Andrew Lay We stand no chance against those baguettes!...

Andrew Lay it means stick

1:23 ready the baguette, all the baguette! control e stomach

baguette means long thing in french what literly defines a ramrod

@@JWvdv Yes. That doesn't make it any less funny though.

+HOLYFEAR2001 I am going to edit that section so that it's my text tone!

French tis a silly language

The French have a more militaristic mind than they'll readily admit to then... :P

"READY LA BAGUETTE!" "READY LE BEURRE!" "READY LA CONFITURE!" "DEJEUNER!" (45 minutes go by as the musketeers eat their lunch)

Gj23jk2 You are the first person in a while that made me legitimately laugh out loud!

If I'm not mistaken, there were usually about 12 of them and they were often called 'apostles'.

Terrifying position to be in however. Drill for musketeers was extremely specific and careful because of the constantly burning matchcord being an everpresent danger with explosives hanging off you and everyone around you.

@Tactical Aioli At least back then you could get rich through plundering. Can't do that anymore..

It is so when he is killed the powder is easily taken by another soldier

@Tactical Aioli that was not pretty clothing for the period, 17th century fashion was extremely extravagant, pretty would be louis xiv clothes

Fun fact, over the entirety of the Thirty Years' War, there was only time for 9 reloads.

actually those are just the basic moves, obviously a well trained soldier would do that in a matter of seconds

A good soldier could fire about every 1 minute and 30 seconds. Quite long by todays standards, you can see why the bullet and bolt action rifle where such revelations

@@GuyMaleMan i agree. Well, this is a heavy musket, designed to defeat cuirassier armor. If they use lighter arquebus, they might reload it faster.

@@GuyMaleMan lol what? A trained soldier fired 3 times a minute with a 20 second reload mate

I would shit myself with glee.

***** Hit reload button. Wait five minutes. Press fire. Misfire, have to reload.

***** The horrible shrieks of teenaged bro impatience from couches all across the globe would be audible from the International Space Station.

Would totally play that.

It would be a totally strange sensation, the absolute opposite of the usual CoD experience where you're basically Captain America. The first battle experience is nothing but you watching other guys get shot, waiting for your chance to fire a single round.

No, in America (High School) we got to choose our classes. American history and government are the only required classes for social studies. So yes, some Americans can go their entire lives without knowing any European history. I took AP European History (optional class) which covers the Renaissance until the end of the Cold War from a European Perspective. I also took Medieval and Ancient History (both optional), which covers both East Asia and Europe. Another awesome class I took focused specifically on East Asia, mostly China, that is is because China has been the dominant cultural and economic power in that region for the majority of history and the present.

shut the fuck up racist white male

@@Chadaface what,s your problem with european history?

@@sergiorivillocarrere2685 i dont like white people

@@Chadaface So, you are racist.

Even I understand the orders, and I'm not even French!

Un accent français très lourd hahah.

im not a native French speaker and i understood every order lol.

Indeed, i'm French and these orders are perfectly understandable despite a few mistakes. And i love the accent

Aymeric G please, can you write all that orders in french here in comments? We are looking it for theatre! Please, please, sir ))

One pistol

And they didn't even use live ammo, just touched off the powder charge is all. So add another ten seconds.

@@Chris-2-of-3, no need to add any time, as period accounts specify a roughly one minute reload time. These guys were noticeably slower than that for various reasons, including the fact that they're moving at demonstration speeds intead of combat speeds

Not really. The aim is to get as many guns to bear as possible. Muskets have very low range, so a spread out line is inefficient and not all guns will be able to hit a target putting pressure on one point in the line. So instead they half or third or even quarter the line’s length, allowing everyone to be in better range of the target.

Musketeers were considered support troops back then, cav and pike men did most of the fighting back then, musketeers were position behind the pikes and were less likely to die, also the opposing army also did not have many musketeers either, muskets were also extremely inaccurate and were used mostly to scare the enemy and demorilise them, the wounds caused by these muskets must have been horrendous

@@armincal9834 Where did you get your misinformation? 1. Musketeers outnumbered pikemen, the pikemen supported the musketeers by defending them against cavalry, not the other way around. 2. Two pike squares almost never fought each other, it was considered "bad war." The muskets did all the killing, far from just scaring the enemy! 3. And no, they weren't behind the pikemen, how the hell would they be able to shoot? Two musketeer columns would flank one pike square. They were inaccurate, yes, that's why they used massed volleys to slowly whittle down the enemy ranks over many hours, until one side routed and ran for the hills. That's when the cavalry swooped in and slaughtered them before they could regroup.

@@everfaithful9272 which era are you talking about tho?

@@arminharper510 Judging from the high-waisted, short tabbed muskets, this looks to be about 1640. Ever-Faithful is spot on.

@@everfaithful9272 They weren't even that inaccurate. They were obviously extremely inaccurate compared to the modern rifles we're used to. But they were a lot more accurate than the bows and crossbows people had been using up to that point, as is attested by essentially everyone that was on either end of them.

