Arquebuses 1460-1480

[Spiridonov]

I need of photos of arquebuses from 1460 to 1480 years. Especially with the remained wood.

[Matchlock]

Hi Spiridonov,

As you you, these items retaining their original stocks are almost impossible to find. We know of some 1460-80 haquebuts with their stocks actually retained but of less than five surviving short, portable (h)arquebuses.

The earliest and crudest of them may be a piece at the Pilsen Armory (top).

A second, now at the Royal Armouries Leeds, may be as early as the 1470's-80's (next down in line). The snap tinder mechanism is missing except for the main spring.

Four others, illustrated in Diebold Schilling's Berne Chronicle (1483), seemingly have no surviving syblings; their butt stocks look strikingly modern.

Another actual sample, at the Bavarian Army Museum Ingolstadt, should in my opinion be dated "ca. 1500"; it never had a mechanism. Exactly this type is illustrated in Diebold Schilling's Lucerne Chronicle of 1513.

Of a different type of early stocks we have only an illustration in the Landshut Armory Inventory of 1485.

Regards,
Michael

[Spiridonov]

Thank you very much! some of this already i saw, but some was opening for me. Look at some detales on this pictures:

[Spiridonov]

Why did this arquebus is dated so? There is no deepening for a lockplate. How its lock looked? do you have high quality photo of this? Do you have photo from another viewes? Do you know calibre and length? Sorry - too much questions

[Matchlock]

Hi Spiridonov,

Brilliant questions.

Let me try and answer them as precisely as I can. I attach the images marked by you.

1. The design on the buttstocks of these early (h)arquebuses is not a lock plate or a stylized mechanism but a carved double volute ornament.

2. The arquebuses illustrated in Diebold Schilling's Lucerne Chronicle of 1513 are ignited clearly by means of a snap tinder lock (tinder is a kind of fungus growing on trees and was lighted by the smoldering matchcord) but no details are shown.

3. The dating of this arquebus is based on the shape of the early Landsknecht (mercenary) buttstock and the barrel with its integral back sight at the extreme rear and no pronouned muzzle section which somtimes occurs between ca. 1470-1500.

4. The snap tinder lock mechanism of the gun no. 3, of which only the main spring is retained, was nailed or clamped to the stock and certainly looked a lot like the ones on the Pilsen arquebuses - with the exception that the small serpentine plate was not present yet.

Regards,
Michael

[Jim McDougall]

You guys are great!!! Excellent annotation on the artwork and perfectly posed questions followed by excellent (as always) answers.
Textbook guys!! pure textbook

Thank you,
All the best,
Jim

[Matchlock]

1-4. The famos so-called Maximilian arquebus, ca. 1500, the lock parts missing (no lock plate), the butt stock painted with the coat of arms of Maximilian I (1459-1519) while still King before he became Holy Roman Emperor in 1508. From the collection of William Goodwin Renwick (d. 1972), on store at the Smithsonian Institution Washington for some twenty years after, its present whereabouts unknown.
Note the brass clamps in the stock below the breech which formerly held the lock parts.

5. A contemporary woodcut by Albrecht Dürer depicting a similar arquebus.

6-7. An early snap tinder mechanism without a lock plate, from the Maximilian Armory Inventories, ca. 1502.

Regards,
Michael

[Spiridonov]

Thank you very much!!! Realy good anwear.

1. I have attentively looked. Probably it is simple serpentine
2. The interpretation of hole in wood. I think that hole help to hold slowmatch during time of reloadind or firing.
3. Still which that that helps to date is an hole in wood. I did not see such after 1500. Hole in wood usually is drawn on images obout 1470-80.
Do you have another photos of arquebus number 3 ?What is material of barrel? Was the flash pan have a cover?

Sorry my English is very bad

[Matchlock]

Hi Spirodonov,

First of all: don't worry, your English is pefectly understood.

According to my present knowledge, and as I posted here earlier, the hole in the butt stock was for keeping the gun supended muzzle down in the amory, just like the stirrup of a crossbow. There are only three arquebuses known to have survived with such a butt hole: two almost identical preserved at the Royal Armouries Leeds, both from the armory of the Dukes of Brunswick; the b/w photo I posted shows the somewhat earlier of them. Unfortunately there are no other photos around of this item. The barrel is of cast copper alloy ('bronze').
The third 'holed' arquebus, of almost identical shape and make, is in the Vienna amory, its lock parts (no plate) are modern replacements (illustrated below).

You are pefectly right, those holes seem to have disappeard by ca. 1500. They seem, however, had a temporary successor in the 1520's when an iron ring at the rear of the butt stock took over their function for a very short period of time - see attachment of a snap tinderlock arquebus from the Solothurn Armory, sold The Kuppelmayr Collection, Munich, 1896.

Interesting enough, the pan of the Royal Armouries arquebus never had a cover as there is no trace of a hole for the pivot, impractical though that must have been. In this aspect, the second arquebus is identical. I give a few images of it below, as I have done before.

As I have tried to show by various sources of illustration, the matchcord in these days is depicted held by hand or wound around the arm as it was only used to ignite the tiny piece of tinder used in the serpentine for actual ignition of the priming powder. So the match was not carried as an actual part of the gun.

As you seem to bear the same deep interest in these early guns as I do you really should read my older threads which hopefully reflect some essence of my intense studies in this topic for the past 30 years.

Best,
Michael

[Matchlock]

Hi Spiridonov,

To see a list of my previous posts, mostly on earliest firearms and related accouterments (5 pages), please click here:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/search.php?searchid=12050


Best,
Michael

[Spiridonov]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Hi Spiridonov,

To see a list of my previous posts, mostly on earliest firearms and related accouterments (5 pages), please click here:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/search.php?searchid=12050


Best,
Michael

It is a tragegy for me!!! I can't read this post. I see only :"Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms."

[Matchlock]

Please try this:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/search.php?searchid=12168

This should work!

Best,
Michael

[Matchlock]

The lock plate und butt trap cover missing, the wrought iron barrel ca. 1470-80, the sling hook now loose.

Michael

[Spiridonov]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

The lock plate und butt trap cover missing, the wrought iron barrel ca. 1470-80, the sling hook now loose.

Michael

I was saw another date of this arquebuse. About 1500

[Matchlock]

I know.

All I can do is give a date as close and correct as possible by my experience; I have never seen a complete lock plate (which the recess in the stock proves this piece originally was equipped with) or a butt trap or a thumb recess in historic sources that could be dated any earlier.

As I have stated, the barrel is some 30-40 years older and has been restocked during its working time.

Best,
Michael

[Matchlock]

Preserved there are 18 of them!

The barrels are somewhat older than their present stocks, ca. 1480.

Michael

[Spiridonov]

This arquebus (at top) is dating as 1500. This (below) you date as 1470-80. They are very VERY similar. Why there is a difference of 20-30 years?

[Matchlock]

Very good question!

Basically, the lower (in my opinion slightly earlier) one seems to have no foresight yet.

I agree with you that these differences are very minor and more or less academic. All in all we may attribute a probable dating range of "ca. 1480-1500" to both of them, including the Vienna sample, with a higher probablity towards 1500 for all.

In contrast, the Copenhagen piece clearly features an older barrel with shifted planes in the rear section and a pronouncedly swamped muzzle head (ca. 1470-80) that has been restocked in what is most probably the second decade of the 16th century.

Michael

[Matchlock]

Hi Spiridonov,

Please click:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=10350

Michael