| Author |
Message |
Gordon Frye
|
 Posted: Sat 17 Sep, 2005 12:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | Yes, certainly measurements in joules only give a very rough estimate of weapon power. For example, if you want to punch through a breastplate, it's much easier to use a sharpened steel lance point than a ball of lead. That's why muskets can have such force and still fail to penetrate at times.
Thanks for the info on pistols, Gordon. As I thought they are far weaker. Interestingly enough, Williams says the lance was only very slightly less powerful than the pistol... |
Benjamin;
You are very welcome, happy to oblige. 
Indeed, Sir Roger was definitely in favor of his "Launtiers"! On the other hand, Francios de la Noue had little respect for the lance, stating that "(I)t would be a miracle if any were slain by the spear in these days" (late 1580's), while strongly advocating the pistol. Both solid old soldiers with lots of experience to back up their opinions. I think one thing is that while, if given a solid purchase the lance point would be effective, the fact that by this time so much of the armour was so well designed with glancing surfaces that it had very little chance for that, while a bullet could smash it's way through with little regard, if big enough and of high enough velocity (i.e. close enough). Hmmm... sounds like tanks today... 
As I recall, one of the big changes made in the late 16th Century to armour was a return to wrought iron for "proof" armour, since it was more likely to give a little, rather than crack and break like hardened spring steel would, when hit by bullets. There certainly were attempts to "sandwich" both spring steel and wrought iron together to make breastplates in the 17th Century, and one wonders how much of that was done in the 16th as well, but no one has noticed it yet.
Cheers!
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
    |
 |
Gordon Frye
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Sep, 2005 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
And logistics are certainly important. but the inability of the longbow to pierce plate armor played a major role as well. |
Absolutely, there were plenty of excellent arguments against the continuation of the Longbow. Logistics were just one of the many reasons, but as it's not romantic and interesting, it's usually left behind when the other arguments are discussed. So I thought I would throw it out as pertinent to Mr. Hall's comments. 
Cheers!
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Sep, 2005 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Didn't Williams claim to agree with de la Noue, but argue that it was too hard to get soldiers to use their pistols properly? Because there were certainly many times horsemen with pistol shot from too far away and were routed by lancers.
Of course, another argument against the lance is that it was more or less useless once things got close and messy, while pistol and sword allowed for tighter ranks and were more wieldy in a melee.
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Meulemans
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Sep, 2005 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gordon Frye wrote: | | Volley fire, whether in the form of a "Storm of Arrows" or a "Swedish Salvee" is, as you note, more general than specific. |
That's for sure! I was going to post some figures earlier, but only just found them and they seem appropriate here. First off, on the "accuracy" of volley fire, from Rothenberg's The Art of Warfare in the Age of Napoleon:
"According to Prussian tests, the 1782 musket hit a 10-foot wide and 6-foot high target about 60 times out of 100 at 100 paces, only 40 times at 200 paces, and only 25 times at 300 paces... but this was under test conditions... Actual combat experience, however, indicated that due to the thick smoke, careless loading, and various malfunctions, the number of hits, at best, ranged between 6 and 15 percent of the rounds expended."
Perhaps more overwhelming, numbers-wise, he goes on to state that at the Battle of Vittoria, "the British fired over 3,500,000 rounds, about 60 per man, and calculations show that it required some 450 rounds to inflict one casuality." The italics are mine, and just remember those figures are for the nineteenth century!
| Gordon Frye wrote: | | But one other thing to note, since you brought up a LOT of excellent points, is that of logistics. It certainly SEEMS as though one of the major reasons for the English dropping the Long Bow (among other far more romantic arguments! ) was that arrows made by a fletcher and armourer were far more expensive than powder and lead, and far, far more expensive to ship and transport to the field of battle. Powder and lead may weigh a fair amount, but they're far less bulky, and by the 16th Century, far cheaper AND more available on the Continent than arrows, even if the bows themselves were cheaper than firearms. |
And don't forget training! The time and expense with training longbowmen simply made them obsolete given that you could hand just about anybody a crossbow or gonne and with some basic instruction they could kill with it. You bring up a good point with pricing, however. By the later fourteenth century, prices for gunpowder had begun to fall and that trend would continue.
In Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe Hall writes that "...by the last quarter of the fifteenth century French gunpowder prices were less than 20 percent of what they had been a century earlier, a level at which they came to be fixed by law." This was fortunate, because the large guns of the time used tremendous quantities of powder (they had no FFF so the lessened cost also allowed their proliferation. Again, to give some idea of the madness they got themselves into with these thunderboomers, I quote Hall:
"Christine de Pizan's French translation and reworking of Vegetius's Epitoma rei militarius provides insight into what a first class siege effort might entail... Christine recommends 1,500 pounds of gunpowder including 500 pounds to be kept on hand in case an extra supply is needed... the besiegers should expect to mount a truly impressive arsenal. Eight trebuchets head the list, followed by a rather confused roster of some 248 firearms, at least 42 of which shoot stones of 200 pounds or more. This is a considerable arsenal, and Christine recommends having on hand some 30,000 pounds of gunpowder to sustain it. This quantity of powder is large by the standards of even a few decades earlier, but it amounts on average to only a little more than 121 pounds per piece."