AK107DX Hi, this is only partially true. The greatest power of the infantry forming a 2 or 3 person deep line is the volley, not the individual shots. Until these commads are used on the battlefield, the officers have chance to issue commands to the tropps. If the "fire at will" starts no more commanding is possible due to the noise.

***** Musket formation in the 16th and 17th Century were as many a 10 ranks deep. The front rank would present and fire on command then counter march through the fomation to the rear reloading as they went. The next rank would step up to the line, present and fire on command, then countermarch while reloading. This revolving would continue until the battle was over or the musketeers ran out of powder and shot. In this manner the company could fire a concentrated volley every few seconds while reloading and keeping good order, but the officer in command did not have to give each and every command nor were the musketeers slowed down by the drill commands being given.

Matt Leiby Hi Matt, You are right. What I wrote is only true for early and mid 16th century tactics. Thanks for the info.

***** If I'm not mistaken, you'd have the front. Fank that fired kneel to get out of the way, too, in some cases. Gorgeous rifles there, sad to see no matchlock kits available. They look fun, and it'd be nice to have at least one one gun that didn't rely on caps (which can be a bit hard to find) I can make my own match easier then caps.

+DFX2KX Ever considered a flint lock plenty of reproduction Brown Bess muskets about.

That's why they had massed infantry fire. First line fires, starts to reload while second line fires, third line fires, etc. It was very effective.

who was "sticking with longbows" in the XVII century, sorry?

paolo rossi I mean people definitely still used bows

Not really ..not on a battlefield...and not if they had the chance to get muskets.

The use of the bows have been greatly reduced in the 16th century.

Might be Quebec

It's a hungarian accent.

It's French but spoken by someone who has a different native language.

@@HepCatJack oui, cest un accent hongrois.

They rotated...

Gunpowder troops rarely stood alone on a 16th and 17th century battlefield. There would a group of pikemen and other infantry to protect them from infantry and calvary charges while they were reloading. And then there was the implementation of countermarching where the first line of gunmen headed to the back of their formation after they had fired to reload, allowing the next line to fire and so on. The Spanish Tercios used this technique to devestating effect during this time period.

😆😅🤣😂

I think it's the ramrod.

Jaalco LOL okay. so "baguette" means something like "rod" or "stick" , makes sense

+ultor europae Well it is a French manual. Later refinements to the procedure no doubt included a restorative sip of cognac and a quick bite of fromage et escargots. ;-)

But, they were still the most advanced battlefield weapon of the time, and took far less time to train someone to use, unlike the sword or the bow.

_SiBI _ People don't realise how hard it is to actually snipe with a bow, takes months to train that muscle for it.

@@cloroxbleach9222 well, more like years because it takes a lot of practice to gain skill especially with war bows. As for rifles mere weeks to months to train.

@@cloroxbleach9222 Sorry i dont agree with you. On English coutriside every man knew use longbow in middle ages. They didnt have shortage of skilled longbowmen. Longbow dissapered because artilery replaced them as muskets replaced pikes and swords.

@@ales811507 The longbow fell out of use in England gradually, over the course of the 16th century, due to a proliferation of munitions-grade armour, and was replaced by the arquebus/musket. There are several edicts given during the reign of Henry VIII, commanding the commons to keep to the butts on Sundays - the repetition suggests they were slacking off. After Flodden 1513, when the storm of longbow arrows failed to stop the Scottish advance, the time of the longbow drew to a close. The Royal Navy was still using them to shoot fire arrows (a goodly bunch was found on the Mary Rose, along with about a dozen muskets) up to the time of the Armada. I also recall there was a problem getting Spanish Yew, which was preferred to English Yew, after the Divorce. Artillery did play some part, though the pike was kept around (at a reduced ratio - mainly as protection from cavalry) until the bayonet was invented.

@@KM-hw6tw Artilery replaced longbow as long range weapon. Muskets replaces pikes as standart infantry weapon. Longbow dissapear not because shortage of arrows or good wood, It was repalced because artilery outranged longbow and they must leave their secured pozition after obstaclest etc.

As a modern time shooter I would do the the same. But when the guns were loaded from paper cartridges this was the first thing to do after biting the cartridge end off.

The biggest safety concern in those days was keeping the lit match out of the serpentine and between the fingers of the shooter's left hand until after the pan was primed and the main charge was loaded down the barrel. I personally witnessed an inadequately trained and drilled re-enactor load the way you suggested and nearly blew his hand off as well as the head of the guy standing next to him. This guy loaded the main charge down the muzzle first, brought the weapon around and primed the pan with the match mere inches away when suddenly, BOOM.In the video above, note which directions the muzzles are pointing while the shooters are priming the pan. If there was a ball in the barrel and you had an unintentional ignition... well..., whereas if the pan is loaded first, the most likely scenario would be a flash in the pan, worst case is you would do yourself in rather than take someone with you or instead of you.

