How late 15th to mid 16th century guns were aimed, in historic illustrations

Matchlock · 4th December 2008, 09:12 PM

Fernando, Jim, Richard (in alphabetic order),

Thank you all so much. You're just great.

Good night from a rainy Bavaria - and from my collection

Michael

fernando · 4th December 2008, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matchlock

... Good night from a rainy Bavaria - and from my collection

...

Also raining in Portugal ... but no collection like yours

Fernando

Pukka Bundook · 5th December 2008, 04:01 AM

No rain in western canada, and no collection either!

I think my brain was frozen this morning,(-20C)
when I said the apertures were made of horn,...don't know what happened, but they were made of Copper!
However did I get copper and horn mixed up?

Matchlock · 7th December 2008, 04:08 PM

Richard,

Please forgive my not being fully correct in claiming that all tubular back-sights had V sights underneath. This is really only true up to the mid 16th century.

From ca. 1550 to ca. 1600, there were tubular back-sights, of both iron and brass, that were dove tailed at the end of the barrel, in the direction of the muzzle, with no V sights at all. As they detached so easily, they are often missing with only the dove tail remaining.

Michael

Matchlock · 31st October 2010, 04:32 PM

Scanned from the highly recommendable work by H.W. Koch, Medieval Warfare, London, Bison Books, 1978, ISBN0 86124 008 1, p. 152.

Jim McDougall · 31st October 2010, 06:27 PM

Michael, thank you so much for updating this fantastic thread!
It was wonderful reviewing the artwork and information you have so thoughtfully shared with us constantly, and reminds me how much your contributions mean here.

Also, this topic nicely addresses the question I posed to you in recent talks, why did they need sights on these early smoothbore guns, whose accuracy was typically questionable at best. It is interesting to see the intensity of these combats as reflected in these works.
In response to one of the questions from Fernando, it does seem interesting that so much attention to detail was given, yet license took over in many cases in depiction of the position and detail of locks.

Extremely interesting responses by everyone here also, especially comments on aiming and the use of the forked mounts etc. In my most limited experience with firearms, I once had the opportunity to fire a flintlock musket and can well understand concerns about having these 'explosive dynamics' close to your face. I would suspect that during the intensity and chaos of battle, there were far more incidents with exploding guns than were ever recorded or for that matter even noted in the carnage.

As far as aiming, with combat in those times largely being comprised of pitched battle in melee in huge masses of combative forces, it would not seem that aiming would be necessary with singular firearms. In the actual intensity of battle, I often wonder how much 'psychological' effect would even be recognized as the combatants reach levels of adrenalin driven fear and frenzy and these effects would diminish any such detail. The dense smoke from guns present, noise and chaos would in effect be close to insanity in perspective it would seem, and everything would seem surreal, with the thought of determined pyschological effect being hardly any more noticeable than the rest.

As always, the hardest thing in accurately studying the history of weapons is having to understand the inherent unpleasantries that there were. Just the same, it is an aspect that must be considered on occasion, and these things came to mind. Having said that, I return to the wonderful designs and colorful pageantry of the costume seen in these works, leaving the other aside.

All the best,
Jim

Matchlock · 31st October 2010, 07:59 PM

Thank you so much for all those kind words, Jim,

Yeah, while we never should forget the cruel impact of a gun - or any kind of weapon, be it hammer, sword or halberd - , as students of these items we may leave the practical aspects aside and are allowed just to try and understand, date and assign arms as objects of arts and crafts - and as an objective part of the culture of mankind.

Unlike you, my sword affiliate friend, I have fired original 400 year old matchlock muskets from my collection, as well as replicas, several times and must admit that each time it was a thrilling effect and much impressive as well. I fully agree with you that lots of accidents must have occured on the battlefields of old. This fact most probably was the reason why Jacob de Gheyn published his manual of exercise with muskets, calivers and pikes (Wapenhandelinghe) in 1608 where each single grip and loading and firing action had be done following an exact command.

