Hi Charles, thank you for the comments. Brian can be a bit modest, but we did a little math and here is something to think about. Both of our museums do musket demonstrations throughout the day, and for 8 months out of the year the staff in James Fort will do twice hourly matchlock musket demonstrations, for a total of 14 musket demonstrations daily firing at least 2 (sometimes 3-4 or more) shots for a total of 28 a day; 196 a week; 784 a month; 6,272 shots in those 8 months. For 4 months demonstrations are once hourly for a total of 7 musket demonstrations daily, firing at least 2 shots for 14 shots daily; 98 weekly; 392 a month; 1,568 shots in those 4 months. That is at least 7,840 shots per year, not including artillery demonstrations at Jamestown Settlement or the musket and artillery demonstrations at the American Revolution Museum at Yorktown. Most of the Fort’s staff are trained to demonstrate the matchlock and in his 25 years at the Settlement, Brian has done a couple of those demonstrations.

@@JYFMuseums Yeah this demo is of value. The shooter clearly has mastery of arms as one of few might have, with professional dedication to the weapon. Not an outlier but real representation of what someone with serious intent can accomplish.

There is a strongly held belief that American Colonial riflemen with their great accuracy, firing from cover played a very significant part in the victory against the British during the Revolutionary War. Many people have pointed out that the rifles of the time and the fouling of the barrel by black powder of the time produced a situation in which rifles had to be cleaned after relatively few shots--while smooth bore muskets could keep on firing. This video demonstrates another problem with the 'firing from cover' theory. You simply cannot reload a rifle or musket while lying down behind a log! Even kneeling while loading would be problematic. To fire and reload from cover requires a tall wall or a broad tree to hide behind. For this situation to be advantageous would require the enemy to be in the open, while you are in cover. Snipers with a low rate of fire can make a contribution, but cannot be very significant. Snipers can make a contribution

@@ianbruce6515 Indeed, there's also the historical fact that General Washington intentionally had the rifle companies of his command rearmed with muskets. That alone indicated what those who fought in the war thought was more important between precision accuracy or sustained, rapid fire. He kept the rifles for the duration of the Siege of Boston but no longer. Once the siege was over, he wanted them armed with muskets.

Crazy to think that Prussians trained to fire 6 a minute. Sure that was not possible on the battlefield and not for very long but still very impressive

Indeed. By that time repeaters already existed, yet they didn't become commonplace until the 1860's. Why? They were complex, expensive, and extremely difficult to maintain in the field, requiring expert gunsmiths to move with your army. For the price of one repeater you could hire a whole bunch of soldiers with single-shot muskets.

@@praevasc4299 Repeaters in the 1600s, do you have a link to one of those. I would fine that interesting, because I did not know that..

@@robertgregory2618 One prominent example is the Kalthoff repeater.

@@praevasc4299 Thank you, learn something new every day..

There were certainly plenty of experiments with how to accomplish a high ROF. A weird middle ground between musket volleys and repeaters were volley guns (multiple single barrels firing at once or in succession). Kinda iffy in their success rate but they stuck around until the Nock Gun in the 19th century. Ofc by then, repeaters were already the name of the game, and once Maxim showed up, volley fire on small arms was rendered nearly obsolete.

Yes, English soldiers in the Netherlands were taught the same in the English version of Wapenhandelinghe van Roers Musquetten ende Spiessen - The Exercise of Arms for Calivers, Muskets and Pikes. wiktenauer.com/wiki/Page:The_Exercise_of_Armes_For_Calivres,_Muskettes,_and_Pikes_(Jacob_de_Gheyn_II)_1607.pdf/6 “In the 25. how he desiring to take the skowring stick shorter in his hand, shall turne the end of the same (which is the end that furst he pulled out (and thrust it to his bodye, slippinge the hand quickly to the neather end, to bringe it the better and the steadyer into the peece and if he will shoote with a bullet he shall take the bullet with the same hand (wherewith he now hath the skowring stick shorter) out of his mouth or from thence where he carrieth his bullets, and with like quicknes put it into the mouth of the peece.” They would be familiar with the practice in Virginia.

Also sounds like a good way to slowly absorb lead poisoning 😅

​@@huskiefan8950I'll take the slow over the fast!

That doesn't sound healthy

This was also common with native americans

Ya gotta go by the numbers.

Yes. Some of the earliest records for Beretta are early 16th century documents for an order of firearm barrels for the Republic of Venice.

That’s incredible! No one thinks how old some modern day companies and businesses can be.

Imagine, making guns before the USA even exist.😂

yep they made excellent pistollers in early 1500s

Thank you! we're glad you liked it.

Thank you!