These figures seem almost outlandish, and Hall admits this, but goes on to provide supporting evidence from actual sieges, including an anticipated siege of Calais in 1406 which involved the purchase of 20,000 pounds of gunpowder.
-Eric[/i][/u]
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Sep, 2005 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | Wow, folks. So we're up to 4000-5000 foot pounds for 16th century muskets? That's in elephant rifle territory.
Were there actually breastplates that stood up to that kind of force? |
In his Certain Discourses Military of 1590, Sir John Smythe commented on the Duke of Alva's widespread use of the Spanish musket in the field:
But the Duke, at this time being lieutenant general and absolute governor in the Low Countries, as aforesaid, seeing the numbers of rutters [cavalrymen] in all armies increased, and that the most of these rutters, as also that many captains and officers of footmen, were armed at the proof of the harquebus, he to the intent to frustrate the resistance of their armors did increase his numbers of musketeers, the blows of the bullets which no armors wearable can resist.
IIRC, Humphrey Barwick stated that no armor was proof against the musket at under 100 yards.
Guilmartin notes that the musket gave good service at sea too, since the pavesades (temporary wooden shields that protected the rowers on Mediterranean galleys) could easily be pierced by this weapon.
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon Frye
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Sep, 2005 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | Didn't Williams claim to agree with de la Noue, but argue that it was too hard to get soldiers to use their pistols properly? Because there were certainly many times horsemen with pistol shot from too far away and were routed by lancers.
Of course, another argument against the lance is that it was more or less useless once things got close and messy, while pistol and sword allowed for tighter ranks and were more wieldy in a melee. |
Benjamin;
Absolutely, on all points. Williams certainly was involved in such routs on both sides in the "Lowe Countries". And the lack of good fire discipline of the Pistoliers was the cause of at least one disaster for the Dutch (I'm thinking it was Mookerhyde, but I might well be mistaken on the name of this one). Discipline was, as always, the most difficult part of the equation to ensure. Lances are wonderful weapons for recklessly brave, but not necessarily well disciplined troops (the French nobility comes to mind for some reason...), and must also be used in thin, rather brittle formations, i.e. en haye, in a single or at most rank. And as you note, the lance is pretty well useless in the melee. Pistols on the other hand required enormous discipline both with regards to formation and fire, it being necessary, as de la Noue comments, to be within 15 feet or less of the enemy before discharging to be of any effect, though allowing for much deeper formations. But once in close, they were signficantly more effective than the other weapons at hand.
Good discussion going on here, thank you, gentlemen!
Cheers,
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon Frye
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Sep, 2005 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OH! BTW, Welcome, Jason, to our discussion, and to myArmoury in general! As you may notice, some of these guys are pretty darned good historians! Glad you chose to chime in!
Cheers!
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Sep, 2005 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gordon Frye wrote: | | Williams certainly was involved in such routs on both sides in the "Lowe Countries". And the lack of good fire discipline of the Pistoliers was the cause of at least one disaster for the Dutch (I'm thinking it was Mookerhyde, but I might well be mistaken on the name of this one). |
No, you are definitely correct.
At Mookerheyde (1574), Dutch reiters were drawn up in three lines. They managed to drive back mounted arquebusiers in the Spanish army, but then fire control broke down amongst the pistoleers. As the 300 reiters of the 1st line were reloading, they were charged by 120 Spanish lancers, who drove them back in disarray. This apparently had a domino effect, and ultimately led to a rout.
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Staberg
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Sep, 2005 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure the defeat of the Reiters at Mook/Mookerheyde can be atributed to poor fire discipline as I understand that word. It seems to at least partly have been a case of the the side with the last reserves winning the cavalry fight. The 4 squadrons of Reiters seem to have temporarily expended themselves when fighting the harquebusiers and Reiters in spanish service and were reloading in some disorder(?) when the spanish lancers pouncehd on them supported by a flank attack.
Reiter tactics called for multiple squadrons to supprot each other so that any units reloadign their pistols woudl be protected by battle ready comrades. At Mook the Dutch reserve squdrons were posted to far to the rear to support the frontlien Reiters as they had to reload.
A good short description of the battle http://www.geocities.com/ao1617/Mook2.html
The Reiters described by De La Noue, Monluc and the Admiral Tavannes at times seem to have been an entirely diffrent breed comapred to the ones described in action in the Low Countries. I've often wondered if the Wars of Religion in France took the lion's share of the 'good' troopers and the Dutch had to be content with hiring the remains??
