hands?
Rex McStiller How old is your dad?
What?
Bronze Age.
ohh wow
Would those pavises protect at all against enemy gunfire or only arrows?
They probably would protect against guns at 70+ meters maybe less but guns were better than arrows and crossbow bolts for this reason that they tend to just blast through light cover unlike the aformentioned two objects.
+Marcellus I have no doubt it would blast a hole through but would it have enough energy left to incapacitate the gunner behind it (with or without armour)?
without armour, in the proclaimed ~40 meter range that shield would do largely nothing against guns, with armour on, you probably wouldn't get hurt at that range anyway (mostly your armour would get banged up)
4 rounds a minute to a frog's 3, now that's a soldiering
*FRANTIC RAMMING* oh Matt when are you going to grow up? Lol 👌🏽
hey Matt, think you'll get a chance to shoot any of your guns on video?
Why were they shooting from the hip? Werent these guns used with support sticks?
Not the arquebusses here, but the later muskets originally were. Diffrent calibres were used for diffrent purposes, and muskets were the heavy duty stuff to badly punch someone, you consider a very offensive arsehole, that happens to be particularly thick skinned or armoured.
So how early were they used in Europe? How early in Britain? So they just basically raining down shot on the enemy lines
What are they saying before they fire?
Do you know wether Hartley's Companie ever participated in a performance of the Overture 1812?
What a bloody fantastic idea... definitely on the to-do list now :)
Can someone enlighten me, whats the helmet worn by those re-enactors?
I think they were called a "sallet".
Nice show, however as some other commentators, I was hoping for something older than arquebuses. ;)
3:11 is that really good idea to look down your barrel?
Blowing down the barrel - not looking. We only do that A) cos we know bloody well if the thing has gone off and B) it proves the touch-hole is clear straight away. Nothing worse than loading one of these things and then realising the touch-hole is blocked.. (there is a also a theory that your breath puts out any potential glowy bits left in the barrel - not sure I beleive that though)
Does anyone know the origin of the "have a care" call?
There isn't anything historic that I can find, it seems to have evolved in reenactments (mainly to warn the guy next to you to cover his own powder).
Weren't the Hussites the first to use artilery and guns (píšťala, houfnice, etc...) ?
Heck no
First recorded use of firearms in Europe dates back to the early 14th century; given the nature of medieval sources (ie, they would have to record something, so would have either had to be an account or seen them themselves) and the problems of sources surviving, you can argue that they were likely in use a bit before then. The Hussites however were very instrumental in showing how they could be the main arm of a force and helped drive firearms into becoming very fashionable in Central Europe.
They specialized in different tactical uses, rather than being the first to use any of them.
I read a book that said that the probably were the italians that imported gunpowder from Asia( since Venice had many connection with the orient)
and the that were the first to actually use firearms and balistics, that would explain why many guns have names coming from italian( Bombard
The earliest definite use of the cannon is dated to around 1310-1320 (with possibility of use as early as 1260), the earliest use of the handgun 1327, the earliest gunpowder maker opens in 1328. Petrarch in 1344 writes that cannons are as common as any other (siege) weapon.
Guns were pretty popular in France by the 1380s and they really kicked off in the 1400s and by the mid-15th century they were more popular than any other missile weapon save for the English who lived in a cave and were 100 years behind even though they used 20 cannons at the Siege of Calais in 1346.
The zamburak became a deadly weapon in the 18th century. I have one howuch you think is worth??
Not the first!!!
I think you should point the camera just a little lower. I'm an Italian, I can't hear what you're saying if I can't see your hands ^__^
I really don't think an archer with a strong longbow could shoot 16 arrows per minute. Even half of that would be quite an achievement.
For any extended period of time? I doubt it also. Could someone trained from birth shoot that many unaimed shots for a minute and be worthless for anything else afterward? Maybe. Adrenalin can do weird things. Maybe they ment something more along the lines of shooting three arrows in 8 seconds, a rate that, if continued for 60 seconds, would have equaled that many? There are first hand accounts for Native American archers having three or more arrows in the air simultaneously. Those are light bows by the standard of English warbows so it's possible that's not an apt analogy.
