It's the brand name

yerroc still a cool term.

@@josiahricafrente585 yep

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

We used to call them mufflers.

I don't know if you or anyone else is still looking for the answer to this question - but it was actually down to the increased blasting power of later gunpowder. From the Tudor period onwards, breakthroughs in gunpowder creation (most notably finer milling) posed a problem for the metal-to-metal seals on the breech-loaded cannons, which unlike muzzle-loaded variants, weren't strong enough to prevent the power of the explosion from causing catastrophic weapon damage/killing the crew. A good 'in-between' example is the Mary Rose, which had both breech-loaded and muzzle-loaded cannons on board it when it sank; interestingly enough, it was this mix of technology that meant that separate magazines were required on board to prevent the more powerful gunpowder from ripping a hole in the side of the ship if loaded into the wrong cannons (not that it mattered in the end).

@@Steamforger to add to that: I read an account from a siege in medival times where they where using Trebuchets and also a cannon, but the cannon exploded after a few days

If we talk about military, there is no problem with budget thingy. Every nation is okay with their military budget. They think more money going into military, more strong their country. Even until modern day. Even until today. In military it's just all about efficiency and effectiveness. Even if it costs more than the previous model.

@@Steamforger The increase in the strength of powder came with the manufacture of corned gunpowder, which was actually around the turn of the 15th century. Manuals such as Das Feuerwerkbuch lay out how around 1410-1420 ish master gunners were reducing the strength of their powder as well as evidence of the development of a different style of guns. Previously, short barreled stone throwers (steinbusche) had been popular along with small breach loaders. As metallurgy advanced during the 15th century, it became cheaper and safer to use cast guns as opposed to stave and hoop constructed guns. This also led to the use of cast iron shot as opposed to using stone shot for almost everything. There is a convincing argument for an artillery revolution around the turn of the 15th century which changed the course of warfare.

​@@robsealsey5052 Great, thanks. The development and refinement of gunpowder was continuous though, and sadly 'revolutions' are labels older historians tend to use to impart a sense of impetus to what they're studying. The complete phasing out of the type of cannon this video shows did not occur until after the Tudor period - check the inventory rolls of the Henrician navy (here's going back to the Mary Rose) and you'll find both stone and iron-firing cannons being used.

Doing what at the same time?

@@exocetmm38 oh right! I'm just curious since the Mary Rose crew consisted of 200 sailors, 185 soldiers and 30 gunners. So to get 450 to do "that", you'd have to have some POWs joining in as well.

@@exocetmm38 Your parents being your siblings is actually impossible, but stuff like that is probably common in your family so I forgive you for not knowing how family relates to one another.

@@exocetmm38 If your family tree didn't look like tumble weed I'm sure you'd be able to figure out why it's impossible and perhaps fix your grammar too.

@@exocetmm38 It's not my native tongue either. This whole thing started with you not understanding that I actually got your lame joke, and even repeated it to say that what "that" is, was besides the point because my actual contention was the crew size mentioned. So I don't really care what you're implying because I'm smart as fuck, and you're so inbred you don't even know how family relations work.

Actually its still very different just loading a metal ball and put gunpowder, modern cannons use a bullet shaped shell containing the gunpowder, and hav rifled bores, modern cannons have 10 times the accuracy 100x the range and dozens of times the power

I still don't think that's much different from the main idea of propelling a projectile forward at high speeds and high power using a fast burning material inside a confined chamber.@@jumanuman7311

Breach loaders were actually fairly common early on, meaning a lot of early cannons actually had almost modern rates of fire. The problem was short rage and a tendency to explode, especially as more powerful powders started to be made. Muzzle loaders were much stronger, and so could hit harder, further out, without nearly as high a chance of killing their crews.

@@nikolai60 Yes exactly. The nature of cannon warfare had it that range and destructive capability was more valuable than rate of fire so that's where the arms race went. Which makes a lot of sense because 1 They are used in siege warfare so if the attacker could shoot the castle out of range of their cannons, its game over. 2. In a pitch battle it takes a lot of time to set up the guns, so if you could make them have to set up their low range cannons whilst in range of yours, it's kind of a bad time for them. Basically if you dont have the longer range cannons, you might as well not have cannons.

Conquistadores fielded Tiller Culverins like this instead of Trunion cannons. didn't such cannons become available aready by this time??

@@DiscothecaImperialis I remember reading that they had some type of small cannon. Cortez only had 300 conquistadors in his expedition force, and they had to go through heavy jungle so wouldn't have been able to take anything larger than these.

Not seeing the muzzle, I'm left to guess around a four-pounder, which would take about a pound/pound-and-a-half of black powder. Really BIG guns of the time would shoot stone balls weighing hundreds of pounds; nowadays, those gunstones decorate castles and manor houses.

He said they weren't using a projectile. In other words they couldn't use a cannon ball.

@@christopherd2100 imagine if they use the cannonball

Different, breechloading cetbang is modeller after Turkish prangi cannon. Before 1460, cetbang is shaped like Chinese and Mongol cannon. Only after 1460 they refer to breech-loading swivel gun en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetbang

omg

This weapon was first made by the Mongols, the Mongol invasion of any where to take this weapon anywhere. Europe and Indonesia are among the many areas under attack

And that's also what brought this weapon to Indonesia and Europe. In Europe the name is swivel gun, in Indonesia it is called cetbang

No, the "cetbang" is a somewhat later model than this. Both the carriage and the shape of the castings show that the breech-loading kind of Javanese "cetbang" were predominantly based on 16th-century Middle-Eastern or European models. Earlier mentions of the "cetbang" probably referred to even simpler muzzle-loaded weapons, either Chinese fire lances or Western stick guns.

@@LafayetteCCurtis The early, pre-1460 cetbang is similar to Yuan dynasty cannon. See here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetbang And here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Java

@@kameradhazel9480 No, Mongolian weapons were different and they are not breech loaded. You can literally read it here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetbang

Don't claim it, Indonesian -_- "Cetbang" itself is from China. In the west, they call it as swivel cannon. Open breech swivel cannon. And because China have Silk Road route, they also sell their guns to the west and Middle East. It's all Chinese-made.

@@DBT1007 yeah almost everything is made in China 😄

Uhh. Nope. It's more complicated than that. The Chinese junk was originally copied from earlier Southeast Asian ships (see P.Y. Manguin's research for this), acquired some distinctly Chinese developments during the Song dynasty, and _then_ this improved Chinese version was copied back by Southeast Asian maritime nations during the Song, Yuan, and early Ming eras. And I'm actually pretty convinced that the "cetbang" gun came from the west (the Middle East or India) through the Indian Ocean trade rather than from China. The breechloading guns found or preserved from the early modern period in Indonesia tend to have more distinctly European or Western Asian construction features rather than Chinese ones.

No, early cetbang wasn't a breechloader. It's muzzleloader similar to Chinese cannon. Only after 1460 breechloading cetbang is developed, after the contact with Arab traders carrying Turkish prangi cannons.

@@cicak2404 after Mongolian lose invade Java, Mongolian dropped a black powder weapon. So they decided to make this

@@Ligma76714 Not really. You should read scientific journal about cetbang, not only internet articles.

@@cicak2404 I know, but in Southeast Asian history books the cetbang is used in 1293-1527 AD, during the Majapahit era

@@Ligma76714 Which book? Indonesian-made books that mentioned cetbang in it did not use scientific journal as reference. Non-Indonesian/foreign books does not even mention cetbang at all.