17th Century Puzzle

bluelake · 23rd May 2010, 05:46 AM

Thanks, Dmitry!

Philip · 24th May 2010, 11:47 PM

Perhaps the best pictorial source for a number of 17th cent. Russian guns (almost all of them being deluxe-grade sporting arms for royalty) is Yuri Miller (ed.) RUSSIAN ARMS AND ARMOUR (Leningrad: Aurora 1982), plates 48-75. This should be studied in conjunction with Howard L. Blackmore's classic, profusely photo-illustrated GUNS AND RIFLES OF THE WORLD (NY: Viking, 1965) which puts these Russian guns in the proper historical context vis-a-vis firearms technology in neighboring North European countries at the time.

Looking at the examples in Miller's book, one can see that although they are, generally speaking, all members of the "flintlock" family, there are a number of mechanical details that differentiate them and which point to influences from a number of outside sources. These influences are explainable considering the role of the Hanseatic states in Russian history, and the influx of foreign experts (most notably Scandian, Dutch, Scottish, Italian and others) in the growth of Russia's military, industries, and educational institutions.
One can see that:
1. Some Russian locks (Miller, pl 48-50, 60, 73) have a rounded "bulge" in the contour of the lockplate slightly ahead of midpoint. This shape has no relevance in the layout of a flintlock mechanism's operating parts, but is a vestigial, stylistic holdover from the earler wheellock (which was apparently little-used in Russia). This decorative feature is seen on early flint mechanisms from other European countries as well, notably France, Italy, and even Spain and soon disappeared once the flintlock technology matured.
2. A few Russian locks have large external V-shaped mainsprings which power the cock (Miller, pl 50a, 51b, 62a, 65,) which at first blush points to a similarity with various Scandinavian and Baltic locks (Blackmore, figs. 134-42). However it is interesting to note that almost all of the mainsprings on the Russian locks press down on the forward portion or toe of the cock's "foot"; just one in Miller pushes upward against the heel or tail. The former type is seen in the typical Italian version (alla romana) of the miquelet lock ; the latter is almost universal on the primitive early flintlocks of Scandinavia.
3. The remainder of the Russian locks have internal springs and S-shaped cocks which are stopped at the bottom of their range of travel by a buffer block screwed to the lockplate, these features being almost identical to those seen on Dutch and Scottish locks.
4. Practically all of the locks on the guns shown in Miller are SNAPHAUNCES: the priming pan cover slides forward via a mechanical linkage to the internal tumbler connected to the cock, and the steel or frizzen is an entirely separate component. Many of these Russian locks are obviously derived from Dutch prototypes. Scandinavian gun locks of the period are either SNAPHAUNCES or rudimentary FLINTLOCKS, the latter having a pivoting pan cover and steel combined into one L-shaped unit.

In short, the study of early flintlocks in Russia is complicated by the multiplicity of technological and stylistic influences in various combinations, indicating that Russian artisans were trying to achieve what they thought was the best of all possible worlds.

I realize that this merry little excursion through north Europe may seem to have little bearing on Korea, but any study of the actual Korean flint locks (if any survive) or textual references to them should be done in comparison with the mechanical elements discussed above, since the introduction of flint technology into Korea appears to have been via contact with either Dutch or Russians.

Now, onto the question often posed quite often: why did the matchlock remain the characteristic firearms mechanism for so long in the Far East and SE Asia despite the fact that flint systems were not unknown there? For a long time, it has been thought that sheer conservatism was the reason. Perhaps it could have been due to this combo of factors:
1. Economy borne out of simplicity and compatibility with local crafts traditions and the desire for self-sufficiency. Some cultures, such as Japan's, were not entirely comfortable with screw-thread fastening or the tempering of powerful springs, both essential for sophisticated gun lock construction. Matchcord is easy to produce, and the locks do not require the availability of large amounts of good quality flints, which wear out after a number of shots.
AND
2. In many of the culture-spheres, the martial tradition possessed powerful bows and arrows which although requiring far more skill to use effectively, were capable of a faster rate of fire, and in the case of Korea, far greater useful range than firearms were capable of up to the mid-19th cent. Furthermore, although oriental bows can be affected by moisture, they remain usable past the point at which a muzzle loaded firearm with a priming-pan would become so dampened as to be unshootable.
AND
3. It was not until the 19th cent. that states such as China, Japan, and Korea faced a significant threat from gun-using Western states. The Ottoman Turks, who also possessed an impressive archery tradition, was under great pressure to update its weaponry for several centuries before that due to its proximity to Europe, especially the central European states which pioneered the use of rifles (as opposed to smoothbore muskets) beginning in the 16th cent. Thus we see that in Turkey, firearms development from matchlock to flint ignition (both miquelet and true flintlock) and more advanced systems occured at a pace comparable to that seen in most of Europe. Furthermore, of all Oriental cultures, the Turks made the most use of rifled barrels, which were all but ignored in the Far East until the importation of Western military arms towards the end of the percussion-lock era.