All the best,
Michael

Spiridonov · 31st October 2010, 08:13 PM

Hallow, Michael! Thank you for sharing this. I have not seen this picture before. In which manuscript it is?

7th December 2008, 04:08 PM	#4
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Tubular back-sights - an amendment Richard, Please forgive my not being fully correct in claiming that all tubular back-sights had V sights underneath. This is really only true up to the mid 16th century. From ca. 1550 to ca. 1600, there were tubular back-sights, of both iron and brass, that were dove tailed at the end of the barrel, in the direction of the muzzle, with no V sights at all. As they detached so easily, they are often missing with only the dove tail remaining. Michael

31st October 2010, 04:32 PM	#5
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Two very unusual arquebuses in a 1470's manuscript in the British Library Scanned from the highly recommendable work by H.W. Koch, Medieval Warfare, London, Bison Books, 1978, ISBN0 86124 008 1, p. 152. Attached Images

4th December 2008, 09:12 PM	#1
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Fernando, Jim, Richard (in alphabetic order), Thank you all so much. You're just great. Good night from a rainy Bavaria - and from my collection Michael

5th December 2008, 04:01 AM	#3
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	No rain in western canada, and no collection either! I think my brain was frozen this morning,(-20C) when I said the apertures were made of horn,...don't know what happened, but they were made of Copper! However did I get copper and horn mixed up?

31st October 2010, 06:27 PM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	Michael, thank you so much for updating this fantastic thread! It was wonderful reviewing the artwork and information you have so thoughtfully shared with us constantly, and reminds me how much your contributions mean here. Also, this topic nicely addresses the question I posed to you in recent talks, why did they need sights on these early smoothbore guns, whose accuracy was typically questionable at best. It is interesting to see the intensity of these combats as reflected in these works. In response to one of the questions from Fernando, it does seem interesting that so much attention to detail was given, yet license took over in many cases in depiction of the position and detail of locks. Extremely interesting responses by everyone here also, especially comments on aiming and the use of the forked mounts etc. In my most limited experience with firearms, I once had the opportunity to fire a flintlock musket and can well understand concerns about having these 'explosive dynamics' close to your face. I would suspect that during the intensity and chaos of battle, there were far more incidents with exploding guns than were ever recorded or for that matter even noted in the carnage. As far as aiming, with combat in those times largely being comprised of pitched battle in melee in huge masses of combative forces, it would not seem that aiming would be necessary with singular firearms. In the actual intensity of battle, I often wonder how much 'psychological' effect would even be recognized as the combatants reach levels of adrenalin driven fear and frenzy and these effects would diminish any such detail. The dense smoke from guns present, noise and chaos would in effect be close to insanity in perspective it would seem, and everything would seem surreal, with the thought of determined pyschological effect being hardly any more noticeable than the rest. As always, the hardest thing in accurately studying the history of weapons is having to understand the inherent unpleasantries that there were. Just the same, it is an aspect that must be considered on occasion, and these things came to mind. Having said that, I return to the wonderful designs and colorful pageantry of the costume seen in these works, leaving the other aside. All the best, Jim

31st October 2010, 07:59 PM	#7
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Thank you so much for all those kind words, Jim, Yeah, while we never should forget the cruel impact of a gun - or any kind of weapon, be it hammer, sword or halberd - , as students of these items we may leave the practical aspects aside and are allowed just to try and understand, date and assign arms as objects of arts and crafts - and as an objective part of the culture of mankind. Unlike you, my sword affiliate friend, I have fired original 400 year old matchlock muskets from my collection, as well as replicas, several times and must admit that each time it was a thrilling effect and much impressive as well. I fully agree with you that lots of accidents must have occured on the battlefields of old. This fact most probably was the reason why Jacob de Gheyn published his manual of exercise with muskets, calivers and pikes (Wapenhandelinghe) in 1608 where each single grip and loading and firing action had be done following an exact command. All the best, Michael

31st October 2010, 08:13 PM	#8
Spiridonov Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Russia, Leningrad Posts: 355	Hallow, Michael! Thank you for sharing this. I have not seen this picture before. In which manuscript it is?