Primed and Loaded | Matchlock Arquebus Rate of Fire

[@charlesmaximus9161]

You say you aren’t the fastest, but in my time doing historical interpreting, that’s certainly the fastest on a matchlock I’ve ever seen! I’ve primarily worked and volunteered at 19th century sites, so percussion cap muskets are definitely a little easier to manage. Still, it is rare to see anybody do four in roughly a minute on percussion caps, so, naturally, seeing it on a matchlock is quite impressive. Nice work! Really loving your program down there in Virginia. From everything I can tell by these videos, you guys are doing a stellar job. I’m up in New England, not far from Plimouth Plantation, and the quality there has sadly plummeted. A shame, really, as it used to be fantastic. In any case, keep up the great work! Looking forward to hopefully visiting Jamestown soon!

[@JYFMuseums]

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.

[@molochi]

@@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.

[@ianbruce6515]

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

[@dashsocur]

@@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.

[@lionljb]

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

[@masaharumorimoto4761]

I never thought of it like that but ya, 1600's military leaders would have been less concerned with individual reload/shoot times and rather would simply say "how many men do I need to have continuous fire?".

[@praevasc4299]

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.

[@robertgregory2618]

@@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..

[@praevasc4299]

@@robertgregory2618 One prominent example is the Kalthoff repeater.

[@robertgregory2618]

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

[@robertsprankle6127]

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.

[@user-dq1kr6zc2t]

This gentleman is extremely proficient at operating this musket. There is a sequence to everything and lots to remember in order. Great tutorial!

[@ericsonhazeltine5064]

Ya gotta go by the numbers.

[@KZ-sg4es]

Fun fact: In the 16th century veteran Spanish arquebusiers used to hold as many as 6 rounds in their mouth so that they wouldn’t have to fumble through their bags during the reload process.

[@JYFMuseums]

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.

[@huskiefan8950]

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

[@tamlandipper29]

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

[@dirckthedork-knight1201]

That doesn't sound healthy

[@Flaky1916]

This was also common with native americans

[@faramund9865]

I like how you put all the images together so that it plays out like a film.

[@JYFMuseums]

Thank you! we're glad you liked it.

[@Ken-uc1yv]

That full gear you're wearing is amazing!

[@JYFMuseums]

Thank you!

[@Veknr44]

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

[@JYFMuseums]

@@Veknr44 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

[@gamebriz4163]

Hardcore cosplay...

[@joshuadell3279]

Apparently Beretta made barrels for the arquebus. Yes beretta has been around for that long.

[@JYFMuseums]

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

[@Uajd-hb1qs]

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

[@jonpaul3868]

Imagine, making guns before the USA even exist.😂

[@gentlemanzackp6591]

yep they made excellent pistollers in early 1500s

[@nicowokeuplikethis9145]

3 shots in a minute is crazy, you'll probably get a medal for the effort back then.

[@TitusCastiglione1503]

I wouldn’t be surprised if this rate was common for combat veterans of, say, the Army of Flanders. To expect this speed of a raw recruit, obviously no.

[@michaelsommers2356]

Sadly, they didn't have medals back then.

[@JYFMuseums]

Well they did have medals, though not necessarily medals of valor as there will be in later periods. Here are a few links to read about Prince of Orange Medallions found in Virginia -- historicjamestowne.org/collections/artifacts/prince-of-orange-medallion/ explore.lib.virginia.edu/exhibits/show/layersofthepast/multiplenarratives/mauricemedallion From the British Museum collection www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_M-7035 historicjamestowne.org/july-2008-2/

[@danielkirsteinthornjensen7997]

I have been searching for a video like this, presenting the drill and speed of a matchlock shooting. I think the presentation and the action itself is impressive!

[@mr.guzwee7695]

I just love the video. Very informative and thorough

[@JYFMuseums]

@mr.guzwee7695 Thanks!

[@user-fb7or1wt3t]

I think this is the best video on KZbin showing musket firing drill and procedures. Not heavy in details and explanations but very well made.

