Battle accounts of matchlocks vs. flintlocks?

[user 56333]

I apologize for harping on about the First Opium War here, but I admit it's one of the few historical cases of matchlocks vs. flintlocks that I actually know about.
I was having a look through "Narrative of the Voyages and Services of the Nemesis from 1840 to 1843" (which is a great firsthand account written by a Brit who was there) and found a few interesting quotes in relation to the Chinese use of matchlocks, which may provide a contrast to what folks here know about how the Brits handled flintlocks and caplocks during this period.

Here's a quote which describes the accidents I referred to earlier around the manner in which the Chinese carried their powder:

"[matchlocks are] by no means so much in favour with the Chinese; this is occasioned principally by the danger arising from the use of the powder, in the careless way in which they carry it. They have a pouch in front, fastened round the body, and the powder is contained loose in a certain number of little tubes inside the pouch, not rolled up like our cartridges.

Of course, every soldier has to carry a match or port-fire to ignite the powder in the matchlock when loaded. Hence, when a poor fellow is wounded and falls, the powder, which is very apt to run out of his pouch over his clothes, is very likely to be ignited by his own match, and in this way he may either be blown up at once, or else his clothes may be ignited; indeed, it is not impossible that the match itself may be sufficient to produce this effect. At Chuenpee, many bodies were found after the action not only scorched, but completely burnt, evidently from the ignition of the powder."

And here's a quote from an engagement in which British troops were trying to dislodge "Tartars" (soldiers from northern China, possibly Manchus or Mongols) from a building, which indicates the potential hazards of leaving a matchlock and lit match unattended:

"It was next proposed to set the place on fire, for on one side the upper part of the building appeared to be built of wood [...] The fragments of the wood-work, which had tumbled down, were now collected into a heap by the sappers, and set on fire, which soon communicated to the rest of the building. Gradually, as it spread, the matchlocks of the Tartars (probably of the fallen) were heard to go off, and loud cries were uttered. The rest of the defenders must evidently surrender; and, on entering the doorway, the poor fellows could now be seen stripping off their clothes to avoid the flames, and running about in despair from one side to the other."

One thing I've noticed is, when the author of this book describes specific incidents of British soldiers being wounded by Chinese matchlock fire, it seems they were often hit low. For instance, he mentions an example of a soldier from the Royal Irish Regiment being hit in knee, and another of an officer from the 55th Regiment of Foot being wounded (ironically) in the foot. Of course, a more thorough examination of battle wounds from this conflict would be needed to determine whether there was any consistency to this, but it does make me wonder if perhaps the matchlock muskets used by the Chinese had a tendency to shoot low for some reason?

I'm unsure if there was any particular pattern to how the British flintlock and caplock guns in service during this era (late 1830s / early 1840s) tended to hit their target, but if anyone here knows, it'd be interesting for comparison's sake.

 

[cyten]

I admit I'm not every familiar with this campaign, beyond just hearing the general overview and its impact on Europe at the time. Could you share any particular accounts from this battle of matchlock vs. miquelet combat? Casualty rates from a particular engagement, reports on how the weapons functioned (or cases where they failed to) etc?

I am admittedly no expert in the battle itself, more familiar with the arms used. The Vienna Arsenal Museum has a wonderful collection of captured Ottoman guns and Austro-Hungarian arms used. To find any accounts or statistics would be something I’m not well versed enough to look into

 

[TobJohn]

I am admittedly no expert in the battle itself, more familiar with the arms used. The Vienna Arsenal Museum has a wonderful collection of captured Ottoman guns and Austro-Hungarian arms used. To find any accounts or statistics would be something I’m not well versed enough to look into

When researching this, a helpful term is “Türkenbeute”. I mostly found swords and banners, but I only looked for like 15 minutes.

 

[TobJohn]

Since we're talking about East Asia, I should perhaps also mention that Japan was one of the (seemingly) few nations that produced matchlock pistols! I have no idea how these fared in combat compared to a "firelock" pistol, though it would be interesting to know, if anyone here knows anything about them?