bluelake · 25th May 2010, 12:57 AM

Thanks, Philip! The information is greatly appreciated and very informative. I will look into the books you mentioned.

It's interesting to note that, in Korea, the bow remained an official military weapon until the mid-1890s, but was probably not officially used in battle after the 1860s. In the US military incursion of 1871, although there were bows in Korea's arsenal (at least on paper), none were used and none captured by the US. In the French incursion of 1866, there is evidence they were still being used militarily and at least one was captured by the French (That bow was given to me almost a decade ago by a friend in France and I gave it to the Korean Army Museum).

Thomas
http://www.shinmiyangyo.org

Philip · 25th May 2010, 07:33 AM

Thomas,
John L. Boots, in his monograph KOREAN WEAPONS AND ARMOUR (Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Korea Branch, 1934), mentions that of all the martial arts, archery was the most esteemed in pre-modern Korea. I find it interesting to note that this particular affection for the bow and arrow is also a defining characteristic of the martial cultures of the Manchus, Mongols, and Turks -- peoples, who along with the Koreans are members of the Ural-Altaic linguistic family. Put a Korean composite-recurved bow next to an Ottoman one and you'll see weapons of almost identical proportions (distinct from Manchu, Sino-Tibetan, and Indian bows) and performance characteristics. The Korean and Turkish weapons are known for their ability to shoot very light arrows at velocities and over distances unmatched by the bows of other nations. Our colleague Peter Dekker is a wealth of info on this subject and I suggest that you contact him if you have further interest.

Philip · 25th May 2010, 07:47 AM

Thomas,
Like the Koreans, the Chinese under Qing rule maintained their tradition of military archery (at least in theory) until quite late. Rigorous tests of shooting ability on foot and from the saddle were a part of the Chinese military officers' exams until the entire traditional examination system was abolished in 1905. Although the bow had co-existed with the musket up to the mid-19th cent., we see that from that point onwards, firearms gradually supplanted it as even matchlocks began to give way to imported percussion-lock (and later breechloading) guns and rifles during the second half of the century. The impetus was undoubtedly due to unprecedented Western military pressure, which for China began with the First Opium War in the 1840s. The unavoidable move towards newer styles of firearms under these conditions can be compared to Ottoman Turkey's evolution from matchlock to flint to later firearms systems in its military under centuries of competitive pressure from a hostile Europe on its doorstep.

bluelake · 25th May 2010, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philip

Thomas,
John L. Boots, in his monograph KOREAN WEAPONS AND ARMOUR (Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Korea Branch, 1934), mentions that of all the martial arts, archery was the most esteemed in pre-modern Korea. I find it interesting to note that this particular affection for the bow and arrow is also a defining characteristic of the martial cultures of the Manchus, Mongols, and Turks -- peoples, who along with the Koreans are members of the Ural-Altaic linguistic family. Put a Korean composite-recurved bow next to an Ottoman one and you'll see weapons of almost identical proportions (distinct from Manchu, Sino-Tibetan, and Indian bows) and performance characteristics. The Korean and Turkish weapons are known for their ability to shoot very light arrows at velocities and over distances unmatched by the bows of other nations. Our colleague Peter Dekker is a wealth of info on this subject and I suggest that you contact him if you have further interest.

Thanks, Philip, but I literally wrote the book on Korean traditional archery

My website: http://www.koreanarchery.org (my book is on the front page).