[@scubasteve3743]

Something else to remember about missile troops in these kinds of battles is that they aren’t always picking out individuals. Sometimes the target is the entire block of men coming at you, and that’s much easier to hit than one Billy Pikeman. Video games and movies (literature, poetry and theatre before that) have really warped how people look at war and history. Everything is about individual achievement and condensed for time -so many people have no idea how long it could take for these battles to be fought. It’s nice to watch a video that takes a more historic view. Thanks for that.

[@nicholaswalsh4462]

Honestly, the tactics of the Early Modern/Renaissance period are fascinating. The combination of medieval plate armor, halberds, pikes, war hammers, and clubs with the arrival of man-portable firearms just create the single most awesome display on a battlefield.

[@craigboyer6880]

This is the best matchlock musket reenactment I’ve ever seen anywhere. This is the best muzzle loading at speed I’ve ever seen. So cool thank you for demonstrating this! 🤘🏻

[@JYFMuseums]

Wow! Thanks🤘🏻

[@qounqer]

There’s a scene in “The Hidden Fortress” that illustrates your initial point really well. I usually thought of countermarching as men relatively leisurely walking back and forth, discharging their weapons occasionally. But in the scene you see them rushing up a low staircase, firing, and the next rank rushing up and firing as quickly as possible , with end effect being an extremely intimidating rate of fire. It shows that very narrow formations of matchlocks could produce almost machine gun like rates of fire if they felt the need.

[@SuomiFinn42]

SUCH a good movie!

[@gunner678]

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.

[@circeowaggles]

That movie is in my top ten

[@jaredwebb1026]

This time in history seems so under explored especially in movies and video games. It’s such an interesting period because it’s like we’re just getting done with like “knights in armor” but we’re not quite at the time of the American revolution.

[@azzxy9800]

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

[@stiffeification]

Pike and Shot Time really is underexplored

[@Themaritimes99]

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

[@cleeiii357]

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.

[@jessegauthier6985]

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

[@APV878]

Nicely done!! Yes, trying to explain the differences in tactics and a more "methodical" approach to the way the weapons were used, as well as the 'team' dynamic, is difficult to an audience that has been used to "individual" rate of fire with a weapon designed for incredible rapid fire. The mention too about "employing" firearms troops in the period differently, and that you may not want or need a ridiculous high rate of fire is hard to get across to the modern audience. IIRC there were some letters or complaints from some commanders that demanded "trained bands" for their musketeers, they wanted to have competent, well-trained men, not anyone taken off the street and given the minimal amount of training, let alone under stress.

[@Oldsmobile69]

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.

[@jackchurchill3777]

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

[@Oldsmobile69]

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

[@jackchurchill3777]

@@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.

[@pianoman-1359]

@@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.

[@BandytaCzasu]

9:00 I'm quite sure that, when the situation was really dire, the commanders were astonished themselves seeing how fast their men can reload 😀

[@robertsprankle6127]

"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"

[@Lancasterlaw1175]

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.

[@passionfruit897]

Your dedication for the musket is admirable, thanks for sharing 👏✊

[@JYFMuseums]

Thanks, & you're welcome!

[@Bayan1905]

I have a matchlock similar to that one and I can tell you how impressive this video is given how BIG and heavy a matchlock musket is. I have full size flintlock muskets and they're fairly large but compared to the matchlock, they're lightweight guns.

[@Steven-jn2cw]

How did you get a matchlock!? Lol

[@astrotrek3534]

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

[@alexcarter2461]

​@@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.

[@NicGamz]

Firing live rounds from a matchlock musket create lots of smoke, more then just from a paper cartridge with no ball. The smoke created from mass volley fire was something that also was used in tactics as you could move up close on enemy, fire a volley then charge with melee. The enemy would not see you coming because of the smoke. The smoke from mass volley fire could either be of use or a problem for you. Something you had to have in your equation during battle.

[@Bunny-zn7ke]

good example of a highland charge

[@hb9145]

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.

[@Lancasterlaw1175]

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.

[@Miithrandir]

A very good experiment. I didn't know it was soo fast.

[@MisdirectedSasha]

Having just gotten the opportunity to shoot a matchlock the other day, it really came through to me how careful you have to be when you're holding a lit match in one hand and explosives in the other. The very slow, deliberate way both pikes and muskets are handled in the early-modern era makes a lot of sense, I think, given how potentially risky both weapons can be to the soldier and the people around him if handled carelessly.