@@JYFMuseumswhats your gear based on time period/nation wise?

@@CaiusCosades44 time and place would be English settlers in Virginia, especially during the period of the 1st Anglo-Powhatan War of 1609-1614, but also into the 1620s

Hardcore cosplay...

It's an era of colonialism so the media is careful not to show the west in a bad point of view

Pike and Shot Time really is underexplored

@@Shellll theres a pike and shot mod for shogun 2

Tbh, this era is only unexplored in the US and westmost parts of Europe. Central and Eastern Europe has noticiable more depictions of that era in media.

On the subject of Total War, that's basically what Warhammer Fantasy is​@@Shellll

I just love the video. Very informative and thorough

@mr.guzwee7695 Thanks!

"Have you tried that 'coffee' from the Orient that's appearing in all the taverns these days? I'm not much partial to it myself, but it's great for the musketeers"

On the other hand you could see all sorts of fumbles, hangfires unlit matches accidently firing your ramrod and such. Fighting in the rain or after a day-long march was particularly rough.

SUCH a good movie!

Captain Alatriste (spanish movie, excellent 30years war) has a scene at the end the battle of Roi crois that shows this too. Very good film with Vigo Mortenssen of Aragorn fame.

That movie is in my top ten

We 21st century individualists forgets how central adding manpower was to any number of tasks was. Even up to WW2 all problems were still being solved by adding more people to the equation. In war, it spreads out the workload and makes an individual's task easier. Only in modern times we are tasked ideologically to give individuals as many tasks as they can handle and then some.

@@Oldsmobile69 it still applies today, Ukraine is struggling in the east since Russia has a 2 to 1 advantage in bodies right now

@@jackchurchill3777 I'm not sure "1000 dead Russians a day" counts as struggling except for maybe Russia.

@@Oldsmobile69 Ukraine is not faring any better, as of today Wikipedia paints Ukrainian dead and wounded at ~100k, given that Ukraine has a significantly smaller population and economy to draw from, there is little they can do without even more western aid.

@@jackchurchill3777 "struggling" sure but keep in mind Russia is suicide attacking Ukrainian positions with convicts and expendable infantry to gain little bits of ground which works in the short term but if you look at the entire theatre even with those tactics they haven't even been able to take over a tiny village and are suffering much more casualties than Ukraine, of whom are more expensive to replace given how much more expensive a modern soldier is, than say a ww2 conscript armed with a rifle.

good example of a highland charge

That would only work if you attacked headwind. The Swedish "gå på"-tactic was to move closer until the enemy fired (often at some 100 meters), then run to almost point blank and fire (before the enemy could reload), then melee.

It actually could provide cover for the enemy as well, particularly if you had the hubris to think your volley shot them all down. It's why ROF was not as important as some make it out, because you obscure yourself with the smoke. Remember that they were firing a lot worse quality gunpowder then too.

If you want to have a chance to take out a fully armoured reiter before he unloads his wheellocks on you, you must come loaded for bear.

How did you get a matchlock!? Lol

You can buy them. Expensive for their practical value but not too bad@@Steven-jn2cw

​@@Steven-jn2cwI also own a matchlock musket in 75 caliber, and yes compared to my 75 caliber LLP brown bess it's really beefy. I bought mine from Military Heritage, keep in mind their made in India but their good decent shooters.

Thank you. Now we do have a small challenge, we'd love to see 16th or 17th century primary sources that actually refers to the bandolier as "twelve apostles" or "apostles". We believe the use of the term apostles was a creation of the late 19th century and that bandolier, charges and bottles are the appropriate nomenclature of the period.

Musical instruments were found to be the key. A lot of modern instruments have their roots as military technology, strangely enough.

Had a SGT. And a CPL. with long sticks to pass the word

Interesting. Do you make your own arquebus?

Wow! Thanks🤘🏻

Thanks!

Thank you.

we are glad it is helpful!

Thanks!

You're welcome! Glad you enjoyed it.

Thank you very much!

Thanks!

Ευχαριστώ! Thank you!

You're welcome, we're glad you enjoyed it.

Many thanks!

You can get tired from doing this for a long time. That gun is heavy. When it comes to battles at this time, you have to consider men with matchlocks are not the only force on the battlefield. The guns aren't necessarily there to kill enemy soldiers, they put pressure on enemy formations while the men with pikes can close the distance, and the men with cannons can maneuver into position. When it comes to that, rate of fire is not incredibly important, since you don't actually need to kill the enemy, just keep them at bay.

