[Justin Pasternak]

When and where were the first matchlock muskets being used in Europe?

[Guilherme Dias Ferreira S]

Justin, many sources say that the first musket were used by the spanish in the early sixteenth century, but I don't know exactly which decade (I think it's in the 1520s, because I know that the musket was already used in the battle of Pavia-1525). I don't know also when or which country started using the musket after the Spain (probaly Italy I guess).

[Justin Pasternak]

I just did some searching myself and I think (I'm not intirely sure) the first matchlocks were invented sometime in the mid-15th century in Austria, I also found out that the first illustration of the matchlock firing mechanism dates back to about 1475. Still I'm really not sure about it.

[Gordon Frye]

Justin;

I believe the confusion arises from your use of the term "musket" which is rather specific to the 16th Century and later. The matchlock mechanism itself shows up in the late-14th Century in a very simple form, though firearms continued to be made with out any sort of lock mechanism well into the early years of the 16th Century. Check out this website:

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~dispater/handgonnes.htm

Cheers!

Gordon

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Hm. Justin, now what we need is to clarify whether you are asking about "matchlock" and "musket" or about the "musket" in general.

"Matchlock" will depend on your definition of the word, too. Serpentine locks, where the slow match is clamped to an external trigger mechanism, was already present by the 15th century if not earlier; during the course of the same century the trigger mechanism moved into the stock and gained the addition of springs and sears that eventually turned it into the matchlock as we know it--most likely before the turn of the 16th century.

The "musket" in the specific sense of the moschetto, a specialized heavyweight weapon, came about in the early decades of the 16th century. But if you're talking about personal firearms with shoulder stock and matchlock mechanism in general, then the moderate-sized general-purpose arquebus was already around by the end of the 15th century.

[Justin Pasternak]

I thought the "matchlock" musket was the first type of mechanized firearm, what I mean is that its's simply not a tube of wood or iron with a touch hole where you need to place a match or fuze to make it fire, if not what was the first type of musket?

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Well, if you're talking about "mechanized firearms," then the matchlock was definitely not the first example of the type--much less the musket. The first kind of mechanized firearm was the serpentine-based examples of the handgonne, also known as the "coulevrin" in some places. (And yes, it sometimes lead to confusion with the artillery culverin--a historically authentic confusion.) From what I read the earliest known examples come from the 15th century, probably around the 1410s or 1420s. Check that link from Gordon for some excellent images.

As for the serpentine itself, it was an S-shaped piece of iron attached to the side of the weapon's stock with a rivet or a bolt. It holds the slow match on one end, while the other end extends beneath the stock and serves as some sort of trigger. The differences with true matchlock are 1) it's still located outside the stock, meaning that it hadn't evolved to become an internal mechanism, and 2) it didn't use trigger sears and springs. My connection is a little unreliable here, so I hope somebody else would be so kind as to provide our good Justin with an image of it.

EDIT: that site actually has an image of a handgonne with a serpentine lock. Look here:

http://homepages.tig.com.au/~dispater/north_1411.JPG

[Justin Pasternak]

Lafayette, the example that you've shown me gives me a good idea of the serpentine handgonne! I just have one more question, I know that the matchlock musket was a very heavy and cumbersome weapon to handle. So what do you think it was like using the serpentine handgonne in a real battle?

[M. Eversberg II]

[Stephen Hand]

Umm, M. That animation isn't right. That's how a serpentine works (minus the bizarre spring at the back - who knows where they got that from?!?).

I did a quick internet search and pinched the following image from my mate Bill Wilson's site. It shows the insides of a matchlock mechanism. There are some complexly shaped bits of steel to allow the forward motion of the trigger to smoothly be converted into the arc of the jaws and match.

Slowmatch is in my experience a more sure ignition method than flint. As Gordon said in the other matchlock thread, you can lower the match into the pan and wait for the burning match to dry out the damp powder.

Guns are enormously powerful compared to any sort of muscle powered weapon. They are not just full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Cheers
Stephen

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Gordon Frye]

There's even an "International Hande Gonne Competition" of sorts going on, and you can check out what sorts of things they're up to in the "Pre-Flintlock" section of Muzzle Loading Forum:

http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/fusionbb.php?

Although they look rather awkward, and by compariso to later firearms, they are, these things DO hit what they're supposed to hit, and do damage when they hit it. The Hussites were able to use these "Hande Gonnes" quite effectively during their rebellion, and as Stephen says:

"Guns are enormously powerful compared to any sort of muscle powered weapon. They are not just full of sound and fury signifying nothing"

I cannot think of a better way of stating it. They were powerful, effective weapons, if a bit awkward to use.

Cheers!

Gordon

[Randall Moffett]

I think the main issue with peoples biases toward early guns is that they could be powerful but they compare them to more modern firearms. It defeats the point that technology progressed. I would not like to have been a late medieval gunner but that is because it is not my thing.