[@claytonneilson6708]

Very education video, i never thought about the rate of fire issue in context of the musketeer formations, but that makes a lot of sense.

[@paulchoudhury2573]

Outstanding demonstration with an in depth explanation of historical context!

[@JYFMuseums]

Thanks!

[@jositom]

As a curiosity, I tell you that in the Spanish Tercios it was normal to carry twelve containers of gunpowder and that is why they were called "los apóstoles",the apostles. Congratulations by your magnificent channel. I love your historical recreation

[@JYFMuseums]

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.

[@maximus0928]

Imagine a line of muskets going off and a commander trying to give orders in the midst of shooting, the wounded yelling, and artillery shells. Not sure how changing of any orders was possibly done. Great video!

[@Lancasterlaw1175]

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

[@tomhenry897]

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

[@MM22966]

This is useful stuff, thank you. Lots of help to writers and such who might need to visualize what the action of a musketeer looks like.

[@JYFMuseums]

we are glad it is helpful!

[@waspsallows2437]

Very informative. Learned a lot from this short clip. That uniform is particularly cool, really does look the part. Thanks.

[@benwyness148]

Damn your really good at that, all movements look pretty clean and fast to me

[@arquebsier0542]

I have shot my caliver (hitting the target in the 9 and 8 rings) two shots in 62 seconds, live-fire with .64 caliber lead ball. I have also hit a tea-spoon with my other .44 caliver at 25 yards.

[@talisdorman.9796]

Interesting. Do you make your own arquebus?

[@theoldehandgonne2503]

Live firing with historic charges would be great to see. 10 Bore matchlock muskets in England used almost 291gr of powder by weight! 11 bore muskets used ~266gr. I have a brown bess (75 cal ~11 bore) and used 240gr FF Goex as a facsimile, and blimey it kicks! No wonder you see paintings of musketeers really leaning into the shot...

[@Lancasterlaw1175]

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.

[@beanbag9696]

That was one of the most impressive things I've ever seen in my life, you earned a sub

[@richardglady3009]

Thank you for this wonderful perspective on military history. I find it interesting that you moved the actual match away from the firing position while reloading…it makes sense, but I never thought about it and never remember reading about it in military fiction about firing matchlocks. Thanks.

[@CoHigh]

Watching you reload and fire was awesome! Great work.

[@JYFMuseums]

Thanks!

[@GentlemanBystander]

Fantastic. Fast and smooth operation.

[@JYFMuseums]

Thanks!

[@alexisleon23]

Very, very, very good film. 👍 you searched the theme thoroughly. A friend from Greece

[@JYFMuseums]

Ευχαριστώ! Thank you!

[@oteliogarcia1562]

this is quite amazing speed. obviously, other reenactors are doing it by command of a fire team or squad leader, but even when firing at will, this is still as fast as anything I've seen.

[@t.michaelbodine4341]

He’s fast with that matchlock! Great video, great clothing and armor! I’d love to fire a piece that old-fashioned one day.

[@skyedog24]

Very interesting 👍. proficient , I love all of the sounds that your outfit makes when you make the exact same movements every time everything clanking into each other very cool.

[@JYFMuseums]

Thank you very much!

[@Steven-jn2cw]

I know this is obvious, but holy cow that guy is extremely proficient with that weapon.

[@presidentlouis-napoleonbon8889]

Can you make an accuracy test video or is firing live rounds prohibited around the area? Hearing that the emphasis of the musket is more on individual marksmanship than rate of fire, it would be nice to see how effective a matchlock musket can be from 100 yards away when fired at a target.

[@jamesread1607]

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.

[@makingmajic1938]

@@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.

[@fredscholpp5838]

@@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.

[@Alexesssp]

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

[@fredscholpp5838]

@@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?

[@adamhiggins1664]

That was really interesting to actually watch multiple shots done in musket. Thank you

[@JYFMuseums]

You're welcome! Glad you enjoyed it.

[@terranaxiomuk]

Very methodical. Nicely done mate.

[@JYFMuseums]

Many thanks!

[@magma3525]

Great explanation/presentation, thanks!