I suspect though that many of these Japanese pistols were intended more as a status symbol for the samurai elite, rather than an actual combat weapon. One thing I've noticed about them is that, similar to the East Asian muskets, they seem to have fairly short grips. Not sure how ergonomic they'd be. To my knowledge these were all smoothbore, I haven't yet encountered any examples with rifled barrels, although I admit I'm no expert.

During the 1850s-60s some of these matchlock pistols were converted to percussion, and may have seen service in the Boshin War, although I'm not nearly as familiar with that conflict as I am with the Opium Wars, so I don't know offhand any accounts of their use. However they still retained the awkward ergonomics that they'd had when they were matchlocks (namely the tiny grip).

Here's an example of a Japanese matchlock pistol, and also one that was converted to percussion in the 19th century:

I was thinking about these matchlock pistols and I wonder if Europe never bothered inventing them because the wheellock had already been invented by the time guns started to be decisive. There is good evidence that wheellocks existed before Cerignola (1503) which is considered the first battle won due to infantry gun fire (I did see an interesting claim that the technology of guns was irrelevant and crossbows would have done the same). There is even gun control laws banning them a decade before Pavia (1525), which is considered to be the real turning point for guns in war.

 

[user 56333]

I was thinking about these matchlock pistols and I wonder if Europe never bothered inventing them because the wheellock had already been invented by the time guns started to be decisive. There is good evidence that wheellocks existed before Cerignola (1503) which is considered the first battle won due to infantry gun fire (I did see an interesting claim that the technology of guns was irrelevant and crossbows would have done the same). There is even gun control laws banning them a decade before Pavia (1525), which is considered to be the real turning point for guns in war.

Could be. The only other place I've heard of which developed matchlock pistols was the Indian subcontinent, which likewise didn't have a native wheellock design (at least as far as I know).

 

[Rudyard]

As a complete aside & not really relavant but in about 1974 I took an original Germanic Wheel lock lock to get copied in the Birmingham of India Cawnpore because then as now I was intrigued by Wheelocks & other wierd stuff .The Merchant took it apart and let different workshops make the different part so that no one group could start produceing them & rival merchants be able to copy them . They made me a dozen or so and they could only be described as' an assembled kit ' so much work required to make them function as intended but in the circumstanses still a basis to work up I made two rifles & have a spare but who ever actually made up guns I've no idea . It was to be MY sole buyer of this My developement and I mused perhaps they might be the only wheellocks ever produced in India since our (Western) influence was primerally well after wheellock days . But of course no Indian merchant can resist peddleing my or anyones sole development and my merchant did just that . . So I gave up on such ventures other than buying old guns from down at heel ' Ex Rulers' the various Maharajas of so called ' Native States 'who after Independance no longer had the pensions we paid them to basicaly keep out of our hair while we developed railways roads bridges post offices ports ect and tended to general government .
.I one day took tea with three such Maharajas who I found cordial and realistically excepted their new station in Indian society . No more stable of Rolls Royce's & gunrooms full of 'Best' London hunting rifles ,No steam train kept in steam in case some unexpected regal visitor should call & fancy going hunting on the Nizams extensive estates . No it was all decay buildings once magnificent let go to ruin' armories littered with swords & matchlocks or Sniders or whatever they figured befitting to the estate I kicked a Beautiful detracted lock from a once ' best' English rifle just lying-in the thick dust one had a belt fed machine gun lying in the dust old now empty gun racks. The HRH holding court on his porch by hurricane lamp light while I posing as a tourist gave the nod to the dealer to clinch the purchase of a nice cased db Jefferies best 450 400 N and to me a nice Lancaster's ' slide & tilt' DB 450 3 & a quarter" BP express with a rear sight going up to 1.000 yards increments in English & opposite Hindi increments , oval bore of course .Ive allway's though such sight increments where the engravers guess since few could have shot them at such ranges and a such ranges you couldn't SEE an Elephant let alone try to place a shot . But it sold a gun . They seemed usually devoid of the loading tools ect if cased My theory is the servants took out such items to be less weight to hump on train trips . then you got the most ratty chewed on black damaged case & inside there might be a best H & H Royal ejectors double ..Indian recovered guns show two clear signs the stocks are black with some rancid ghee or whatever they coat them with & the bore are so oiled it runs into the wrist and rots the wood . while Africa guns show extreem sun blanching & cracked horn parts .. Any way Ime straying off topic a bit So shall desist.
Regards Rudyard .

