Correct if I'm wrong but I think that only difference about the matchlock musket of the 17th century and the arquebus of the 16th century is the power of the shot. The resemblance is expressed in size and load system.

Daniel;

Thank you, I remember you writing to me of Karl Karlsson Gyllenhjelm, but didn't want to quote you when I couldn't even remember the name of the gentleman!

Daniel Staberg wrote:

IMHO Henri used his shot to prepare the way for a decisive charge with his horse while Gustavus tatcis were more drawn out and attritional, the enemy horse was worn down with musketry and limited counter-charges rather than risking everything on one slavo and one all out charge. Which is just the thing to do when your men are less well mounted and armoured than the enemy. /Daniel

I agree 100% with your comment on both Henri, using his Shotte to prepare the way for his decisive charge with Horse, while Gustavus' tactics were more drawn out. Henri always let his enemies attack him, on his chosen ground, and used his firepower to "soften them up" just prior to hitting them with his compact columns of pistoliers.

Lafayette: again, full agreement.

Guilherme: Actually, when you get down to it, the differences between a ca. 1550 Arquebus and a ca. 1650 Musket is only in the calibre and shape of the stock. And fundamentally, the only difference between either of them and a flintlock musket of 1750, or even a percussion smoothbore musket of 1850, is ignition systems. The basics of smooth-bore ballistics are to all intents and purposes identical, with only the methods of ignition being subject to evolutionary changes. Soldiers still had to stand to load and fire, the balls were still cast small enough to allow for "windage", and the weapons were still inaccurate at much past 100 yards due to the ballistic qualities of the round ball. Loading techniques and drill manuals were different, and there were differences in employment, but not by a lot.

A 1600 "mosquet" may have had enormous smashing power, sufficient to drop an armoured man and horse at over 100 yards, but by 1650 it wasn't needed anymore, thus the "muskets" of that day and age were far more like their arquebus cousins of a century before in size and weight. The bores were still fairly large, but not the powder charges, thus not the need for the large size and weight.

Cheers!

Gordon

So, the only fundamental thing that makes the musket slower to reload than the arquebus is the musket size? Or the musket has another complexity that makes it different in comparison to the arquebus?

Well, size and weight and the resulting need to use the rest. With an arquebus (or, in the 17th century, the lighter examples of muskets) you wouldn't have had to use a rest so you would have been able to do away with all the steps in the drill that dealt with it.

(And, to repeat an already frequently stressed point, by the 17th century the terminological distinction between muskets and arquebuses had changed considerably in terms of both nature and content.)