[@JYFMuseums]

You're welcome. Thanks for watching!

[@Alex-cw3rz]

For Buccanners of the 17th century rate of rise was important to him, however keep in mind, when they came about most had flintlocks lighter muskets and pistols, they had no pike men, they were often outnumbered and were already highly trained in marksmanship. There tactics on land were also irregular and often involved two men teams one to cover the other in a lose wide formation, only coming together when facing cavalry and in Defensive scenarios.

[@tobiashagstrom4168]

This topic is interesting, I remember it coming up in regards to archery back during Jörg Sprave's "Instant Legolas" bow discourse. There, the idea was put to me that for archers rate of fire is not that important, because archers can only fire so many shots before they start getting tired and less reliable, so increasing rate of fire per man doesn't necessarily equate to that much more effective fire power in the long run. But when it comes to guns, which don't make you tired in the same way, my intuition is that a high rate of fire, on an open field, is gonna be key to overwhelming the enemy and winning the day. So it's not quite intuitive to me that there wasn't a very high emphasis on rate of fire.

[@astrotrek3534]

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.

[@ringecks5165]

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.

[@brianc2619]

Holy sht, that was fng impressive. This guy would've been one of the elites back then with those reloading skills, goddamn.

[@geemanamatin8383]

Impressive display, out of all of histories black powder weapons, the arquebus is definitely my favorite!

[@hugojames85]

This information is definitely going to come in handy at some point....

[@RouGeZH]

After the nuclear apocalypse and the fall of modern civilzation, time for ArquebusPunk!

[@Andzej3]

How I like my YT recommendetions. Thank You for your video. I hope your channel will find much more people

[@herbderbler1585]

Let us all be thankful he's on our side.

[@edelweiss-]

That old reloading pictures look really epic if played behind. Like a little video

[@vdevictoria4016]

Excellent craft and video

[@PhD777]

Excellent informative video! The chargers were referred to as "the twelve apostles" as twelve was what typically was worn across the front of the musketeer. Additionally, musketeers in corslet and tassets was very rare.

[@JYFMuseums]

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.kzbin.info/www/bejne/bYPHp3-XltGHntE 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.

[@neowolf1333]

weapons and style are simply amazing

[@Weedss74]

I love seeing the armor and gun combined. Can you do more videos like this

[@JYFMuseums]

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.

[@Weedss74]

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

[@Weedss74]

@@JYFMuseums I'll watch it now thanks

[@JYFMuseums]

@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.

[@tuscan9617]

Amazing video! I learned something very interesting about two topics I love, guns and history!

[@JYFMuseums]

Thank you.

[@jonm2438]

He’s fast. That’s pretty cool

[@Bugqueenlily]

This was an amazing video!!!

[@JYFMuseums]

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

[@DeRegelaar]

That was very impressive. Wel done.

[@JYFMuseums]

Thank you very much!

[@molochi]

I guess my interest in rof of a matchlock is in how it compares to a similarly applied 15th century crossbow and also later flintlocks. So you're a few seconds (not really alot) slower than windlass or cranquine armed xbows and flintlocks. Demonstrations like this do have value.

[@korneliusvulgaris]

Wow, this was FAST! Of course in a Battle there will be different speed, but still! This is really fast! Good training! By the way - love the Channel! :)

[@JYFMuseums]

Thank you!

[@dimitristripakis7364]

This is so interesting and fun, thank you and greetings from Greece. One comment is that 4 shots / 1:25 is optimistic because you start and end with a shooting, therefore one of them should not count. And a tactical question is why would they rank 10-15 men deep, taking turns, when they obviously could have three such divisions (of 3 men deep instead) with the same firepower each ?

[@JYFMuseums]

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.

[@jeffreysommer3292]

Which help explain the necessity of pikemen to ward off cavalry while the musketeers are re-loading (Thirty Years War, English Civil War, etc.).

[@JYFMuseums]

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.

[@horatiohuffnagel7978]

Pretty freakin good man. Youve got it down pat.

[@JYFMuseums]

Thanks!

[@TheDavidfallon]

That's really impressive.

[@adammessina6182]

And very well done by the way 😮

[@green-user8348]

wonderful video and explanation. Thank you.