T

Dmitry · 15th June 2010, 02:58 AM

Here are some promised illustrations of the Russian style lock.

bluelake · 16th June 2010, 03:33 AM

Thanks, Dmitry. Do you think this might have been the type of lock used in the early 17 C. that the Koreans captured from the Russians?

24th May 2010, 11:47 PM	#2
Philip Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: California Posts: 1,036	Russian flint mechanisms / matchlock longevity Perhaps the best pictorial source for a number of 17th cent. Russian guns (almost all of them being deluxe-grade sporting arms for royalty) is Yuri Miller (ed.) RUSSIAN ARMS AND ARMOUR (Leningrad: Aurora 1982), plates 48-75. This should be studied in conjunction with Howard L. Blackmore's classic, profusely photo-illustrated GUNS AND RIFLES OF THE WORLD (NY: Viking, 1965) which puts these Russian guns in the proper historical context vis-a-vis firearms technology in neighboring North European countries at the time. Looking at the examples in Miller's book, one can see that although they are, generally speaking, all members of the "flintlock" family, there are a number of mechanical details that differentiate them and which point to influences from a number of outside sources. These influences are explainable considering the role of the Hanseatic states in Russian history, and the influx of foreign experts (most notably Scandian, Dutch, Scottish, Italian and others) in the growth of Russia's military, industries, and educational institutions. One can see that: 1. Some Russian locks (Miller, pl 48-50, 60, 73) have a rounded "bulge" in the contour of the lockplate slightly ahead of midpoint. This shape has no relevance in the layout of a flintlock mechanism's operating parts, but is a vestigial, stylistic holdover from the earler wheellock (which was apparently little-used in Russia). This decorative feature is seen on early flint mechanisms from other European countries as well, notably France, Italy, and even Spain and soon disappeared once the flintlock technology matured. 2. A few Russian locks have large external V-shaped mainsprings which power the cock (Miller, pl 50a, 51b, 62a, 65,) which at first blush points to a similarity with various Scandinavian and Baltic locks (Blackmore, figs. 134-42). However it is interesting to note that almost all of the mainsprings on the Russian locks press down on the forward portion or toe of the cock's "foot"; just one in Miller pushes upward against the heel or tail. The former type is seen in the typical Italian version (alla romana) of the miquelet lock ; the latter is almost universal on the primitive early flintlocks of Scandinavia. 3. The remainder of the Russian locks have internal springs and S-shaped cocks which are stopped at the bottom of their range of travel by a buffer block screwed to the lockplate, these features being almost identical to those seen on Dutch and Scottish locks. 4. Practically all of the locks on the guns shown in Miller are SNAPHAUNCES: the priming pan cover slides forward via a mechanical linkage to the internal tumbler connected to the cock, and the steel or frizzen is an entirely separate component. Many of these Russian locks are obviously derived from Dutch prototypes. Scandinavian gun locks of the period are either SNAPHAUNCES or rudimentary FLINTLOCKS, the latter having a pivoting pan cover and steel combined into one L-shaped unit. In short, the study of early flintlocks in Russia is complicated by the multiplicity of technological and stylistic influences in various combinations, indicating that Russian artisans were trying to achieve what they thought was the best of all possible worlds. I realize that this merry little excursion through north Europe may seem to have little bearing on Korea, but any study of the actual Korean flint locks (if any survive) or textual references to them should be done in comparison with the mechanical elements discussed above, since the introduction of flint technology into Korea appears to have been via contact with either Dutch or Russians. Now, onto the question often posed quite often: why did the matchlock remain the characteristic firearms mechanism for so long in the Far East and SE Asia despite the fact that flint systems were not unknown there? For a long time, it has been thought that sheer conservatism was the reason. Perhaps it could have been due to this combo of factors: 1. Economy borne out of simplicity and compatibility with local crafts traditions and the desire for self-sufficiency. Some cultures, such as Japan's, were not entirely comfortable with screw-thread fastening or the tempering of powerful springs, both essential for sophisticated gun lock construction. Matchcord is easy to produce, and the locks do not require the availability of large amounts of good quality flints, which wear out after a number of shots. AND 2. In many of the culture-spheres, the martial tradition possessed powerful bows and arrows which although requiring far more skill to use effectively, were capable of a faster rate of fire, and in the case of Korea, far greater useful range than firearms were capable of up to the mid-19th cent. Furthermore, although oriental bows can be affected by moisture, they remain usable past the point at which a muzzle loaded firearm with a priming-pan would become so dampened as to be unshootable. AND 3. It was not until the 19th cent. that states such as China, Japan, and Korea faced a significant threat from gun-using Western states. The Ottoman Turks, who also possessed an impressive archery tradition, was under great pressure to update its weaponry for several centuries before that due to its proximity to Europe, especially the central European states which pioneered the use of rifles (as opposed to smoothbore muskets) beginning in the 16th cent. Thus we see that in Turkey, firearms development from matchlock to flint ignition (both miquelet and true flintlock) and more advanced systems occured at a pace comparable to that seen in most of Europe. Furthermore, of all Oriental cultures, the Turks made the most use of rifled barrels, which were all but ignored in the Far East until the importation of Western military arms towards the end of the percussion-lock era. Last edited by Philip; 25th May 2010 at 08:00 AM.