There's also the hassle of up-ending the cartridge down the barrel but keeping just enough in the paper to prime the pan afterwards. Also, by priming the pan first, you're free to use the cartridge paper as a patch and/or wadding.

better have the primer go off without the main charge in the barrel then the other way round mate

if you're talking to me Lats, if you read again you will notice that i agree with what you say. I wasn't talking to you btw but to public disgrace. mate xd

It seems vainglorious and proud for atom man to boast so loud his prowess homocidal, when one remembers how for years, our sires, at wiping out their peers, were almost never idle.

In later times, when they used a paper cartridge, they primed first so that you'd be certain that you would have enough powder to prime, load and fire the musket, and make it more efficient. As opposed to priming from a separate priming horn or flask.

Loading the bore first has significant risk of accidentally shooting each other when priming.

@@TheAchilles26 No, that's why they drilled and drilled and drilled, to reduce the chances of such a thing happening. They had a very particular manual of arms to load and fire. During the loading, the match is held in the left hand, near the swell of the stock, and everything else was done with the right hand. The LAST thing done was to place the match in the serpentine, open the pan and fire.

Check out Wapenhandelinghe van Roers Musquetten ende Spiessen by Jacob de Gheyn II(1565-1629)

dominatorN4 Damned gun weighted 20 lbs.

That...makes sense then.

@@dominatorN4 Yes, it's a musket stand. The muskets were heavy between the mid-16th century and the mid-17th century.

@@kristofantal8801 Heavy and not well balanced. @dominatorN4 The musket-rest helps you hold the musket level and steady. A full reenactment musket generally weighs about 8 kilos.

Originally, the musket was a heavier version of the arquebuse...

17th century arquebuses were lighter and therefore also used from horse backs. Muskets were bigger and infantry weapons. But this is only true for the 17th century. The word "arquebus" in an early 16th century context for example meant a quite heavy and clumsy infantry weapon. So it really depends on the context. There isn't one specific type of arquebus, the term is very vague.

+Nickname hier einfügen it originally meant 'hook gun' as you hooked a sort of hook over any convenient object, it was in effect a hand cannon and just as dangerous to the man holding it as to the man infront of it, I've seen a demonstration of one where a candle was fired at a two inch thick block of seasoned oak which the candle duly shattered into two large pieces and hunreds of splinters...

peter forden Yep, that's the earlier usage of the word I mentioned.

+Mando'ade Verd Most everyone in the 30 Years war was indistinguishable. Uniforms were practically non-existant and troops were often resupplied with clothing in Germany.

Yes, correct. Very late 16th to very early 17th centruy.

@@kristofantal8801 Judging by the hats, falling band collars and cut of the doublets about 1627 - 1640 AD

At 3:19 you can see that he was sliding out the pan cover of the musket, which prevents that from happening

Gabriel Cruz gotcha. Makes sense now. Didn’t see that action til you pointed it out. Thanks!

"the matchlock gunner could only get between 1-2 shots every two minutes." As I know, 1-2 shots in one minute (not two). Maybe the best gunners could 3.

actually his accent (hungarian I guess), is quite similar to the old french one, like French Canadian.

bademeister Thanks! I asked a French friend he confirmed for the very day I asked it, and he did say it is from a foreigner, sounds as if it was pronounced by an Hungarian or so.

Eduard Bodnar And it was pronounced by a HUngarian :)

***** Wow. I wonder how can one guess that easily.

""It makes me think French, but doesn't sound French " I m french and i laught .....

Druisteen Do I said "at all times", you french Swine.

Maybe, but it was a real thing. The clothes of these guys are historically accurate (very late 16th and very early 17th century). They are reenactors. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Jacob_de_Gheyn_-_Wapenhandelinge_4.jpg Incidentally, such buggy pants were also worn by e.g. the Berber-Arab zouaves in North Africa (service in the French Army). Following their example, several countries set up zouave style (shock) units in the mid-19th century (e.g., the Americans in the Civil War).

@@kristofantal8801 and here I thought those loose pants were to prevent a bad case of swamp ass.

1. Those are not rifles, but smoothbore muskets (however, rifling was existed, but very expensive at that times). 2. Becasue wheellock was expensive, and not common amongst foot soldiers.

it is for all the shooters to fire at the same time. these weapons were not really accurate, the important thing was to send a devastating "wall" of projectiles.

To make sure everyone does them especially in the heat of battle

French

ak47suki242 They're sliding it to the right position in their hand.

Thanks

The men with pikes wouldn't allow them to get close, and they would be hit with a shit ton of fire. They also would be limited to operating in completely open terrain. Basically the armies that used the two never would have fought much in the first place.

No kidding.

Matchlocks are muskets. You mean flintlocks. And matxhlocks are much cheaper to build.

Same 😂

In those days, you would have files of ranks that would fire off volleys in rotation. For instance, you would have 8 ranks of 12 files. The first rank would fire their volley, turn, then march to the rear of their respective file and start the reloading procedure. Once that first rank would march to the rear, the next rank would fire then march to the rear and reload, etc. By the time the first rank had rotated its way back to the front rank, they would be reloaded and ready to go. The movie "Alatriste" illustrates that tactic nicely in the final battle during the last 15 minutes of the film.

By who? :D