[@JYFMuseums]

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

[@Omar_Kenani]

It was so much fune to watch. Thank you.

[@JYFMuseums]

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

[@LonelyWhiteDude]

Very underrated KZbinr

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

Impressive shooting!

[@marioacevedo5077]

Outstanding video. Great explanation of firearm usages and group tactics.

[@TheHorzabora]

A little bit of a later time period, but I think it helps set expectations appropriately - Sharpe is Napoleonic War era, so late 1700s through early 1800s, and using flint rather than match locks, but we’re still talking about expected performance for an average smoothbore battlefield weapon (although by Sharpe’s era the way in which they were used on the battlefield was very different in some ways, it was deeply similar in others): Sir Henry Simmerson : What makes a good soldier, Sharpe? Richard Sharpe : The ability to fire three rounds a minute. In any weather, sir!

[@go_away_plz]

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

[@JYFMuseums]

But, would Colonel Simmerson approve?

[@davidhanna9420]

Awesome. Hard to believe there is a thumbs down.

[@joeykonyha2414]

Must have been an archer.

[@thomaswhitelake]

It would be interesting to see reloading while walking as the 16th and 17th century drills rotated the arqubusiers/musketeers through the ranks to increase rate of fire. I suspect it significantly reduces the reload rate because of the time spent having to multitask - perhaps to the minute stated here and in the manuals. Excellent presentation. Thank you!

[@JYFMuseums]

This might be of interest -- kzbin.info/www/bejne/mqbUooWGnLRgq7c

[@pauloakwood9208]

The other factor to consider is that in battle formations of this time period, the primary weapon was a Pike. Swiss Squares or Spanish Tercios used Pikes offensively against infantry and defensively against cavalry. The Arquebus' role was to shoot cavalry that was being held in check at the end of a Pike formation. Rate of fire would not have mattered. Historically, the arquebus replaced the crossbow, which while more accurate at range, took forever (and a lot of muscle) to reload.

[@Lancasterlaw1175]

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.

[@pauloakwood9208]

@@Lancasterlaw1175 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.

[@poil8351]

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.

[@Lancasterlaw1175]

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.

[@poil8351]

@@Lancasterlaw1175 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.

[@snipingflute4346]

Good video! I loved the demonstration! The charming crescendos of cicadas brought me Florida memories. Especially ones of visiting St. Augustine, observing life through historical lenses. Although, you’re from Virginia, if I’m not mistaken?

[@JYFMuseums]

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

[@ktinga1]

As someone with a fair amount of time on flintlocks and percussion locks, matchlocks are slightly terrifying. I think I'd be more along the lines of some of the old manuals, with the monopod/stick and the match draped over it, arms length away, because explosives and fire tend not to mix. The speed of your drill is purely impressive! Ive managed three shots a minute with complete rolled cartridges on a flintlock, and it was a struggle!

[@antonisauren8998]

It's just black powder. Even if you spill cartrige over match, worst thing that gonna happen is burning powder sticking into your hand.

[@ktinga1]

@@antonisauren8998 oh I know, but that's not exactly something you'd want to happen

[@JYFMuseums]

Why terrifying? The potential danger is quite a bit overstated, and what one should remember is to handle the match and the musket in the left hand, handle the gunpowder in the right hand, and at priming remember to shake off and blow off the excess priming powder from the pan. Just as was done in the video. We'd be curiouse to know which manuals instructed musketeers to handle and load their weapons with match draped over the rest and arms length. In the volume Wapenhandelinghe van Roers Musquetten ende Spiessen ("The Exercise of Arms For Calivers, Muskets, and Pikes") the musketeer is taught to handle the musket and rest in the left hand and the match in between the left fingers. The illustrations can be seen here -- wiktenauer.com/wiki/Wapenhandelinghe_van_Roers_Musquetten_ende_Spiessen_(Jacob_de_Gheyn_II)

[@ktinga1]

@@JYFMuseums Interesting! It seems that I was remembering some random illustration of someone standing at arms length from a rest with the match draped over it as from some manual, instead of the portrait that it is. I'll remember that! And terrifying is a bit of an overstatement for dramatic effect, I admit. It's just not something I'm used to doing, as someone who's handled and fired a number of flint and percussion guns. Having a burning ember near the powder is one of the biggest bad things that can happen with muzzleloaders, so it's foreign to me to do just that when using a matchlock. With time, I'm sure I'd become quite comfortable, and perhaps even adept at it!