As Gordon has already noted the Graz test were conducted with modern gunpowder which is a more powerfull and stable substance than it's 16th Century predecessor. Even modern Gunpowder can vary a lot in performance due to it's qualtiy, the wethear and temperature and it's age. Back when i was commanding artillery and air defence artillery units the muzzle velocity when firing of 'old' (30-35 years) charges and rounds could vary with as much as 160-180 fps which made accuracy a real problem.
/Daniel
Last edited by Daniel Staberg on Sat 17 Sep, 2005 3:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Sep, 2005 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Daniel Staberg wrote: | | I'm not sure the defeat of the Reiters at Mook/Mookerheyde can be atributed to poor fire discipline as I understand that word. It seems to at least partly have been a case of the the side with the last reserves winning the cavalry fight. The 4 squadrons of Reiters seem to have temporarily expended themselves when fighting the harquebusiers and Reiters in spanish service and were reloading in some disorder(?) when the spanish lancers pouncehd on them supported by a flank attack. |
Daniel,
To me, "reloading in some disorder" = "poor fire discipline".
Best,
David
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon Frye
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Sep, 2005 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Daniel Staberg wrote: |
The Reiters described by De La Noue, Monluc and the Admiral Tavannes at times seem to have been an entirely diffrent breed comapred to the ones described in action in the Low Countries. I've often wondered if the Wars of Relgion in France to the lion's share of the 'good' troopers and the Dutch had to be content with hiring the remains?? |
Daniel;
That's a really good point. All of the commentators of the time certainly give the Huguenot Gendarmerie, armed with the pistol, high marks on their efficacy (Courtras, Ivry etc. being good examples of it!), and even tend to give some good marks to the Germans as well, at least on occasion. Sully certainly was impressed with at least some of the Reiters under Count Egmont at Ivry (1590), and how had the rest of the Reiters and the Leaguer Army fought as well as they, the result would have been much different! ( http://www.lepg.org/sully2.htm ) The equestrian army of Germans which rode through eastern France in 1570 in support of Admiral de Coligny seems to have been made of fairly stern stuff as well. But when they fought the Spaniards, for some reason they melt away at the touch of a lance...
Your points on Mookerhyde are well taken, I guess I was mis-remembering the specifics of the battle. It wasn't fire discipline per se, as much as a command and control problem (i.e. not having sufficient reserves with loaded pistols in immediate support.. But as David notes, that is still rather a "fire discipline problem", I think). Still, that they could be routed with such ease by such small numbers doesn't bode well for their discipline in general, to be sure. Wasn't Henry of Nassau killed in this one, leading a forlorne charge against the Spaniard Lancers?
Cheers!
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Staberg
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Sep, 2005 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
David,
Ok, to me those things are entirely separate although I see your point. For me as a nit-picking military man fire discipline is something which applies soley to the firing of the weapons, such as rear ranks of a deep Reiter formation firing their pistols in the air upon impact rather than reserving their fire for the melee.
A Reiter squadron reforming and reloading after having fired all of their pistols in the melee is something else and is generaly accompanied by some disorder even at the best of times.
Of course the reason that so many Reiters found themsleves with unloaded pistols might quite probably have been poor fire disciplin in the first two combats.
Last edited by Daniel Staberg on Sat 17 Sep, 2005 3:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon Frye
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Sep, 2005 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Daniel Staberg wrote: |
Of course the reason that so many Reiters found themsleves with unloaded pistols might quite probably have been poor fire disciplin in the first two combats. |
I think this is probably the crux of the matter. You are of course right in that "fire discipline" should specifically refer to firing in combat per se. But that they chose to reload away from the protection of either Pikes or steady reserve Cavalry was definitely an error which led to their demise.
Good point too about the powder variations, ancient or modern.
Hmmm... I think we hijacked this thread...
Cheers,
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Sep, 2005 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gordon Frye wrote: | | Wasn't Henry of Nassau killed in this one, leading a forlorne charge against the Spaniard Lancers? |
Louis of Nassau was killed there.
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon Frye
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Sep, 2005 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks David. I was thinking that Louis was killed at Groeningen, while Henry was killed at Mookerheyde. I guess I got them mixed up in my mind somehow.
I misplaced my copy of Oman's History of the Art of War in the 16th Century and it's driving me nuts!
Oh, Daniel, do the Dutch (or perhaps I should say "Continentals") then refer to this battle as "Mook" as a general rule?
Cheers!
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jason Hall
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Sep, 2005 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
...
Last edited by Jason Hall on Fri 23 Sep, 2005 9:18 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Sep, 2005 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | calculations show that it required some 450 rounds to inflict one casuality. |
Heh, I think it was about 40,000 or so rounds per kill in Vietnam (maybe more). So maybe the 19th century wasn't doing so bad...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic