A fine Nuremberg matchlock Landsknecht harquebus, dated 1539

Jim McDougall · 29th March 2009, 02:44 PM

I have been meaning to focus on these wonderful threads by Michael one at a time and try to learn more on these medieval firearms, and today was one of those opportunities. I am such a neanderthal when it comes to the dynamics and complexities of firearms, that much of it is difficult for me to connect...however in reading the brilliant discourse between Michael and Richard it seems remarkably understandable.
Its like textbook medieval firearms with two brilliant professors presenting a completely captivating course, and with Michael's amazing photos, its as if I am looking upon and handling the actual weapons.

In reading this, my only observations and questions are admittedly elementary, but I will state anyway.
It does seem like the Thirty Years war did bring many innovations and changes in weapons production, along with obviously profound other effects and influences in many perspectives. I had never thought of exactly how long an element so simple as a buttplate had been around, and now I can better realize its purposes as well. I have always had an addiction to discovering such details and minutiae (thank you Michael for the note on that word !

and it seems that often such seemingly irrelevant things can offer important clues in investigating weapons and thier developmental forms.

Excellent observations ,Richard on the screws, as noted by Michael (I think we should have a thread, no pun intended

on screws as used in early weapons). I think we have discussed this briefly on screws used on sword hilts, but need to look more into the topic.

I cannot help but wonder on these larger wall gun versions, if there was any problem with recoil. Would these have been like cannon used in naval situations, using lower charges due to closer quarters as the targets were so close? I am under the impression that firing these early firearms that the detonation on relatively uncompressed powder would not have produced very much recoil...would that be somewhat correct?

Thank you so much guys for continually developing this fascinating field of study here!!!

All very best regards,
Jim

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

29th March 2009, 02:44 PM	#30
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,278	I have been meaning to focus on these wonderful threads by Michael one at a time and try to learn more on these medieval firearms, and today was one of those opportunities. I am such a neanderthal when it comes to the dynamics and complexities of firearms, that much of it is difficult for me to connect...however in reading the brilliant discourse between Michael and Richard it seems remarkably understandable. Its like textbook medieval firearms with two brilliant professors presenting a completely captivating course, and with Michael's amazing photos, its as if I am looking upon and handling the actual weapons. In reading this, my only observations and questions are admittedly elementary, but I will state anyway. It does seem like the Thirty Years war did bring many innovations and changes in weapons production, along with obviously profound other effects and influences in many perspectives. I had never thought of exactly how long an element so simple as a buttplate had been around, and now I can better realize its purposes as well. I have always had an addiction to discovering such details and minutiae (thank you Michael for the note on that word ! and it seems that often such seemingly irrelevant things can offer important clues in investigating weapons and thier developmental forms. Excellent observations ,Richard on the screws, as noted by Michael (I think we should have a thread, no pun intended on screws as used in early weapons). I think we have discussed this briefly on screws used on sword hilts, but need to look more into the topic. I cannot help but wonder on these larger wall gun versions, if there was any problem with recoil. Would these have been like cannon used in naval situations, using lower charges due to closer quarters as the targets were so close? I am under the impression that firing these early firearms that the detonation on relatively uncompressed powder would not have produced very much recoil...would that be somewhat correct? Thank you so much guys for continually developing this fascinating field of study here!!! All very best regards, Jim