[@LafayetteCCurtis]

I've done four in under a minute with a matchlock but didn't really follow the drill exactly -- for instance, I roped in a friend to hold the scouring-stick next to me rather than removing and returning it each time. Like you said, what's the point? If we go by contemporary memoirs, most officers would have told me to slow down and aim more carefully anyway.

[@fiddleriddlediddlediddle]

Thank you. This is what I wanted to know. I'm not concerned with rate of fire, I just wanted to know how long it took to load an early gun like this and 30 seconds is what I was looking for.

[@daveybernard1056]

Thanks, this was fun to see.

[@alessandrovisigalli7353]

Pretty fast, consider that a massive formation of musketeers is not actually aiming something, it's a matter of pointing and firing all together in a certain direction and the mass of lead will do the job, amazing video BTW!

[@JYFMuseums]

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.

[@jameserickson7584]

5:30 🕠 to see him actually fire . Great information given prior but to get to the action … 5:30

[@stronggs1459]

Thanks that was a great video, I love discussing old guns.❤

[@kohinarec6580]

This was informative. And I love the period clothes and equipment. Swedish historian Peter Englund has pointed out in his book Poltava about the 1709 battle that for massed flintlock volleys accuracy and aiming was often considered unnecessary. It was important to pump as much lead down the range and into those tightly packed human formations as possible. Aiming with an inherently inaccurate unrfiled musket was waste of time and firepower. Massed volleys are not accurate but shooting at an enemy that does not take cover you still manage to kill people just fine. During the 18th century individual marksmanship was not important. I'm sure it was different for American frontier and 17th century musketeers who were more specialized soldiers.

[@Lancasterlaw1175]

I'd say it was actually the obscuring effects of low quality gunpowder which made a lot of precision unnecessary. After your first volley, you are all blinded by sulphurs smoke beyond a few feet so how does being able to arc your shoots out to 150 feet help?

[@kohinarec6580]

​@@Lancasterlaw1175that's also true and a very good point.

[@stav1369]

Brilliant stuff.

[@LEMMYLEMON]

Actually you were pretty fast at reloading. Most soldiers with this weapon could only fire 1 or 2 in a minute thank you for the video :D 5:30 5:57 6:27 6:55

[@grenouillesscent]

I love this stuff. I've heard that a tighter patch and/or tighter fitting ball could give reasonable accuracy to hit a mans chest at about 100 yards, as you seemed to imply. What do you think of this? It seems in the 1700's-early 1800's, prior to introduction of rifled-muskets, soldeirs would load a very loose fitting ball that took significantly less time to ram down, and with which the bore succumbed to fouling at a much slower rate. It would make sense that a tighter fitting ball used for point-shooting would lead to a slower rate of fire. I have heard that a proffessional soldeir of the british army in the 18th century may be able to put off a respectable 5 rounds per minutes with the paper cartridges they were issued along with their brown bess muskets.

[@JYFMuseums]

@biathlon 97 We're glad that you liked the video. To answer your first question, yes the tighter the fit/tolerance between the bullet and the bore of a firearm barrel, the more effective the shot will be. Though the length of the barrel and how completely the gunpowder is burned and the energy the combustion generates will also impact the effectiveness. But we'd caution that the expectation to strike a man's chest at 100 yards is a rather unreasonable expectation. If we consider that a man's chest is not much larger than a sheet of paper or small bore target, that target is unreasonably small at 100 yards. But what if we consider the target to be a man as a whole? Say 5 feet by 2 feet?

[@redtra236]

@@JYFMuseums you should try it

[@Geckobane]

Thanks for the interesting video

[@JYFMuseums]

We are glad you enjoyed it!

[@黃色史萊姆]

I’ve read the document about the time when Netherland VOC company occupying our country,says it took 90 sec to fire 1shot while he only use 1/3of it,true masterpiece!