A very talented men on a good day maybe could do that. Two people in the world can also draw a 200 pound bow. Some other imaginery guy could perhaps shoot a hand gun from this video at 8 rounds per minute. But these should not be taken as a normal examples of the discipline ;-)
I can shoot 1 arrow accurately every 10 seconds, so that's 6 per minute. But I'm not a longbowman trained from birth like they were back then, so I don't know. People can do impressive things when they dedicate their entire life to mastering something.
There are some really good Longbow shooters on UA-cam I speak to, I will ask one of them to test out the theory.
What percentage of a late medieval army was in full plate? I imagined the majority of them to be farmers, maybe with helmets if they had a generous lord. Clearly there was enough armour about to merit the move to guns though.
Isambardify majority of soldiers were either nobles or craftsmen (upper middle class). That is in the parts of Europe that I have interest in, the influence sphere of the Holy Roman Empire. Full plate could range from 20-60% but almost everyone had metal body armour and helmet by this period.
I understand heat fatigue and general overexertion are 'a thing' when wearing armour, but was that guy's stroll historically accurate? I can't discount if offhand (I wish I could) because of the widespread use of marching slowly into gunfire from this period up to WWI, but fuck...really?
But where are the bayonets.
JamCal-X is that a serious question?
At this point they didn't really exist. in extremis you'd see guys jamming their belt knives into the bore to give them reach, this evolved into what became known as a "plug bayonet". the socket bayonet, that leaves the gun able to fire, wasn't invented until I want to say the early-ish 17th century.
*very late 17th century.
they will not show upp until late 17th century.
the first bayonets appear 1611, the French adopt them en masse in the 1680s.
F R A N T I C R A M M I N G
Frantic ramming 2018
Fun fact - 'point blank' does not mean right up close. Also, those look like they could be flintlocks rigged with matchlocks. The brown bess took 15 seconds to load and shoot, and it was a flint lock; supposed to be the fastest.
IM RIGHT ON THE INTERNET AGAIN
These are arquebuses in the style of the 1470-1480s.
Also the Brown Bess is a pretty big gun with the shorter ones still having a 40" barrel.
Yeah muskets were pretty big. Still, the use of a paper cartridge is anachronistic.
There are actual primary sources from the 1400s describing paper cartridges, not as popular as later but they did exist.
If they weren't used much, then it doesn't matter, does it?
no, it does matter because suddenly it isn't anachronistic.
If I had a gun that was only good at close range, and was hard to reload I'd save the shot and wield a spear
Yeah but if your standing 10 feet up on a castle wall and a bunch of infantry men are approaching with ladders, I think the gonne could be useful.
They are seriously misrepresenting the effective range of these guns, it is closer to 90-130 meters depending on the exact gun, but yeah against metal armour, even maille stops the balls of this at 40, plate at less than 10 meters (the breastplate will stop it at basically any range, including barrel on the breastplate, the thinner plates will give in sooner)
I agree, however there are only two reasons not to be more tactical with using that one shot. Pressure of enemy gunners, and apparent lack of another weapon. Were they not equipped with spears?
No you used what you brought and you were assigned based upon what you had. Of course armies wanted a certain amount of each. But for example to counteract the early low number of gunners, they were paid more.
War was very much a private enterprise between wealthy individuals, hiring people based on their skills (conscription didn't exist until Napoleon). It was very much like modern MilCorps like Academie having at each other based on contracts to give a modern analogy. Fencing guilds often made deals with different powers that they will supply highly trained individuals to them and them only in exchange of high pay. Of course the crown always had an army, but that army in most places weren't peasants but low ranking nobility serving directly the king, the exception being England where they used freemen across the country.
When it wasn't the case is when cities were under attack. Then you defended your home.
If Andrew was their fastest gunner, Why didn't the rest get their second shot off first as well?
These are the Hartley's not the Pastons.
aren't paper was expensive in the XV century?
As far as I know yes, but it seem the presenter was about to explain that they are using X and historically they used Y, but never got round to it....