Captain Context HE'S A HERO Talking misconceptions down to zero!

I didn’t realize the History Channel had shows about history, anymore.

On the topic of flints, my experience tells me you can never really say how durable they are. I have had flints that lasted over 200 shots and flints that would shatter completely at a first shot. The best thing to do between shots is to quickly clean the frizzen and flint with a piece of cloth. If a flint is giving less sparks, simply hammer it at the top side of the edge with your musket tool. This will cause the flint to drop small pieces on the bottom side, sharpening your flint.

Napoleon started his military career as an artillery officer, so I guess he was somewhat biased and relied more on that familiar branch than on the infantry or cavalry. I served as a cannoneer myself and can say that there still is some kind of pride of having the biggest barrel of the whole army. You tend to look down on weapons that are smaller and lighter than a single shell of yours ;) There is also still some rivalry between branches and no matter where you end up later in your carreer, you still identify with your "starting branch."

A musket will probably blow up if you double load it with smokeless powder, but that wouldn't have been as issue in the Napoleonic era!

That feeling when you are talking about Austerlitz and I am looking at that very battlefield from my window

Double loading was probably the result of both the regimen of drilled fire to command and the fear induced by the confusion, shock and noise of combat. Double shotting ( loading more than one ball at a time) however was a standard (really close quarters tactic) before engaging with the bayonet, perhaps to aid in repelling an already advancing bayonet charge. A new book out, which I believe was review here earlier (" The Destroying Angel") recounts the difference between musket battle ( as properly drilled ) and the battle potential of the Enfield rifle as used by the British forces in Crimea and the Sepoy rebellion.

I've shot a deer from about 40 yards with a reproduction Brown Bess. The gun even had a hangfire of about a second because it was rather humid for a January morning in the High Plains and it was loaded hours before. I still killed the deer. It's an effective weapon.

I'm about four minutes in, and I suspect that Matt's sarcasm level is about to go past eleven and jump to Marc Antony thanking Brutus.

I think as others have said that someones taken Napoleons love/use of Artillery and worked that backwards to "muskets not good". "God fights on the side with the best artillery" to quote Napoleon but that doesn't translate to "muskets are useless". When this series gets to the American Civil war and General Sherman's " a battery of artillery is worth a thousand muskets" then they'll probably get really enthusiastic.

Based on everything I've read about the War of the 3rd Coalition, the Austrians and Russians were vastly inferior to the French when it came to musketry. I believe Austrian regulations allowed each soldier only three practice shots per year, and the Russians were even more parsimonious about getting troops trained up in live fire musket drill. By the standards of the time, the Napoleon's army at Austerlitz were on the cutting edge in terms of both rate of fire and marksmanship.

Some points I learned about these weapons during my reenacting days. Having fired both the Brown Bess and the Charleville I found the Charleville to be noticeably heavier. As a result, I found that carrying, firing and drilling with it was little more fatiguing. However, I think you could easily get used to the extra weight and soldiers of Napoleon's army, having only drilled with Charlevilles, would not be impacted at all be the extra weight. Having personally taught people to fire a musket I agree completely that they are very simple and easy to use. You can teach someone to fire a musket in a matter a minutes and after a day of drilling they will be proficient enough to march and fire in line with a unit. Muskets were designed to be idiot proof and rugged enough to be used and abused by anyone. The idea that double loading a musket will cause it to explode is laughable. At The Battle of the Plains of Abraham in 1759, close to Quebec City in Canada, General Wolfe's army was ordered to double load their muskets to increase the firepower of their first volley. This was so effective it shattered the French advance. Admittedly, Wolfe was killed during the battle but not by an exploding musket! www.uppercanadahistory.ca/wm/wm8.html Muskets do get fouled up during lengthy engagements, although, this actually has some benefits. After a few volleys the ball fits more snugly in the bore and actually increases it's accuracy for a time. You will notice a stronger recoil effect as well. Soldiers of this time period carried a "pick and brush" on a chain (usually hanging from a button on their uniform) to pick out the touch hole and clear away the fouling around the frizzen and pan. This should keep the musket from misfiring and getting "a flash in the pan". You also have to routinely resharpen your flint to ensure that it keeps producing good sparks. You do this by "knapping" your flint, or tapping the edge with a bayonet or knife to break off some of the flint and sharpen the edge. Soldiers of this period would be able to do this during a battle quite easily a bit like a modern soldier executes his stoppage drills under fire. Just thought I'd chime in with a few things I learned while reenacting the 18th century here in Canada. Love your work, cheers!