I think it is fair to say that like with historical firearms, discussions on historical archery often place far too much emphasis on how fast you can loose arrows, as opposed to how accurately or how powerful your shots are. Some European and colonial sources do mention how impressed they are with the skill and strength of indigenous archers (1500s and 1600s), and do mention that they could shoot arrows noticeably faster than their crossbows or firearms. But there are a lot of other factors involved (such as power of the shot, which was far less consistent with archery, accuracy; presence or absence of armor and how protective it was or wasn't; lethality of a wound (usually less lethal with arrows); presence of other kinds of weapons and troops; the training and tactics of the men involved, etc. Etc.) At the end of the day, you have limited ammunition either way and you've got to make your shots count. Rare of fire is overrated.

Thank you very much!

Thank you!

Yes, in Europe musketeers in armor were rare, however we're examining the English experience in Virginia, where all musketeers wore armor. In this case it is not rare, it was the norm. Archaeological excavations at Jamestown and Jordan's Journey, Virginia turned up breast plates that were modified for musketeers. Check out our video on the modified armor - m.kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bbiUqa-SxtK4mKM.html Now, we're going to challenge the lore of the bandolier being known as the “twelve apostles” or “apostles. It is a term that begins to appear in the late-19th & early-20th centuries and has become a very popular “reenactorism”, but “twelve apostles” or “apostle” is not a term that appears in the available military treatises & writings of the 16th or 17th centuries. It does not appear in Sir Roger Williams’s “A Brief Discourse of War”, Sir John Smythe’s “Certain Discourses”, or Humfry Barwicke’s “A Breefe Discourse Concerning the Force and Effect of all Manuall Weapons of Fire”. In the English edition of Wapenhandelinghe van Roers Musquetten ende Spiessen/The Exercise of Arms For Calivers, Muskets, and Pikes, neither “twelve apostles” or “apostle” appear and the individual bottle is referred to as “charges” in the text. In the original Dutch of Wapenhandelinghe van Roers Musquetten ende Spiessen, there is the instruction, “21. hoe het Roer neffens de linker zÿde laten sinken sal, en met de rechter hantnae de flessche ofte bandeliervatten.” The part of the instruction that says, “flessche ofte bandeliervatten” can be translated as “bottle or bandolier barrel” and as referring to an individual bottle or as in the English version a “charges”. The use of the Dutch word “apostel” does not appear. Unfortunately, none of Jacob de Gheyn’s engravings of musketeers in Wapenhandelinghe van Roers Musquetten ende Spiessen, illustrate a bandolier in enough detail to be able to determine that the illustrated bandoliers always have precisely 12 bottles. Plate 35 is among the best illustrations, and we’ve at least counted 14 bottles. wiktenauer.com/images/7/7b/Wappenhandelinghe_van_Roers_Musquetten_ende_Spiessen_de_Gheyn_2-35.jpg Of the extant bandoliers surviving in Europe, most are not English and are held in collections outside of England. Very few have precisely 12 bottles, most actually have fewer than or many more than 12 bottles. To refer to the bandolier as apostles or 12 apostles, or the individual bottle as an apostle is not accurate or correct, and we ask anyone to share an original period source that actually uses these terms for the bandolier.

Thanks!

Thank you!

Thank you! We're glad that you liked it.

You're welcome, we're happy you enjoyed it!

Remember that cavalry was often carrying an entire brace of wheellock pistols at this point. Which they could empty into your line in a matter of seconds. As you'd only get one or two shoots off in return, careful shooting was life and death.

@@benlewis4241 The wheellock came later, and brought an end to the previously undefeatable Tercio, for the reasons you say. But for 100years, it was the combination of Pike and Arquebus formations that ruled the battlefield.

actually the wheellock was introduced at about the same time as tercios were st their high point, the wheellock did not last long for infantry because it was tricky to operate and had a slow reload time compared to match locks. it was much more common with cavalry beacuse you could pre prime them in a pistol and carry a few ulike a matchlock which was cumbersome for a pistol on horseback.

Thanks for the info! Bad weather of course would bring the loading time back onto the wheellocks side- I think the prohibitive cost and maintenance were the real bugbears.

@@benlewis4241 one huge issue with wheelocks is that they were very complex and you had to crank it which took time and in the middle of a battle the last thing you want is to be busy cranking you musket before you can fire a round, the matchlock was fairly simple to use and you could easily carry spare matches. yes bad weather was always an issue for matchlocks, that was one of the main reasons why the matchlock was gradually replaced by the flintlock and firelock.

Yes. Or vice versa, the musketeers can be used to weaken the resolve of the enemy's cavalry, pike or shot that may be assaulting their own formations of pike.

Thank you! If you've not seen the videos yet, Soldiers of the Virginia Company in the Primed and Loaded series, and John Smith's Equipment List Part 2 in the Going to the Source series might be of interest for you.