 

[Cvkotvkse]

Okay, I have been having some MAJOR problems being able to post a reply on the Forum for a week... Switched devices, so here goes...
On the night of May 28, 1668, the 82nd anniversary of the sacking of St. Augustine by Sir Francis Drake, the Spanish presideo was again attacked by a feared Englsh sea captain; this time, it was the pirate crew of Robert Searles.
A night battle with the defenders armed primarily with matchlocks, and the attackers with various types of flint-ignition-system weapons. The pirates simp.y aimed for the glowing matchcords and fired. By morning, the Spanish had suffered 60 fatalities, and were forced to ransom the town and several prominent inhabitants thereof in order to prevent total annihilation of the capital of Spanish Florida and possibly its entire populace. In the aftermath, the deputy governor wrote his superiors pleading, "Please send us escopetas, for with these we can fight without being seen." The governor in Habana responded by not only upgrading the weaponry to some extent, but also finally procuring and providing the funds to replace the latest in a series of wooden stockades for emergency refuge with a modified Vauban fortrress made of the native coquina shell concretion, the famed Castillo San Marcos.
The matchlocks, BTW. were still issued to musketeers out in the mission chains, and were used to arm a Native defense force at the fort at St. Marks on the coast south of modern-day Tallahassee as late as 1740...

I studied this engagement as part of my research paper while an undergrad at the FSU Archeological Field School in St. Augustine in 1978.
Here is an informative., albeit less formal, account of the battle and results...

https://thefloridasqueeze.com/2020/...tine-raid-and-the-founding-of-south-carolina/

 

[Rudyard]

Excellent accounts of an area I knew little about though I did visit Veracruz on route to Belize one year.Took the cement scow' Annabelle Patricia' to Puerta Cortez then due to a hurricane & helping to save the loss of a Cayman Island Tramp .The' Kirk B 'got a working passage to Kingston on her about 1973. I being used to Africans who are generally pleasant the Kingston lot where positively dour & hostile so . didn't think much of Jamaica .or Kingston at least .
Regards Rudyard

 

[RAEDWALD]

'Potage'? 'Soup? Surely, you mean 'portage', Sir!

‘Six hundred feet of potage and half a mile of bread for the troops Colour Sergeant. It is a cold day‘. Mind you, I have had porridge that could be cut into strips so maybe the Highland regiments got six hundred feet of porridge. I now have a mental picture of wagons carrying huge rolls of porridge ready to be cut to length for daily issue to the troops in the field.

I will stop now and take my medication. Nurse!

 

[RAEDWALD]

I apologize for harping on about the First Opium War here, but I admit it's one of the few historical cases of matchlocks vs. flintlocks that I actually know about.
I was having a look through "Narrative of the Voyages and Services of the Nemesis from 1840 to 1843" (which is a great firsthand account written by a Brit who was there) and found a few interesting quotes in relation to the Chinese use of matchlocks, which may provide a contrast to what folks here know about how the Brits handled flintlocks and caplocks during this period.

Here's a quote which describes the accidents I referred to earlier around the manner in which the Chinese carried their powder:

"[matchlocks are] by no means so much in favour with the Chinese; this is occasioned principally by the danger arising from the use of the powder, in the careless way in which they carry it. They have a pouch in front, fastened round the body, and the powder is contained loose in a certain number of little tubes inside the pouch, not rolled up like our cartridges.