[@Ranstone]

Matchlocks are so unbelievably cool man... I wish they weren't so expensive.

[@Jcaeser187]

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

[@pinchevulpes]

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

[@user-microburst]

Was it necessary to have a fast shooting rate if they only had about 15 shots?

[@JYFMuseums]

No, it was not necessary to shoot as quickly as possible. Officers would be more interested regulating a steady and deliberate rate of fire.

[@toastmeister6806]

I was wondering, was it unsafe to prime first, while having to hold on to a lit match? Like was there a chance it could slip out of the hand and fire the gun while reloading? I know it was a similar loading procedure with flintlocks, and only really became reversed with percussion rifles. Overall amazing presentation, the explanations, skill demonstrated, the outfit and armor. All top notch!

[@JYFMuseums]

In our experience, no it is not unsafe. One is always maintaining the match in the left hand fixed between the fingers and always handling the gunpowder with the right hand.

[@gemmeliusgrammaticus2509]

This guy is a badass. 👍

[@ethanmcfarland8240]

nice shooting brian!

[@Real11BangBang]

Now that's soldiering

[@alexcarter2461]

I can rapidly my matchlock as quick as I can with my flintlocks! Keep in mind I use paper cartridges. They really do allow a speedy reload even with a matchlock! You're pretty fast for loading loose wadding from the apostle. All the apostles could probably tangle easily, so I would say you're pretty fast and smooth.

[@JYFMuseums]

Thanks!

[@samuelstambaugh5181]

I am trying to research if the long bow or crossbow would have been more practical on the 17th century frontier then a matchlock ? For hunting it would make more sense rather something that would give your position away to any hostile

[@jamesread1607]

Hi Samuel, your question is such a broad and deep topic and can lead into so much about the English attitudes about hunting as a matter of sport or subsistence. But lets keep this simple -- When it comes to the early history of the Virginia Colony, we must remember that as much as it was a commercial operation, it was a military adventure. The military nature of the colony dictated the Virginia Colony's reliance on the common military firearms in use in Europe at the time, with the common attitude being that both the long bow and cross bow were many decades outdated as effective weapons and surpassed by the capabilities of firearms -- regardless of whether they were a matchlock, wheellock, or snaphaunce ignition system. The English easily understood that the combination of the Powhatan's skill with the bow and access to the English long bow would have spelt bad news, and as a result would not allow the importation of English bows into Virginia. Even in 1623 when hundreds of long bows, along with many other pieces of old and outdated military equipment, arrived in Virginia to bolster the colony's defenses after the March 1622 Powhatan attack, colonial authorities would not allow those bows off the ships and sent the bows for use in Bermuda. On the other hand there is quite a bit of evidence of hunting cross bows, especially the approximately two dozen quarrels or small game hunting points which have been found in the archeology on site of James Fort uncovered by the Jamestown Rediscovery Project at Historic Jamestowne. However, we do not generally see the evidence of crossbows in other settlement sites beyond the early context of Jamestown. It is important to note that while the Virginia Colony rather heavily relied on matchlocks in the early years of settlement, as the colony matured and transitioned from one of a military nature ruled by the Virginia Company to that of a Royal Colony by 1625, we see the decline of matchlock ignition and the rise to dominance of the snaphaunce ignition. So, to your original question, consider the self sparking flint ignition of the snaphaunce instead of the matchlock, over the long bow or crossbow. And, look back through our Primed and Loaded Series Play list and check our Brian's video on the snaphaunce ignition system.

[@JCarey1988]

The colonial authorities of the time knew damn well to keep professionally made longbows out of native hands. A natives 'homemade' bow, while certainly effective in its own right, simply weren't as good as a proper English longbow. They couldn't be, they were made in primitive conditions with literally shaped rocks for tools. Also their training was not as strict or standardized. A company of natives with bows of variable quality make and length vs. a company of trained longbowmen would be running for the trees in short order. When flintlocks came into the picture (no more fussing about with a lit rope) the balance shifted significantly toward the colonists.

[@youcanthandlethetruth5433]

Awesome vid

[@NoiaTeixeira-fe3ou]

You are too good with that matchlock wow. I have no doubt you would have impressed some of Louis XIVs veterans.