@@JYFMuseums was there ever any kinda bayonet on the arquebus or did they just carry a sword or axe like your belt

@@JYFMuseums I'll watch it now thanks

@Avery Sanders It's difficult to say with certainty when bayonets begain to appear on European battlefields. Probably about the 1630s, or the conflicts which included the Thirty Years War. In the early-17th century (and especially for English settlers in Virginia) there really is no concept of the bayonet and musketeers would have been equipped with swords.

We are glad you enjoyed it!

Yes! We certainly have plans for videos on the accuracy/effectiveness of these 16th, 17th and 18th century pieces that are or will be featured in our Primed and Loaded series. Don't know when yet, but it will be down the road a little bit. In the mean time I hope that you are enjoying the channel and all of our other videos posted so far.

@@jamesread1607 Now what would be interesting to see how the rate of fire would be with a musket block of musketeers loading firing and advancing all at the same time. Individual movements are easy once you start adding close quarter drill with a large group of people that's when things get interesting.

@@makingmajic1938 I'll have to see if we can load some videos from 2007 anniversary weekend. We had a 50 person plus Company exercise. Firing by ranks in steadfast. as I recall-5-7 seconds between each rank's volley.

This is an arquebus accurate to 60 meters, not a musket.

@@Alexesssp I think you would be surprised, what is your information based on? Ours is from actual live fire testing. There is a difference in accuracy at 100 yards. Muskets are hitting more often and much harder. The Arquebus needs to be aimed higher, and there is a learning curve with the curved stock. Are you familiar with the testing done with the weapons at the Grazt armories?

That Sharpe quote was all I could think of while watching this!

But, would Colonel Simmerson approve?

Thanks!

This might be of interest -- kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mtuhpLWBzLWRpYk.html

Brian is working with the manual of arms from Wapenhandelinghe van Roers Musquetten ende Spiessen/The Exercise of Arms for Calivers, Muskets and Pikes. Illustrated by Jacob de Gheyn and published in the 1607. The manual starts with a loaded musket and the weapon's discharge before carrying the musketeer through the loading process. We believe starting with a loaded musket and timing four shots is a bit more reasonable than timing only three shots. Regarding your tactical question, your answer in so many ways is the evolution of warfare and battlefield tactics from about the mid-16th century to the mid-19th century. In this timeframe we're going from a time when firearms are new to the battlefield and little to no doctrine or theory exists on how they should be effectively employed, to later periods full of doctrine and theory. In the early-17th century with pike and shot warfare, infantry formations are going to have rather narrow fronts but deep in the number of ranks. These formations are built around the pike as the principle weapon and firearms are in a supporting role. By the end of the 17th century with the advent of the bayonet and the decline of the pike's importance -- even it's disappearance -- infantry formations have changed to a wide front but shallow in depth and the musket with a bayonet being the weapon of the infantry. This evolution will take us from a time when firearms support the pike and their fire is often steady and deliberate to a time when firearms dominate and their fire can be as a volley to deliver shock.

Thank you!

Must have been an archer.

Thanks!

We disagree. In this period shot (musketeers, calivermen and arquebusiers) were certainly taught to aim their weapons with the intent to strike their targets. To say that musketeer were not aiming is a historical myth. Even for the Virginia Company officials setting up the colony would certainly understand this and in 1606 prepared a document titled "Instructions given by way of advice..." meant to be a guide for the captains that would be commanding in Virginia, that included this passage -- "And how weary soever your soldiers be, let them never trust the country people with the carriage of their weapons; for if they run from you with your shott, which they only fear, they will easily kill them all with their arrows. And whensoever any of yours shoots before them, be sure they may be chosen out of your best marksmen; for if they see your learners miss what they aim at, they will think the weapon not so terrible, and thereby will be bould to assault you." They understand that "learners" or those inexperienced in the use of a musket would miss their mark and that the captains should insure that the natives observe their best marksmen hitting their marks. A later set of instructions for the relief of each day's guard detail includes orders that the old captain of the watch should march off the previous day's guard detail to a set of marks and have the men discharge their arms, and to award the best shots.

Theyre very cool but from experience they get frustrating and less and less fun the more you intend on using it. I had a great experience with it but certainly do not miss owning one. Black powder requires lots of cleaning and matchcord can be annoying to work with especially if your cord isn't great

Your perspective is the exact same as someone from the time period 😂 too expensive

Thank you! Yes, we're in Virginia, and the annual cicadas are one of the lovely sounds of nature that marks our summers.

He’s a Sharpe one for sure. 😉

lmao