Battle accounts of matchlocks vs. flintlocks?

[user 56333]

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.

I think both could have happened, but yes accounts like the one I posted above do seem to indicate that these guns were at least sometimes fired while in the saddle. And yes the bows were definitely used while in the saddle.

 

[TobJohn]

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

I have mostly read it in the context of "this was tried but did not work, so they needed another solution". There is some existing art of handgonne armed cavalry, but I do not know any specific accounts of their use.

Dragoons would be armed with matchlock muskets up through the 30 years war, but unlike the 1700s, they were expected to dismount and fight as infantry.

 

[user 56333]

Here's an interesting account from the First Opium War of a flintlock being "converted" in to a temporary matchlock in battle. This is from "Narrative of the Voyage and Services of the Nemesis" which I've mentioned before.

"The detached [British] company having missed the road during the storm, did not succeed in joining the 26th, who, in the meantime, had, in fact, retired. Their muskets were found completely useless, owing to the wet, which emboldened the Chinese to attack their rear with their long spears, as they had done the 26th. They were soon surrounded; and one or two of the men were pulled over with a long crooked spear, something in the shape of a small reaping-hook, fixed upon a long pole. The [flintlock] musket of one of the men who had fallen was picked up by the Chinese, the powder being so damp in the pan that it would not go off with the flint and steel. The Chinese soldier, however, deliberately placed the musket to his shoulder, and, taking steady aim at one of the officers, Mr. Berkeley, applied his match to the damp powder, which ignited, and the musket went off, and unfortunately wounded Mr. Berkeley in the arm."

I guess in some cases a matchlock-type ignition could be more reliable than a flintlock...

 

[TobJohn]

Ironically, most Western/central European combat in this period was also actually skirmishes and raids (and sieges, but that isn’t comparable) where a fire lock probably would have been much more useful.

After reading through more of the Graz armory inventory book, it looks like my guess was actually correct. They have a large proportion of combination matchlock wheellock infantry guns and the author's explanation is that they were used for the small standing force they had to fight off ottoman raids. He mentions that this combat consisted of targets of opportunity and not volley fire in formation. The soldiers were also trained enough to maintain and get the best out of the guns, compared to the local levies called up to combat major Ottoman attacks.

An example from the book that was posted on Vikingsword. It is a cavalry gun, but shows the mechanism the infantry guns used.

 

[Yasha Hartmann]

There are actually several recorded instances of battles where matchlock and flintlock firearms were used against each other. One such example is the Battle of Sekigahara in 1600, which took place during the Sengoku period in Japan. The armies of the Eastern and Western factions were both armed with a mix of matchlock and flintlock firearms, and it is said that the matchlock-using Eastern army suffered significant disadvantages due to their slower firing speed and susceptibility to rain and dampness.

Another example is the Battle of Breitenfeld in 1631 during the Thirty Years' War in Europe. The Catholic Imperial Army, which was primarily armed with matchlocks, faced off against the Protestant Swedish Army, which was armed with a combination of matchlocks and flintlocks. The Swedish Army's flintlocks are believed to have given them a significant advantage, allowing them to fire more quickly and reliably than the matchlock-using Imperial Army.

Overall, it is generally accepted that flintlocks were superior to matchlocks in terms of speed and reliability of ignition. However, it is worth noting that other factors such as the length and quality of the guns, as well as the skill and training of the soldiers using them, would also have played a significant role in determining the outcome of any given battle.

 

[user 56333]

There are actually several recorded instances of battles where matchlock and flintlock firearms were used against each other. One such example is the Battle of Sekigahara in 1600, which took place during the Sengoku period in Japan. The armies of the Eastern and Western factions were both armed with a mix of matchlock and flintlock firearms, and it is said that the matchlock-using Eastern army suffered significant disadvantages due to their slower firing speed and susceptibility to rain and dampness.

That's interesting, I've never heard of Japanese troops in the early-modern period using any firearms other than matchlocks. Where did the forces at Sekigahara get their flinters from? The Dutch? The Portuguese?

 

[TobJohn]

Another example is the Battle of Breitenfeld in 1631 during the Thirty Years' War in Europe. The Catholic Imperial Army, which was primarily armed with matchlocks, faced off against the Protestant Swedish Army, which was armed with a combination of matchlocks and flintlocks. The Swedish Army's flintlocks are believed to have given them a significant advantage, allowing them to fire more quickly and reliably than the matchlock-using Imperial Army.

I could see how that could make a difference, but do you have a source on their use in the battle? It’s my understanding the flexibility of the Swedish formations and their ability to reposition rapidly on the battlefield helped win the day, combined with their widespread use of field artillery. The Swedish had further developed the Dutch system of pike and shot warfare to further emphasize frontage of fire, over depth of pikes.

 

[Barud]

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.

The Ottomans were trying to introduce firearms to the cavalry forces as early as the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent (although it seems that back then, they were not very popular amongst the conservative cavalrymen) and we know that by the 17th century, it was not an unlikely sight for a cavalryman in the Western frontier to have a firearm. Of course, I suspect that the reason for their success was not necessarily the fact that they used firearms but rather their mobility, so it's a moot point.