25th May 2010, 07:33 AM	#4
Philip Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: California Posts: 1,036	Korean reverence for archery Thomas, John L. Boots, in his monograph KOREAN WEAPONS AND ARMOUR (Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Korea Branch, 1934), mentions that of all the martial arts, archery was the most esteemed in pre-modern Korea. I find it interesting to note that this particular affection for the bow and arrow is also a defining characteristic of the martial cultures of the Manchus, Mongols, and Turks -- peoples, who along with the Koreans are members of the Ural-Altaic linguistic family. Put a Korean composite-recurved bow next to an Ottoman one and you'll see weapons of almost identical proportions (distinct from Manchu, Sino-Tibetan, and Indian bows) and performance characteristics. The Korean and Turkish weapons are known for their ability to shoot very light arrows at velocities and over distances unmatched by the bows of other nations. Our colleague Peter Dekker is a wealth of info on this subject and I suggest that you contact him if you have further interest.

25th May 2010, 07:47 AM	#5
Philip Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: California Posts: 1,036	military role of archery Thomas, Like the Koreans, the Chinese under Qing rule maintained their tradition of military archery (at least in theory) until quite late. Rigorous tests of shooting ability on foot and from the saddle were a part of the Chinese military officers' exams until the entire traditional examination system was abolished in 1905. Although the bow had co-existed with the musket up to the mid-19th cent., we see that from that point onwards, firearms gradually supplanted it as even matchlocks began to give way to imported percussion-lock (and later breechloading) guns and rifles during the second half of the century. The impetus was undoubtedly due to unprecedented Western military pressure, which for China began with the First Opium War in the 1840s. The unavoidable move towards newer styles of firearms under these conditions can be compared to Ottoman Turkey's evolution from matchlock to flint to later firearms systems in its military under centuries of competitive pressure from a hostile Europe on its doorstep.

15th June 2010, 02:58 AM	#7
Dmitry Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 607	Here are some promised illustrations of the Russian style lock. Attached Images

23rd May 2010, 05:46 AM	#1
bluelake Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Gyeongsan, South Korea Posts: 57	Thanks, Dmitry!

25th May 2010, 12:57 AM	#3
bluelake Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Gyeongsan, South Korea Posts: 57	Thanks, Philip! The information is greatly appreciated and very informative. I will look into the books you mentioned. It's interesting to note that, in Korea, the bow remained an official military weapon until the mid-1890s, but was probably not officially used in battle after the 1860s. In the US military incursion of 1871, although there were bows in Korea's arsenal (at least on paper), none were used and none captured by the US. In the French incursion of 1866, there is evidence they were still being used militarily and at least one was captured by the French (That bow was given to me almost a decade ago by a friend in France and I gave it to the Korean Army Museum). Thomas http://www.shinmiyangyo.org

16th June 2010, 03:33 AM	#8
bluelake Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Gyeongsan, South Korea Posts: 57	Thanks, Dmitry. Do you think this might have been the type of lock used in the early 17 C. that the Koreans captured from the Russians?