One issue that all too often creeps into history and archaeology is ethnocentric bias. People love to think that their culture is better than everyone else's (past and present). Whether it's 'innocent' jokes about French cowardice all the way to outright supremacist bigotry. And this can creep into areas wherever a personal opinion can take root. It's especially prevalent in TV because the people making shows know that the watchers enjoy hearing about the misfortune of other cultures. Given the long history of animosity between France and Britain it's not hard to understand why such ethnocentric bias is part of a program about the French when they were in a war against Britain. I remember my history lessons in school, when we were taught about Napoleon we weren't taught about his military leadership, or how much his people loved him, but we were told that he was a ruthless megalomaniac dictator who was responsible for the entire conflict (completely ignoring the invasion of France to restore the monarch after the revolution)

I've heard it quoted that both 1 in 10, and 1 in 20 were the number of expected misfires from a flintlock. I strongly suspect that climatic conditions would have more to do with an actual number of misfires than any weakness in the action of the firearm.

"... Napoleon adapted his tactics to minimise the shortcomings of the infantry's muskets. He would never forget the terrible moment, when during the Battle of Marengo, he had observed an entire regiment of foot forget to remove their ramrods before firing, leaving them utterly unable to fight with the long wooden poles with a big knife on the end. Napoleon had had to watch helplessly as they were cut down to a man by an enemy that had realised that muskets were just rubbish because they don't use them in that documentary about the Wehrmacht that was on earlier and had gone on a survivalist website to buy semi-automatics with bump stocks and wore camo and believed in Freedom. Yet, from this disaster caused by inferior technology, came the very inspiration that made Napoleon a military genius beyond the ability of his contemporaries to fathom. On the eve of battle, he rode up to the line, and removing his patented hand from his jacket, he personally demonstrated to his men how to sharpen their ramrods and attach a long piece of twine to the other end. At a critical juncture, when the enemy believed that the French army had all accidentally misfired at the same time and began to close in for a charge with those big knife thingies, Napoleon gave the order: "Charger des harpons!" The hapless opponents were skewered by a volley of deadly harpoons, and then were tangled in the attached twine to be finished off with the big knives that soldiers used to carry in those days. It was, in the words of Lord Wellesley (rival military genius and inventor of the water loo which ended the age-old problem of entire armies just dying of dysentery before every battle): 'Wait? What? But, that's not how - ' Victory at Austerlitz belonged to Napoleon Bonaparte..."

Discovery History.... well there's your problem right off the bat. >___

... yeah, you can teach them in 5 minutes, but you can't teach them not to leave the ramrod in the bore. That takes experience! Dramatic music, dramatic vocalization, I pretty much gave up on historical documentaries when I discovered You Tube 5 years ago. Passionate, knowledgeable individuals putting themselves out there, subject to contradictory commentary... Just so great. Thanks for doing these.

Fun fact: in 1809 the french armorers modified the charleville musket to accept glock magazines........

Shows like this always make me angry. People do not go to war in a life and death struggle over and over with equipment that is bad. Its like the old "if a knight falls down he can't get up". would any sane person wear that armour? Something that doesn't work doesn't last a century in multiple different armies all over the world. It would just take one enemy to not use it and they he would win easily and the rest would follow suite. And 40 yards is super close, like very close. It sounds far but a middling archer with a compound will hit you at that range. A bullet at that range doesn't have the time to become inaccurate. We are talking tenths of a second to reach 40 yards with a black powder rifle. Its like this guy was making a bad info commercial where the people can't even do anything...

My understanding about the French black powder was that there were two main issues: 1) quality of the charcoal used ( a problem shared by most other nations, apart from Britain who were using a closed vessel method of production) 2) quality and (particularly) availability of saltpetre; as France had to import this, the dominance of the British Royal Navy made imports a tad difficult, leading to shortages in the amount of powder available during later campaigns

Something to consider: If you watch or read something about history that is really well made and you learn many things you didn't know before, but then they touch a topic you know a lot about and that's wrong... What's telling you that the rest of the stuff isn't? Productions can be very high quality and present themselves as trustworthy, but that's no actual evidence for their version of the story.