 

[TobJohn]

The Ottomans were trying to introduce firearms to the cavalry forces as early as the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent (although it seems that back then, they were not very popular amongst the conservative cavalrymen) and we know that by the 17th century, it was not an unlikely sight for a cavalryman in the Western frontier to have a firearm. Of course, I suspect that the reason for their success was not necessarily the fact that they used firearms but rather their mobility, so it's a moot point.

The book I am basing this off of (link) made the claim the Sultan (I think it was Suleiman) was very enthusiastic about wheellock pistols and similar arms, but his cavalry disliked them and preferred bows. That seems to match up with what you are saying, but I may have mistakenly assumed that status quo continued into the 17th century. A lot of the pure cavalry border skirmishes were during the second half of the 16th century, though.

 

[Pukka Bundook]

It could be that the Ottomans of that time held a similar view to the Rajputs John.
They disdained firearms for warfare, feeling that the lance, sword and shield alone were fitting weapons.

 

[Barud]

The book I am basing this off of (link) made the claim the Sultan (I think it was Suleiman) was very enthusiastic about wheellock pistols and similar arms, but his cavalry disliked them and preferred bows. That seems to match up with what you are saying, but I may have mistakenly assumed that status quo continued into the 17th century. A lot of the pure cavalry border skirmishes were during the second half of the 16th century, though.

We know that Ottomans sometimes used wheellock firearms, at least in the 17th century (captured or earned via trade, I'm guessing, I've never seen a wheellock mechanism of Ottoman manufacture). As for the time of Suleiman, probably solely matchlocks. The firearm cavalry experiment was conducted by Rustem Pasha, the then-grand vizier, in the 1540s or the 1550s. My guess is that he tried to put together something like a dragoon regiment or such, but apparently they were unwieldy guns (possibly long arms rather than pistols) and their fellow cavalrymen would make fun of them for the horns they carried and their sooty clothes after firing, so they asked to drop the whole business and Rustem Pasha didn't pursue the matter further.

It could be that the Ottomans of that time held a similar view to the Rajputs John.
They disdained firearms for warfare, feeling that the lance, sword and shield alone were fitting weapons.

I'm doubtful about this one. Artillery was the core of the Ottoman field armies up until, well, when the Europeans got better at artillery. They were being used as early as the late 14th century, if I recall correctly.

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Barud,
You are likely right, but I was replying to Tob John, who shared that Suleiman's cavalry disliked firearms and preffered bows. This brought to mind the Rajputs .

all the best,
R.

 

[cyten]

Not matchlock vs flintlock but matchlock vs breechloader. Russian Empire vs Khan of Kokand. Kokand is in the Fergana valley in what is modern day Uzbekistan.
View attachment uzbek berdan The_Holton_Recorder_Thu__Nov_18__1875_.jpg

from the November 18, 1875 issue of the Holton Recorder.


Much of Russia's conquest of "Turkestan" (Central Asia) was fought between percussion guns or breechloaders vs matchlocks. Here is a painting depicting another battle from 1868.

 

[cyten]

Here is an example of Matchlock vs Flintlock in which it seems the matchlock was superior. Britain vs Heider Nag of Tamil. This is a period newspaper clipping from the November 17, 1769 issue of the Derby Mercury.

 

[Pukka Bundook]

That is a very interesting read, Cyten.

I don't know if we can say the matchlocks were superior. Superior in numbers clearly, but apparently not in damage inflicted.
That they require no flint Was an advantage in large areas of India, as flint is not naturally occurring.

Thanks for posting this Cyten!

 

[cyten]

That is a very interesting read, Cyten.

I don't know if we can say the matchlocks were superior. Superior in numbers clearly, but apparently not in damage inflicted.
That they require no flint Was an advantage in large areas of India, as flint is not naturally occurring.

Thanks for posting this Cyten!

In this case where they wrote "our guns are totally disabled" and "our flints broke to pieces", slowmatch certainly isnt going to run out as fast as a flint breaks apart in this case

 

[TobJohn]

In this case where they wrote "our guns are totally disabled" and "our flints broke to pieces", slowmatch certainly isnt going to run out as fast as a flint breaks apart in this case

Its interesting that the English struggled so much against Indian forces during the 1700s. I recently learned they developed their Congreve rockets from Mysore rockets that had given them grief a couple decades after this incident.

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Cyten,
I was meaning regarding damage. 52 killed on the British side against we do not know how many on the other, but it Does list 700 horses, 3 elephants and 9 camels, and says the field was "covered with the dead" so in light of this, it would appear that the damage was pretty well one sided.
That the flints were broken was probably the same after any heavy engagement, and it seems that powder and flint were very nearly gone, so it is as well for them that day two was not a continuation!
Why the guns were disabled I do not know, as I do not know what guns were on Hyder's side.
were the guns damaged by incoming artillery, or shook to pieces by the amount of shot fired ?
It would be very interesting to know.
Maybe Eggerton has something to say on this.

Tob,
I think a lot of this struggle, was the sheer numbers in the service of some of the Princely States. It was never a one-to one engagement.

All the best,
Richard.

 

[TobJohn]

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…

I found a good article on this topic by someone far more knowledgeable than me. It covers the knight and the adoption of cavalry firearms:
https://americansocietyofarmscollec...lock-firearms-adoption-of-Capwell-vol-118.pdf