Musketeer Drill: Written History vs Reality

[TobJohn]

If you read up on pike and shot warfare/matchlock, you will probably come across a statement on the operation of the matchlock like: "The procedure was so complex that a 1607 drill manual published by Jacob de Gheyn in the Netherlands listed 28 steps just to fire and load the gun." wikipedia. The Osprey book, Imperial Armies of the 30 Years War (1): Infantry and Artillery, by Vladimir Brnardic, has a similar quote: "The musket loading and firing drill was long and complicated, comprising 99 positions directed by 163 orders." p.13.

However, Peter H. Wilson, in The Thirty Years War: Europe's Tragedy makes the provocative claim: "Contemporary drill books convey a false impression that an elaborate sequence of hand, arm, and body movements was necessary to load and fire. In fact, the carefully itemized movements reflected the prevailing scientific concern to fix and understand human movement, rather than actual practice." p.87. The operation of matchlocks does not look too ridiculously complicated, outside of avoiding blowing up your bandoliers, so his argument is convincing. It is also my understanding that complicated drill has the primary role of building unit cohesion and discipline. Can anyone with practical experience or insight speak to this? Or as practical experience as anyone can have, assuming no one here is 500 years old.

 

[Rudyard]

While Im'e not the required 500 years old ( I just feel that way some days ) Ime minded of a video showing a suitably attired gentleman load & give fire with a remarkable rate of fire with a caliver mid17c matchlock .. But this would be a' party piece' . For example Iv'e put out twelve rounds from an India pattern flint musket in three minets 10 seconds & I dropped the rammer once but had the Bayonet fixed . .But the more sustainable 2 & a half rounds a minet was deemed exceptable .. Its true there was a' going by the numbers '. drill well practiced '.
No one as shooting back at me , I wasn' t blasted in the ear from my chums vent & no one crumpled up about me from cannister ,cannon ,& musket balls. And unlike the average latter day' Tommy Atkins 'I had fired many live rounds in live practice . So Ide guess it was much the same 500 years earlier .With just the quaint accents between us . (Yorkshire English might be not too different !)
Rudyard

 

[TobJohn]

Thanks for the response, Rudyard.
The chaos of battle probably is the big factor. Having every movement memorized to the minor detail would be helpful when getting shot at/charged while also counter marching.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

"Contemporary drill books convey a false impression that an elaborate sequence of hand, arm, and body movements was necessary to load and fire. In fact, the carefully itemized movements reflected the prevailing scientific concern to fix and understand human movement, rather than actual practice." p.87.

Is he kind enough to cite his reason for that conclusion?

Much of the elaborate drill is merely a breakdown of the movements that were thought needed to load and fire a very very expensive commodity of war, while reducing the chance of damage or destruction to that commodity from improper handling.

When training "by the word" i.e. each step is waiting for the proper command, the trainer can take the time to ensure each trainee is performing in an optimal manner, over a group of trainees. The only way that small muscle movements are maintained under the heavy stress of combat is by a massive amount of slow, repetitive training over time. When the shooting actually starts, for example, a British soldier with a Bess is told to Prime and Load...., the rest of the commands are not used as they flow naturally into one another, and ....speed is found. A well trained soldier can load and fire in 15 seconds. A matchlock isn't that much slower, but has some movements to retard the loading speed since everybody has an exposed heat source, namely a lit match.

LD

 

[TobJohn]

LoyalistDave, that is very informative and all makes a lot of sense, thank you. I had a look through some of my other books and Matchlock Musketeer: 1588-1688 completely backs your point. "The large number of postures was a training aid to break break down the necessary movements into an optimum sequence , and then teach proficiency through repetitive practice. The actual orders given to the soldier were brief, such as 'shoulder your musket', and only three orders were given in action to fire a musket or arquebus - 'make ready, present and give fire.' p20-21. It is important to note this book is exclusively about English musketeers and its primary evidence is from the civil war.