If Napoleon, having become the French Emperor, at the height of his power, "knew" that the French muskets were somehow inferior... he would have commissioned new ones. He had played a major role, since 1797, in turning the French Army into the most advanced and powerful in the world. It's not like he wouldn't have cared if his soldiers had deficient weapons.

I grew up with flintlock rifles, even hunt with them. If you know what you're doing, and have a good flint, they very rarely misfire, a decent English flint will certainly last more than a dozen shots, and if you're careful with your lock and frizzen, can even be used reliably in weather. I appreciate you clearing the waters on this one, Matt.

Not just Napoleon, but Frederick the Great, Cornwallis, Washington, Clausewitz, Wellington and all the other famous military commanders of that era and earlier had to adapt their tactics to the fact that their armies used muzzle loading, one shot per load weapons. Which is to say this was just standard for the time. It's strange that a documentary specifically on Austerlitz would have to shoehorn in some background on how a muzzle loader works. In elementary school history lessons we learned about this - even saw it in a documentary - in the context of the American War of Independence. It should be assume that someone watching a documentary specifically on Austerlitz already has this background and more advanced things can be discussed.

Reminds me of a professor who once showed our class a scene from Glory where an officer introduces the 54th Massachusetts to their rifled muskets. He seized on that last word, ignoring the penultimate one, to make a point about their being given inferior equipment by the Union Army. As if they were getting museum pieces while the white troops got AK-47s.

Them’s some quiet muskets. Guess they were the stealth model for Napoleon’s spec ops group

You know it's a bad sign when Wikipedia is more accurate. I quit watching most of these type shows after the embarrassment of the so called History Channel.

Matching pictures, Matt! A reenactment group I was in, has been on the History channel a couple of times. They always seem to give maximum credence to armchair historians with college tenures over those of use with practical experience. They like to depict (or manufacture) drama to make the episode compelling. I'd like to see a series of "duels" between the tweed-suited academics versus reenactors and experimental archaeologists.

Maybe they didn't get much markmanship practice but by 1805 the French army had thousands of hardened veterans that were more than used to handle their pieces in actual combat.

This is a problem across the board with modern media. I am not sure if these documentaries can't afford (or can't be bothered) to hire writers who actually know about the topic they are writing about, but it is common for modern documentaries for cable TV channels to have writers who don't sound like they know what they are talking about.

Not disputing anything you are saying Matt, but I do have a couple of questions. The main one relates to the effective range of muskets. As you said, the technology in question did not change a whole lot during the flint-lock era, most likely because there is not a whole lot of room for improvements. However, in the first years if the 18th century, during the Great Nordic War, it was standard doctrine in the Swedish Carolean army to hold fire until "you could see the whites of the enemy's eyes" which in practice meant about a 10-15 metre range. Standard practice (which was normally observed as the army was both very well drilled and subject to monsterous levels of discipline, even by contemporary standards) was to rapid march until the enemy fired, then jog/run to firing range, shoot one volley, and then charge with pikes (one of the last armies in europe to use them), bayonets and swords. This tactic was highly successful throughout most of the major battles of the war, and it is fairly common in soldiers letters (most of the army was at least somewhat literate) to see descriptions along the lines of "the was nervous and blew their load at 50 or so paces, and the effect was not that big, we held fire and cut them down like grain before the scythe at 15 paces". If ranges of muskets are what you described them (I dont question your knowledge on that point), how come the above dynamic was possible? My personal theory is that it was due to the powder. Black powder has to be in a specific range of grain size to be effective for musketry and it tends to degrade in the presence of moisture. This likely meant that keeping powder at the desired quality in field conditions, especially during extended campaigns would probably have been quite difficult, leading to an uneven and unpredictable quality of powder. More or less exactly this happened to the Carolean army at Poltava, where the powder was so bad that a group of musketeers who tried to ambush a troupe of cossacs the day before the battle did not even have their shot reach the target. My guess is that this was a persistent problem for armies of the period, and that this lead to much lower practical accuracy than for modern shooters, since powder quality probably varied from one cartridge to another, meaning that one shot might be ok, and the next might be low, making aiming difficult and stopping power unreliable. I would love to know your thoughts on this, since it has been on my mind for a while now. Cheers

You can teach someone how to shoot a longbow in five minutes, too. It takes years and years to build up the muscles needed to shoot a war bow.

Very nice! Very interesting indeed. Thanks Matt for creating and uploading.