Of course, every soldier has to carry a match or port-fire to ignite the powder in the matchlock when loaded. Hence, when a poor fellow is wounded and falls, the powder, which is very apt to run out of his pouch over his clothes, is very likely to be ignited by his own match, and in this way he may either be blown up at once, or else his clothes may be ignited; indeed, it is not impossible that the match itself may be sufficient to produce this effect. At Chuenpee, many bodies were found after the action not only scorched, but completely burnt, evidently from the ignition of the powder."

And here's a quote from an engagement in which British troops were trying to dislodge "Tartars" (soldiers from northern China, possibly Manchus or Mongols) from a building, which indicates the potential hazards of leaving a matchlock and lit match unattended:

"It was next proposed to set the place on fire, for on one side the upper part of the building appeared to be built of wood [...] The fragments of the wood-work, which had tumbled down, were now collected into a heap by the sappers, and set on fire, which soon communicated to the rest of the building. Gradually, as it spread, the matchlocks of the Tartars (probably of the fallen) were heard to go off, and loud cries were uttered. The rest of the defenders must evidently surrender; and, on entering the doorway, the poor fellows could now be seen stripping off their clothes to avoid the flames, and running about in despair from one side to the other."

One thing I've noticed is, when the author of this book describes specific incidents of British soldiers being wounded by Chinese matchlock fire, it seems they were often hit low. For instance, he mentions an example of a soldier from the Royal Irish Regiment being hit in knee, and another of an officer from the 55th Regiment of Foot being wounded (ironically) in the foot. Of course, a more thorough examination of battle wounds from this conflict would be needed to determine whether there was any consistency to this, but it does make me wonder if perhaps the matchlock muskets used by the Chinese had a tendency to shoot low for some reason?

I'm unsure if there was any particular pattern to how the British flintlock and caplock guns in service during this era (late 1830s / early 1840s) tended to hit their target, but if anyone here knows, it'd be interesting for comparison's sake.

Read and download at: https://ia802703.us.archive.org/22/items/bub_gb_EQjHGlPbjPkC/bub_gb_EQjHGlPbjPkC.pdf for Volume I
https://ia600303.us.archive.org/12/items/narrativevoyage01hallgoog/narrativevoyage01hallgoog.pdf for Volume II

 

[TobJohn]

I was thinking about these matchlock pistols and I wonder if Europe never bothered inventing them because the wheellock had already been invented by the time guns started to be decisive. There is good evidence that wheellocks existed before Cerignola (1503) which is considered the first battle won due to infantry gun fire (I did see an interesting claim that the technology of guns was irrelevant and crossbows would have done the same). There is even gun control laws banning them a decade before Pavia (1525), which is considered to be the real turning point for guns in war.

After some recent reading, I want to slightly amend this. Wheellock pistols did not become common in combat until the mid 1500s. The book I am reading theorizes that it took a while between the wheellock invention and its widespread use for the tactics to develop enough to create the demand.

 

[user 56333]

After some recent reading, I want to slightly amend this. Wheellock pistols did not become common in combat until the mid 1500s. The book I am reading theorizes that it took a while between the wheellock invention and its widespread use for the tactics to develop enough to create the demand.

Makes you wonder why Europeans never seem to have considered making matchlock pistols, unlike the Indians or Japanese. I understand the obvious disadvantages of a matchlock handgun, but still if you're in that early period when not much else exists...

 

[TobJohn]

Makes you wonder why Europeans never seem to have considered making matchlock pistols, unlike the Indians or Japanese. I understand the obvious disadvantages of a matchlock handgun, but still if you're in that early period when not much else exists...

