Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > European Armoury
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 22nd May 2010, 12:59 AM   #1
bluelake
Member
 
bluelake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Gyeongsan, South Korea
Posts: 57
Default 17th Century Puzzle

I have been doing a lot of research on Korean firearms during the Joseon dynasty (1392-1910) and I ran across one intriguing puzzle. In the 17th century, Korea came in contact with some type(s) of friction-type firelock firearm(s); however, that technology was never pursued and the country stayed with the Japanese-style matchlock right up to the end of the 19th century. In 1631, a Korean diplomat to China, by the name of Jeong Du-won (鄭斗源), brought back from that country some type of friction-type firelock gun. In 1658, China requested that Korea attack Russian troops in the area of Yeonhaeju (Primorye) and they captured many more of some type of friction firelock weapons. The Korean records do not go into detail and no examples of what they obtained are known to exist in Korea.

My question is, knowing the countries they were obtained from (China and Russia) and the time periods (1630s and 1650s), what would they have likely been? Snaphaunces? Miquelets? Something else? Any and all guesses are welcome (pictures are welcome, too! ). The information will help me a lot on my dissertation and I will happily attribute sources in it
bluelake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2010, 01:02 PM   #2
fernando
Lead Moderator European Armoury
 
fernando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
Default

Try and PM our fellow member Philip.
He might be within this subject ... not sure.
Fernando
fernando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2010, 02:21 PM   #3
bluelake
Member
 
bluelake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Gyeongsan, South Korea
Posts: 57
Default

Thanks, I did. Also, if anyone else knows anything, all help is greatly appreciated
bluelake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2010, 03:08 PM   #4
bluelake
Member
 
bluelake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Gyeongsan, South Korea
Posts: 57
Default

I found this on another site with the caption:
Quote:
A flint-style lighting mechanism, most likely a wheelock, as depicted in a Ming firearms manual published in 1638.
Wheelocks were used by the later Qing Dynasty military as well
Attached Images
 
bluelake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2010, 09:30 PM   #5
Philip
Member
 
Philip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: California
Posts: 1,036
Default Origins of match- and flint locks in E Asia

Thanks for initiating an interesting thread. To respond to your questions and comments:
1. First off, the so-called "Japanese style" matchlock is of Indo-Portuguese origin. Japan and Korea were the last areas to receive this technology, which was a fusion of Germanic/Lusitanian/Indian elements developed at the turn of the 16th cent. An example of one of these Goanese muskets, perhaps the only published example known, is in Holger Schuckelt, DIE TUERCKISCHE CAMMER (Dresden, Sandstein 2009), cat. 60, p 79. The matchlocks of SE Asia are of Indo-Portuguese type along with many from China.
2. The woodcut illus. of the gun in your post above dates from the Ming Dynasty. Flint ignition systems were known in China (as they were in Japan) but never supplanted the matchlock in either country. There are a handful of Japanese examples, and their mechanicals are derived from Dutch-style snaphaunces. This Chinese example is interesting -- Portuguese ancestry here. The cock is powered by a mainspring outside the lockplate pushing up on the cock's tail, which is identical to the way a Hispano/Portuguese "patilha" lock (the familiar miquelet) operates. The shape of the lockplate, the angle of the cock, and the crescentic terminus of the cock jaw screw are similar to that on the Portuguese "pescoco de cavalo" (horse neck) lock, an early flint mechanism in which the mainspring has been moved inside the lockplate. The horse neck lock, which is now rare, originated in the latter 16th cent. See Rainer Daehnhardt, ESPINGARDA FEITICEIRA: A INTRODUCAO DA ARMA DE FOGO PELOS PORTUGUESES NO EXTREMO-ORIENTE (Lisboa: Texto Editora, 1994), p 100.

Also, note the shape of the stock of the gun in the picture. It is a short-butt, cheek-fired design, classic Indo-Portuguese shape. The guns made in the Malay archipelago down to the end of the 19th cent. have butts of identical shape.
3. Wheel locks were known in China, courtesy Jesuit missionaries at the court in Beijing, by the 18th cent. In the cabinet d'armes of the Qianlong emperor (r 1736-95) are several wheellock sporting guns, all of Chinese make and design, right down to the locks themselves.
4. When the Koreans (and later the Qing forces during the Kangxi reign) fought the Russians in the Primorye region, the Cossacks and other forces opposing them had guns using a type of flintlock common in Scandinavia at the time. It had an external mainspring but was stylistically distinct (and appeared to be of less substantial construction) than the Portuguese and Spanish models. The buttstocks of these guns are long, for resting against the shoulder when aiming.

This is a brief coverage of the points raised in the above posts, my apologies if I've overlooked anything. Please pose any questions and comments and I'll do my best to address them.
Philip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd May 2010, 01:58 AM   #6
bluelake
Member
 
bluelake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Gyeongsan, South Korea
Posts: 57
Default

Philip,

Thank you very much for the information. It is quite helpful. Do you have any pictures or drawings of the type the Russians would have used in the 1650s in the Primorye region?

As mentioned in the OP, the Koreans had some type of friction firelock gun at least as early as the 1630s. As with what you mentioned about Japan and China, Korea stuck with the matchlocks (until the end of the 19th century); it would be interesting to know why they didn't pursue the new technology further. I am guessing part of it might be because much of the 17th century, aside from interruptions by Ming and Ching, was relatively peaceful for Korea (in comparison to the end of the 16th century), so there was little impetus for major advancement of weapons.

Still, the technology was evidently used to improve their matchlocks. A Korean author, Song Haeng (1760-1839) wrote about the Dutch shipwreck in Korea (1653), in which one of the survivors, Hendrick Hamel, kept a journal. An earlier Dutch shipwreck survivor, Jan Janse Weltevree, had been working and living in Korea for a couple decades by that time and provided translation between the Koreans and Hamel's group. Here is what Song wrote (http://www.hendrick-hamel.henny-save...anstudies2.htm):

Quote:
Amongst the survivors of the shipwreck there were some artillery experts. On board their ship there were around 30 cannons. These were on wheels, so they were easily maneuverable. When a shot was fired, the cannon rolled a distance to the back. Thus, the power of the recoil was taken and prevented the barrel from splitting open. Their muskets also showed an ingenious design. When fired, the powder is ignited by a spark made by hitting a piece of flint against an iron point. This takes place by means of a spring mechanism, which can be latched and unlatched .
According to Hamel's diary, the Koreans salvaged quite a bit from his ship and Song Haeng said that all weaponry salvaged was sent to Seoul. Later, according to Hamel, he and his men were made king's guard and were issued matchlocks, black powder and lead. Between Weltevree and any of Hamel's group who were knowledgeable about gunsmithing, improvements to Korean matchlocks could easily be made. As it was recorded in the Annals of Joseon Kings, something along those lines surely happened. The records of 1657 show, "Dutch sailors drifted into Joseon. They brought with them new matchlock manufacturing methods" and in 1658 was recorded, "For the first time, it was possible for Joseon to make good matchlocks. This was proven by the fact that Ching requested 100 matchlocks". That was in the 1650s, as were the battles with the Russians, so they had firelock mechanisms from three sources (including the one obtained in 1631).

The information is greatly appreciated.

Last edited by bluelake; 23rd May 2010 at 02:22 AM.
bluelake is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.