The first American military issued muskets were copies of the French Charleville. Fun act, when Virginia seceded from the union she was issuing both converted and a few unconverted muskets of the same type.

I'm pleased that other people are annoyed by these inaccurate programs. Propagation of misinformation is shameful and everyone is now dumber for having watched it.

Not just that documentary, I recall one about the Iberian war where the French musket was stated as being inferior to the British one.

Come now Matt, don't you remember reading about the Napoleonic Slingers? They sharpened the end of their ramrod, fired it like an arrow, at the enemy, then threw their worthless muskets at them, finally they pulled out their slings and used them to get their shot down-range. Hence, we get the word slingshot... Seriously, we appreciate your setting this to rights. Too bad that other video doesn't come with a link to this one.

If you fire your ramrod "uprange" you picked one up from some dead bloke.It never ceases to amaze how these " scholars" fixate on a battle or incident & forget the war. The Charleville carried the french from Spain to Moscow, so cannot have been that bad.The French had access to English, German , Austrian, weapons & if one were much more effective, surely they would have adapted their muskets to take advantage of that effectiveness.

@ 1:41 Actually, even taking that into account, the M1777 is a fine musket. It's easier to aim, handles better, and is generally lighter (and sturdier) than most of the competition at the time. It's why most of the continent adopted derivative models (Prussia made a derivative model in 1809, for example, and Sweden had derivatives by 1815). The only thing one could complain about is that the barrel is perhaps too long (45 inches IIRC), but they stuck to that part to make their bayonet-work better, so it's not a thoughtless decision. One thing that REALLY sets it apart technically, is the interchangeable parts. @ 2:52 69!!!!!! couldn't resist. @ 6:00 You'd be surprised: the amount of idiots out there who can make it needlessly complicated is exceptional. @ 6:49 OK, here I have to correct a misconception of yours: the M1777, while definitely an evolution on earlier models, was VERY different from the M1717, and even from the M1727/46 (of Seven Years' War fame). Everything from the way it was held together, to the action and construction of the lock, and even the angle of the pan were changed--all to improve performance and accuracy. Even the caliber changed: the barrels in earlier muskets ranged from 0.69 to 0.71 caliber, and the bores were often slightly oval-shaped. Even the stock is different: the M1777 is easy to identify because it has a hollow where you can rest your cheek on, for consistent shooting (the Lorenz Rifle later had this as well). The M1777 is the culmination of a long period of soul-searching by the French army after the Seven Year's War @ 8:14 The only way I can think of making a barrel burst is to load the charge halfway down, instead of all the way down. And even then, it would only burst along with defects, so the damage isn't THAT extreme (unless you're a moron, and you use smokeless). You can blow these up with repeated shooting due to barrel overheat (it's mentioned as having occurred at Blenheim), but this was more common in the early 18th century, not the Napoleonic Wars. @ 10:21 I can hit a man-sized target at 75 yards, and can occasionally do so at 100 yards. And that's with the slightly less accurate Brown Bess, and standing up. I'd imagine with the M1777, I could get to 100 yards easy, and some guys at Boulogne could do it from time to time at under 150 yards. It's really that good. As to rate of fire: you can start at 3, but exhaustion would slow you down quickly; 2 shots a minute was the sustained rate. @ 11:30 I find it hard to *miss* at 50 yards... @ 12:44 1 in 6.5, based on tests of the India Pattern Musket, when compared to percussion caps. IIRC this was done in 1834 (or 1830? been a while). I find it strange it's used here, as obviously, the India Pattern is British. I've come up with a similar number firing my musket. And it's not as bad as it sounds: if you misfire the first time, you can do it the second time, as long as you know why it misfired (and it's not that hard to do). @15:21 The British credited their victory at Manila in 1762 to the *lack* of muskets among the Native militias, who only had bows. @ 17:21 I've had something else happen: I got enough fouling on the hammer to actually impede the action, so it wouldn't spark. The hardening itself was fine. The flint should last 20-30 shots (and as it happens, the French issued 30 rounds a man). @ 19:51 All I know is that prior to 1792, the two were about the same (British and French). British Powder outclassed all others after 1792. @ end: It was better. Not by much, but it was definitely better.

Thanks for reccomending OverlordDVD channel.

About the relative (in)accuracy of the French troops: In the part of his memoirs dealing with the war in Spain and Portugal (ca. 1809-10), the baron de Marbot is impressed with the "immense superiority" of the accuracy of the British infantry and he goes as far as citing it as one of the main reasons for the French defeat. He explains it by the extensive target practice the British troops had and by the fact that they fired in two rows, whereas the French lined up in three. He says (quick translation) : "I know that a great number of French officers deny the truth in this last explanation, but experience has nonetheless shown that the soldiers pressed between the first and the third row almost all fire up in the air, and that the third cannot aim at the enemy, which is hidden from its view by the two first ones."

Documentary in 2999: In the 21st century, the soldier was armed with a poorly made, inaccurate rifle that actually fired physical projectiles housed in metal cases rather than energy beams. However did they manage to win a battle? People looking at the past have a tendency to sneer at it in hindsight especially as regards current improvements vs. old technology....

In relation to French powder being inferior; I have no definitive proof but I do suspect that this is plausible. Considering the lengths that Britain for example went to to secure guano islands to power their war machine and the relative dominance of the Royal Navy ensuring that Britain could find, secure and transport these supplies more efficiently than the French (even worse considering how often they were blockaded into port.) So something that military minds have always known but documentaries don't focus on: logistics win more wars than anything else. Sometimes it's not about the weapon or the man, it's about finding that obscure rock covered in bat shit.

These muskets do require some practice to shoot accurately, especially if you're using the military load (lots of powder and a ball whose diameter is smaller than the bore diameter). I found this out when I got to shoot my friend's dad's charleville when I was a teenager. I couldn't hit anything with it at first. The flash in the pan makes you want to flinch, which makes you start to point the barrel too high, and then a moment later there's a huge kick which sends the barrel even higher. I found I really had to train myself to aim low. I can understand why the Russian army during this era, which gave their soldiers three practice rounds per year, placed so much emphasis on the bayonet. Three rounds a year is not enough to get the hang of this weapon.

Well, to be fair a double powder charge is vastly different then being loaded, then loaded again, will drastically change the pressure generated. But yes, any well made forearm of the time should be able to handle even that. But they didn’t have the alloys and manufacturing of today, so bad things could happen if you loaded two, complete shots, consecutively.

Well.... The only tactic attributed to Napoleon was a combination of regiments in column - line - column. This wasn’t used much. The French use of column arose during the wars of the French revolutionary period. It was the only way that the ill trained and disciplined recruits could be maneuvered on the battlefield. What Napoleon did develop were innovations at an operational and strategic levels. Things such as a combined arms corps, separated mutually supporting lines of match, and the use of foraging to reduce the required supply train allowing for faster operational movement.

7:49 I truly hate to double comment, but I think the main reason the gun would "blow up" would be the 2nd bullet in the barrel - not the amount of powder. Forgot to fire! If loaded in the right order, 1st bullet will start in motion, go through the 2nd's powder (before it burns?) and hit the 2nd bullet before it starts moving (or gets up to speed?). Did they do that in the experiments you mentioned? IDK. I've seen bad/old/got soaking wet etc 9mm bullets get stuck in a pistol barrel, but they still fired. We thought the kid was just missing the target, but the bullets weren't exiting the muzzle. I think he had 5 or 6 in there. Eventually, he tried a fresh round. The gun exploded (out to the sides) and he was lucky to keep all his hands. His safety glasses weren't marked either. We had to take the gun out of his hands, because he was frozen in place lol Guns can explode, and swords can become flying helicopters of death, bowstrings can snap and fletching your own hand hurts, etc. Some things never change...

Welcome to popcorn history tailored for those with low attention spans.

This video touches on the reason I stopped watching The History Channel (US) several years ago: when they touched on subjects I already knew well, they were *useless.* Sometimes the problem was merely sensationalism run amok, but other times their "research" seemed to amount to regurgitating the "common knowledge" of bygone decades, now long debunked. And when I couldn't trust them on topics I already knew something about, I lost confidence in their coverage of everything else. Of course for all I know, maybe the UK version of the channel is better. Hope springs eternal!

Brother you can lay down and fire load, you can also kneel and load. Its all in the drill manuals. Been in the hobby for over 20 year's. Specialist troops even used cover concealment exc.

Regarding rate of fire and accuracy, capandball mentioned in one of his videos about Prussian (?) infantry tactics that the continental powers of the time didn't like to spend money on petty things like marksmanship training, resulting in the average infantryman only getting a couple of practice rounds to shoot per year. I don't know how or if that applies to the French, and I didn't care enough at the time to chase down sources, but if true and applicable it would explain a lot about musketry line tactics and the allegedly low rate of fire.

From what I know France had a certain problem with gunpowder consistency in the artillery (don't know about the powder used for muskets and the again different powder for rifles*). Less a problem with general less bang but with bang differing from shot to shot. I assume that it would make little difference in the point blank musket shooting of the line infantry but severely affect the accuracy of cannon and rifle fire. *rule of thumb: artillery=very coarse powder, smoothbore muskets= medium grain; rifles fine 'flour' powder. The 'power' of classic gunpowder depends more on degree of granularity and packing than on exact chemical composition/accuracy of mixture. This was already noted in the early 15th century btw (e.g. the Feuerwerksbuch of 1420 devotes several subchapters to the topic)

You know the Blue book manual of arms. Which describes Infantry drill and tactics. Actually talks about how to maintain the Musket so that it will be reliable. It goes over replacing the flint before battle or skirmish. Each cartridge box came with a new flint. Most soldiers did not use a new one ever box. As the flit could be adjusted and tuned to maintain function. I have worked with flintlocks. They are very capable weapons and worked well. This was just crap that they describe things like this.

The blowing up it your face bit was practically stupid because balls in 18th century to early 19th century were fairly loose fitting and many inventions such as the puckle gun, fergussion rifle, volley gun, breach cannon, early revolvers were rejected items in favor of more easily mass producible and more reliable small arm at this time.

I have been hunting with my 50 cal hawkins black powder muzzleloader for the last 30 years or so. I love shooting it, easily one of my favorite guns. With it i can fire 4 aimed shots a minute and actually hit a normal circle target @ 200 yards. Granted its a percussion cap but its also a rifle using a waxed minie ball and powder from a horn that i measure each shot. claiming french line infantry can only manage 1 or maybe 2 shots a minute is just silly in my experience.

I just got a 1768 Modal Charleville musket (Repro.) for my reenacting regiment.

Please more videos about Muskets .

11:40 Carolus usually had his troops drilled to only hold position till the enemy formation fired one volley at his formations, then advance fire 1 volley of their own. Afterwards they would charge in Melee. I think he did not come up with that because the Musket was so fcking fast to load neither because it was very accurate. If you buy a Musket nowdays you can be sure it was better crafted then in the early 1800´s. Especially if your supreme ruler wants a certain amount of guns in a certain time...

What the documentary says about misfires, short effective range, difficulty loading, is not really that exaggerated when he's talking about *combat conditions*. One shot a minute with frequent misfires is probably closer to what you'd get in a heated battle than the 3 shots a minute with good reliability you could get on the shooting range. But the important thing is, that despite all of the musket's shortcomings, it was still a better weapon than everything that came before it. Definitely not a "bad" weapon unless we're comparing it to modern firearms.

I've never seen a single historically accurate documentary on TV, so not surprised they even sensationalized musket details.

I will have to correct you at one point Matt, yes you can't load a musket in a way similar to a breech loading rifle, but your statement that you have to stand up to load is nonsense. Tirailleurs and other types of light infantry / skirmishers often load and fire from behind cover and in the open in prone position. I myself have done this multiple times in my 18 years of Napoleonic reenactment. The key is to angle your musket with the stock pushed out to your side or to the back. You can then easily acces the muzzle and operate the ramrod. This is included in drills of the time.

The events on London Bridge earlier today, while deadly serious on many levels, can also be used as a real world example of the power of even a poorly trained spearman in a confrontation with a blade wielding assailant

I guess it makes a difference whether one loads the barrel full of powder with one ball on top or numerous cartridges (with a ball) on top of each other yielding a much higher resistance to the first charge ignited. Btw, there were several attempts made to have a multiple consecutive shot firing weapon* based on that principle of cartridge stacking. But in that case one would start with the one closest to the muzzle not at the bottom. *cannons and muskets/rifles, starting with early artillery handbooks, e.g. the Feuerwerkbuch of 1420.

Question for you; was the length of the musket due to some necessity of physics for better accuracy or speed, or was it about the bayonet? I would think one could get a full powder burn in about 30 inches with a .7 bore.

And that is why I cannot stand "documentarys". They so often make a bundle of it bedause they think it must sound sooooo dramatic. And they are to often badly researched.