RPM

[M. Eversberg II]

They're a bit like modern AT weapons -- short range, high power.

I'll have to make one sometime.

M.

[Guilherme Dias Ferreira S]

I would like to use this topic to make a question. What are the first regions in Europe that started to use the musket after the Spain (Italy, France, England?). And when the musket started to be used by the other regions outside the Europe (like the Ottoman Empire)?

[Lafayette C Curtis]

The adoption of the moschetto by other European powers seems to have been quite rapid, although in its original Spanish form it was always considered a specialist weapon and was always outnumbered by the lighter arquebus. If I can hazard a guess, probably the earliest adopter was the Spaniards' Imperial allies since they had the logistical connection anyway. Their lead would have been numbered in months or years rather than decades, though.

As for the adoption of muskets elsewhere, it's a very difficult question because it's rarely easy to decide whether two similar-looking firearms were the result of technological diffusion or convergent evolution. Japan clearly was a case of diffusion, but the daimyo mostly used the arquebus and the heavier musket seems to have never taken root although I'm sure some would have been imported alongside the arquebuses. China, India, and Persia seems to have developed their designs independently--but I've never seen the lock mechanisms in their firearms, so I'm not sure about this. The Ottomans had both muskets closely resembling the European model and musket-sized firearms that seem to have been more closely related to the Persian and Mughal siege firearm designs than to European ones.

I'm doing this from memory--and honestly, I've never done an in-depth research upon those questions--so I hope somebody will correct and comment on my errors.

[Gordon Frye]

Lafayette;

I think you're on the money with this one. As I recall, the moschetto was a case of reverse-evolution, as the arquebus, AKA hackenbusche had originally been a rather heavy piece, fitted with an iron hook on the barrel to allow it to be rested, and recoil absobed by, a wall. The ligher, handier field version was adopted by Infantry Shotte in the mid-to-late 15th Century. But the moschetto/mosquet/musket seems to have been noted in Spanish armies from some point in the 1520's, though not at all common until the 1540's. (There are references from Italian commentators to the Battle of Pavia in 1525 that suggest heavier firearms than arquebuses were present, and commentary stating that some of Kaiser Charles V's Spaniards were using moschetto's to fire across a river at the troops of the Schmalkaldic League in 1547, much to the surprise of the Protestants, suggests that they were unused to the weapon's potentials. None of these are proof of the presence of "true" muskets, but lots of suggestion of it.)

Guilherme;

As mentioned, such moschetto/mosquet/muskets were always somewhat rare in most armies, even Spanish ones. As I recall, there were seldom more than 30% of all Shotte armed with such monsters, and the soldiers carrying them were awarded a higher pay than those with the smaller arquebus. Each company of Shotte had a small number of them, while each Pike company had (as I recall) 30 Musketeers as well.

Here is a rather well-done website on the Spanish Tercio's, which gives the breakdown in far better terms than I can do:

http://www.geocities.com/ao1617/TercioUK.html#introduction

Go to "Organization" for the details of how muskets were distruted throughout the Tercio.

The Ottoman Turks seemed to have been rather good at adopting the weapons and tactics of the West, and then modifying them to suit their own needs, so I do believe that they had a version of the Musket, used along side the smaller Arquebus. However, like in other armies, they eventually melded so that by the 18th Century they were one in the same. As I recall, that is.

Cheers!

Gordon

[Jean Thibodeau]

The Turks also continued using the bow along side the musket and I could be wrong but tended to value aimed fire more than mass volleys of unaimed fire.

The Japanese borrowed, bought and stole the design of matchlock firearm from the Portuguese and / or maybe the Spanish.
( I think the Dutch were also involved in early 16th century trade with the Japanese. )

They modified the design of the lock a bit and didn't use a shoulder stock: They held the pistol-grip-like handle to the cheek instead. They uses the same design until the mid 19th century when the Americans forced them to reopen the country.

Indian firearms seem to have continued using the matchlock long after other locks like the flintlock took over in Europe.
Still using them late in the 19th century.

Some use of more " modern" design might have been imported by the rich in the Far East but the native guns seem to have remained matchlock in the vast majority. ( Conservatism maybe: If it works and it's cheap to make why change ? )

[Lafayette C Curtis]

As has been mentioned several times before, the matchlock is a much sturdier mechanism than the flintlock--and those cultures might have sturdiness over rate of fire, especially for the skirmishers who had to traverse difficult terrain and unfriendly weather conditions.

Of course, the Japanese imported most of their early firearms from the Portuguese. Only the lighter design seems to have stuck, though. I can't imagine firing a full-sized moschetto with the Japanese cheek stock. I may be wrong in that, though, because I've never fired a weapon with that kind of stock personally.

[Jean Thibodeau]