My general understanding:

• The era of the knights(Gendarmes/men at arms) with full plate armor and lances is from the end of the 100 years war to the end of the Italian wars (with some extension before and after)
• While pikes won against heavy cavalry in Burgundian wars and permanently shifted the balance of power towards infantry, heavy cavalry was still a decisive force on the battle field
• The early Italian wars saw gun armed troops defeating cavalry while entrenched (Cerignola in 1503), but lance armed French cavalry still managed to win battles after, particularly against other cavalry (Ravenna in 1512)
• The mid Italian wars started to see gun armed infantry defeat cavalry in the open (Pavia in 1525)
• The growing utility of gun armed troops, as well as the introduction of the musket allowed infantry to properly threaten cavalry at a range longer than a pikes length (High quality plate armor was still sufficient against most of these guns).
• Despite this advancement for the infantry, traditional heavy cavalry could still win the day (Ceresole in 1544).

At this point we see that infantry is a serious threat to heavy cavalry, but has not made them obsolete. There are now several factors that lead to the decline of traditional heavy cavalry (lancers) and pistol armed cavalry (Reiters, Cuirassiers, harquebusier) becoming dominant.

• Lancer cavalry struggled to break disciplined and refined formations of guns and pikes that could threaten them at range and up close.
  • The square shape used by tercios was a fortress designed to repel cavalry.
• The cost of traditional heavy cavalry was absurdly expensive.
  • Lancers were the most expensive formation on the battlefield (besides maybe siege artillery).
  • Armies continuously got larger since the Italian wars, which meant high proportions of these troops were impossible to financially maintain.
• The Lancers could no longer win against other cavalry!

The last point is very important. The mid 1500s brought a dilemma where there needed to be a change in cavalry use and armament. Notice how this lines up with my previous mention of when wheellock pistols became widespread. The technology existed and now there was the demand.

The first step was finding a solution to break the pike square. This brought the historically controversial tactic of caracole. By using the pistol, cavalry could ride up in front of the infantry, fire, and then wheel off to reload. I mentioned that this is controversial because most historians claim that it did not actually work. A good piece of evidence for this is that an infantry musket vastly outranges a pistol.

While the caracole did not work well, it lead to the development of Reiters and Cuirassiers. These cavalry were pistol armed and had varying levels of armor. A surprising advantage to them is that the came out on top against the traditional heavy cavalry in engagements. They could charge in and after surviving the initial lances, defeat the traditional horse bound apex predators that were the lancers. Once in melee, the lance was useless, but the pistol could still outrange the sword and penetrate weakspots in armor. We have now reached a point where pistol armed cavalry was the best form of cavalry against other cavalry, was cheaper, and had more (if still lacking) utility against disciplined infantry.

why the wheellock?

• Even with the decline of lancers and traditional knightly combat, cavalry was still wealthy and landed.
• The cost of a wheellock was small compared to the cost of even the cheaper cavalry.
• Because cavalry was wealthy, they had servants to deal with the finnicky maintenance of the wheellock.
• As mentioned in my previous comment, when there was a need for a cavalry gun, the wheellock was already a developed system.
• Unlike matchlocks, wheellocks can be carried primed, loaded, and ready to fire.
• No one was going to let peasants run around with small matchlocks.
• Once cavalry pistols reached the utilitarian stage of form and decoration at the end of the 30 years war, the cheaper flintlock was on the horizon.

Please note, this only applies to western and central Europe. Polish Hussars maintained their dominance over infantry until the end of the 1600s. Eastern and Ottoman heavy cavalry also continued to use the bow in this period.

Apologies for any formatting or grammar errors. For my sources, please see: Gunpowder Warfare In The Renaissance: 3 Book Recommendations and: The Italian Wars 1494-1559: War, State and Society in E…

 

[user 56333]

Very informative post there. I'm no expert on this period but what you're saying seems to make sense to me.

I guess we can infer, then, that European cavalry never really used matchlocks in any capacity, whether pistols or shoulder-fired guns; they just skipped that stage and went straight to wheellocks and "firelocks". Very different story from what happened in Asia. There were Manchu/Mongol cavalry during the Second Opium War still using matchlock carbines, and with some dexterity if the eyewitness accounts are anything to go by. It's interesting to see the different evolutions in firearms use between the two regions...