I could probably load and fire my flintlock Hawken rifle twice a minute, maybe even three times, and it's a rifle so it takes a fair bit longer to load than a musket. As for the number of misfires that would be so variable and dependent on the quality, and maintenance, of the weapon that it would be hard to figure an average number a couple hundred years later. My Hawken, which is a pretty high quality one, has only ever had a handful of misfires. I have a couple of Queen Anne flintlock pistols that are another story entirely. Those will actually fire maybe once every 8-10 pulls of the trigger since they are not very good quality and in desperate need of having most of their springs replaced.

They did switch from wooden ramrods to iron. Made it a little easier to load.

You should sell some antique flintlocks on your website. That would be pretty cool.

I understand where you are coming from, but I think they were just trying look at the musket from Napoleon's personal viewpoint and that particular musket was old Charley. We Americans of course LOVE the Charley (1763?) as it was perceived "main" musket of our Revolution. It was a strategic weapon of course, in any regiment individual bad things were bound to happen (if it could happen it usually would) but it was a weapon of mass use, individual or small unit actions were not considered particular relevant. The problem with hitting men in battle was the fog of war, in all wars, most shots either go high or low. The closer the range the more hits. 1/6 misfires was probably an average over a battle, less misfires at first more as the battle progressed as the guns grew dirtier and the men became dirtier and exhausted. Muskets were of less value tactically (relatively speaking) as decisive weapons as were bayonets and cannon BUT they were necessary and as strategic weapons a necessity.

Hi Matt, I was wondering if you could please explain the purpose of the flat sheet section that is commonly found on the bottom of steel scabbards

O.K., that is good to know. In particular how to question a documentary.

I'm not convinced - from the presented bits of the show- that they meant that particular musket model. Maybe they just meant muskets in general. If Napoleon used strategies that minimized role of musketeers, it certainly resulted from relative weakness of muskets, in compariison to the other formations.

Agreed. I would think that from an engineering perspective &, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, banded muskets are superior to pinned muskets.

About "not hitting at 40 yards"... today, we are raised with guns such that someone who doesnt shoot or have interest in guns, probably still has more exposure to guns than probably the average french recruit of the napoleonic era. Guns would have been expensive and also the culture of guns would have been unrefined. People today are told all of these things that makes them a better shooter that people might not have been told. I can believe that shooters today might assume that shooters of yore would have been more capable than they really were. Also, weapon consistency was probably less, and unlike today where soldiers shoot thousands of rounds in training, average musketmen might not have even shot hundreds,,, maybe only shooting tens of rounds in total before their first battle.

At the battle of the Plains of Abraham, Wolfe ordered his infantry to double load their muskets, with devastating results for the French

Great video. I own a Charleville flintlock, but I don't know much about it. Mine has a rifled barrel, it's not a smooth bore. If anyone can tell me what sort of time period it a be from that would be great.

As to the "Fire X shots a minute" issue, would there be a significant difference in rate of fire between a single shooter and a formation shooting by rank/file/whatever? Naively, it seems like a single person going at it as fast as they can should be able to get more shots off than a whole group where people may need to wait on the slower loaders, wait until the order to shoulder/fire is given, and so on.

I remember reading a paraphrasing from Napoleon about firing one or two volleys and charging with the bayonet. So distance and fouling wouldn't even have been a problem. (Don't take my source too seriously, if I remember correctly it was from Empire: Total War loading page. )

I always thought it was a smaller calibre than the Brown Bess, British soldiers could use captured French ammo but not vice versa

Matt! there's a sword on sale on the website 'celtic web merchant' which claims to be a historically accurate battle-ready Oakeshott XIV arming sword and it looks really nice + decent reviews but its ONLY £64! would you consider purchasing one and testing it out to see if it's really as good as it claims to be?

Lol hi sassy Matt good to see you again. :) honestly though great video

Muskets not effective??? Just look at the casualty rates of the Napoleonic battles. They were horrific. Tens of thousands killed in single battles.

The Charleville musket did quite well for Americans in the Revolutionary War, without Napoleon's tactics.

Matt, this is Reginald Vanderbilt, a producer on Great Battles. We've taken everything you've said here to heart and we'd love to hire you as a consultant because, when it comes to accuracy, we totally give a fuck. LOLZ just kidding we don't care cheers

Not to mention how they fail to mention the psychology of shooting another. Many soldiers aimed above or beside enemy soldiers because it felt awful firing stuff at each other. A factor that wasn't tackled till the early 20th century. Firing and hitting something want the issue. Many performed well during testing. It was shooting another man that felt awful. Like obi wan kenobi said. So uncivilised.

Hey weren't those Charleville muskets used by us Americans in the war for independence?

Recall a Lindybeige video where he stated that during musket times, not sure exactly what period he ment there was a problem with hitting the enemy. But it had to do with other things then the musket. They put up white cloth in the size of row of enemies at 100y and the hit rate was alot higher then in combat, more then dubble. Lindy was sure it was becuse the men did not wan´t to kill the enemy and was there simply to get payed...no idea about that idea but the stress and other factors made them have a rather high miss rate prob, not the muskets tho.

If this musket would be as bad as they paint it to be, nobody would have used it and they would have either gone back to an earlier type of firearm or even revert to crossbows and regular bows. Thats why you didn't see a lot of firearms use in the asian theatres, despite them having rocket infantry and whatnot much earlier than the european. If something is an ineffective weapon then it only serves as novelty or psychological warfare type of weapon, but isn't really a "line" weapon. You don't kit the bulk of your army with a weapon that doesn't work.

Its funny, as French Charleville musket was actually considered to be one of the best muskets.. Russian muskets were the worst, early Prussian muskets were bad as well.. Late Prussian muskets were modeled on Charleville and were a lot better.. similarly Austrians copied Charleville as well.. and US Springfield musket is practically a copy of Charleville too... and regarding accuracy, Charleville because of being smaller caliber than Brown Bess had slightly higher muzzle speed and therefore slightly flatter trajectory, therefore it was actually more accurate.

Sir, most of the swords in Asia are single edged swords. These are very common where only the outer edge is sharp. How a double edged sword is operated? How the inner edge is used in a fight?

One would suspect this segment was written by Lloyd.

thanks for uploading!

.69 vs .70 lol I hate it when people do that, it's like saying 8mm Mauser when it is 7.92 Mauser grrrrr. Let's not forget the Army that Napoleon was facing was armed the same way , so what's the point of the segment LOL

British guards training involved firing only one or two shots a year. In battle shooting was fairly inaccurate otherwise battlefield casualties would have been far worse, the bayonet probably did more injury. Napoleon was a trained artilleryman who understood ballistics far better than any of his opponents, that's why he was able to develop such successful tactics.

Loading, aiming and firing clean flintlock musket twice in minute that is easy. I have done it. Problems start always after first six shots and it is always result of quality of black powder and flint. “Good quality” flint may last 2-50 shots without any problems or turning to stone. After six shots burned black powder start to get flint, frizzen, touch-hole and barrel dirty. Dirty frizzen and flint do not spark well. Dirty touch-hole do not its work at all and dirty barrel is harder and harder (slow) to load by ramrod. I have not never fired flintlock musket more than 20-25 times without cleaning a lock and barrel or turning flint or change it. Quality of flint and black powder is very important matter.

Would have been interesing to see how the narrator would have compared this "not good" musket to the weapons of the other nations. But I guess having to admit that all nations that Napoleon fought against used basically the same guns would have spoiled the narrative.

Wow, thank you.

Clicked on this because I'm buying a 77', and to my surprise, it's Matt. Good job, old man. Pointing out these imbeciles that have been brainwashing the public through television for decades, and they do it with every single aspect of the tiniest bit of history they can. Trust me, these are not mistakes they are making. They actually know full well what they are doing and the reason behind it. Oh yes, they went all hell bent with this one, and thankfully, made it hilarious. But regardless, ohhhh, the 77', because everyone needs to have one sitting next to a VERY warm fire as they read the 'Memoirs of Sergeant Bourgogne' over the holidays. I assure everyone, that those soldiers knew the full effectiveness of a musket, and would not part with them by any means. To anyone reading this, turn off the teLIEvision and grab a good book. Take care, Matt. I'm going to roll the dice, figuratively speaking, and see if you pop up on the next video. If Lindy pops up, I'm going to call it quits for the night.

Well done.

That presenter rather lost me when he said that Napoleon invaded a country that wasn't thought of until 60 years later. If Napoleon had thought the Charleville a bad weapon, he would have redesigned it. That's what he always did. If the Charleville was a crap weapon, the muskets used by Austro-Hungary, Prussia and Russia must have been really shit. (The trusty ol' Brown Bess was of course British, and therefore beyond criticism.)