 

[user 56333]

In relation to the above, I went back and checked one of my sources and found an account which may suggest a type of "caracole" style tactic used by matchlock-armed cavalry in the Second Opium War, or at least some form of hit-and-run. According to a British eyewitness:

"In the use of their weapons, such as they are, these Tartars and Mongolians displayed considerable dexterity in the action of yesterday. The matchlock-men were frequently seen, when retreating at full speed, to turn round, fire off their pieces, and reload as they galloped away."
That's from "The British Arms in North China and Japan: Peking 1860; Kagosima 1862" by David Field Rennie.

I should mention though that Manchu/Mongolian cavalry in this period were using shoulder-fired matchlocks on horseback, not pistols, at least as far as I've seen.

 

[TobJohn]

Very informative post there. I'm no expert on this period but what you're saying seems to make sense to me.

I guess we can infer, then, that European cavalry never really used matchlocks in any capacity, whether pistols or shoulder-fired guns; they just skipped that stage and went straight to wheellocks and "firelocks". Very different story from what happened in Asia. There were Manchu/Mongol cavalry during the Second Opium War still using matchlock carbines, and with some dexterity if the eyewitness accounts are anything to go by. It's interesting to see the different evolutions in firearms use between the two regions...

The matchlock pistols were still fairly rare though, right? I am not that well read on pre 1800s Asian history, but I assume it was based on need.

India and Japan did not have the same plate armor they needed to defeat, or pike and shot formations to overcome (not so sure about Japan for that one) so they could continue to use bows and not need to develop a better gun for the cavalry.

Even the Ottomans and the Poles, who frequently fought central/western European pistol armed cavalry and pike and shot formations were able to score some incredible success without the use of pistols. While a sensationalized claim, Gustav Adolphus is credited with re introducing the cavalry charge to the rest of Europe because the Swedes had been on some humiliating receiving ends against the Poles.

 

[TobJohn]

In relation to the above, I went back and checked one of my sources and found an account which may suggest a type of "caracole" style tactic used by matchlock-armed cavalry in the Second Opium War, or at least some form of hit-and-run. According to a British eyewitness:

"In the use of their weapons, such as they are, these Tartars and Mongolians displayed considerable dexterity in the action of yesterday. The matchlock-men were frequently seen, when retreating at full speed, to turn round, fire off their pieces, and reload as they galloped away."
That's from "The British Arms in North China and Japan: Peking 1860; Kagosima 1862" by David Field Rennie.

This brings up a small amendment to my previous comment. Matchlock long guns were tried in Europe as a cavalry weapon and considered very unsuccessful, which could add to the unwillingness to try it in pistol form.

Asian countries may not have had the same sour experience, or just no other option.

 

[user 56333]

The matchlock pistols were still fairly rare though, right? I am not that well read on pre 1800s Asian history, but I assume it was based on need.

Yes that's my impression. Even in the description above that I gave of Chinese matchlock-armed cavalry, it's most likely they were using carbines rather than pistols, as most textual and photographic evidence I've seen from this period seems to suggest that.

Here's a photo of some Mongolian cavalry with a matchlock.

 

[TobJohn]

Yes that's my impression. Even in the description above that I gave of Chinese matchlock-armed cavalry, it's most likely they were using carbines rather than pistols, as most textual and photographic evidence I've seen from this period seems to suggest that.

Here's a photo of some Mongolian cavalry with a matchlock.

I like that they chose both guns and bows. Fascinating combo. Pure conjecture and based on European warfare, but maybe the guns were primarily employed in Dragoon style use, while the bows were for mounted combat? I know that goes against that account though, so maybe not.

 

[user 56333]

This brings up a small amendment to my previous comment. Matchlock long guns were tried in Europe as a cavalry weapon and considered very unsuccessful, which could add to the unwillingness to try it in pistol form.

Ah interesting, I'd never heard of that. Was it just in trials or did they actually see combat?

Asian countries may not have had the same sour experience, or just no other option.

I think if anyone could pull off shooting a matchlock from horseback, it was going to be the Mongolians. Those guys lived in the saddle!