It is possible the real answer is a mix. The atomized drill guide can be a result of the scientific fascination, while the practical application is simpler. The English practice can possibly back that up.

Frustratingly, the author of the 30 years war book does not provide many direct footnotes for statements in the text. Thankful, he did included a sources section and I believe #11 would be for the section it was in.

 

[trettie]

 

[TobJohn]

I had posted that YouTube channel on another thread haha. I think they mention in one of their videos that they use the de Gheyn drill as a main source.

My curiosity came from so many sources backing the complex drill, while this author making such a matter of fact claim against it.

 

[trettie]

I had posted that YouTube channel on another thread haha. I think they mention in one of their videos that they use the de Gheyn drill as a main source.

My curiosity came from so many sources backing the complex drill, while this author making such a matter of fact claim against it.

I volunteer with the JYF Museums James Fort Militia. We will train initially using the several postures and commands, but when demonstrating drills, the commands are Ready Your Piece (or Make Ready), Present Your Piece, and Give Fire. We do not use live shot in demonstrations, but still 3 rounds per minute is not out of the question. With files of 5 men, it is not at all difficult to keep up with firing by ranks.

 

[TobJohn]

I volunteer with the JYF Museums James Fort Militia. We will train initially using the several postures and commands, but when demonstrating drills, the commands are Ready Your Piece (or Make Ready), Present Your Piece, and Give Fire. We do not use live shot in demonstrations, but still 3 rounds per minute is not out of the question. With files of 5 men, it is not at all difficult to keep up with firing by ranks.

Haha that’s what I get for being condescending.

That’s hella cool you work with them and a neat example of practical experience! The channel is criminally under appreciated.

 

[Jay Templin]

I’ve been shooting matchlocks professionally and personally since 1999, mostly using deGheyn’s caliver manual (42 steps). My record with live rounds from the bandolier is 6/minute, but that was coming off years of speed drills with a Brown Bess and the ‘64. Now that I’m older and have nothing to prove, I’m a pretty consistent 4, 5 if I’m feeling froggy. As Tom says, we train by the numbers, and when I do the standard demo for the public, I load and fire by the numbers so I can explain the process in detail. But when we demonstrate tactics and company fire, it’s “make ready your piece” and Tommy-get-‘er-done.
Jay

 

[TobJohn]

Thanks for everyone's input. There is a pleasantly surprising amount of practical experience in these responses.

I was at the peak of a case of covid, when I originally made this thread, so my fogged up brain forgot that there was a better explanation of the author's argument in the next chapter. The specific section is on the Dutch military reforms at the end of the 16th century.

"Late sixteenth-century thinkers thinkers were fascinated by the belief patterns could be detected in the natural world that would unlock divine secrets of the universe. This early rationality was combined with late humanist rereading of classical texts, looking for answers in the world of the ancient Greeks and Romans" p.139

The author expands their point, using the work of Justus Lipsius in Politicorum sive civilis doctrinae libri sex:
"Drill had made the ancient Roman army invincible and should now be applied, not only for weapons training, but to condition soldiers to accept subordination within a disciplined unit. Such thinking affected other spheres of life. For example, dance styles were changing away from formations in straight lines that allowed partners to interact swiftly with one another, and toward circular, geometrical movements enabling individuals to make better use of the space around them. Unnecessary movement was to be avoided, with the dancer - or soldier - only moving parts of his or her body from a stable equilibrium; for example, thrusting a pike forward while keeping the head strictly aligned and facing forward." p.140

 

[tenngun]

Historians often do not shoot, and tend to misunderstand real life mechanics.
In ‘George Washington’s War’ the author said musket-balls fall harmlessly to the ground at eighty yards. Similar thing was said in Time Life’s ‘The Texans’ when writing on the Alamo.
Ekkert often wrote rifle in his books when discussing muskets and fusils.
Books on tge great age of sailing and exploration makes it sound lucky that ships don’t sink when launched
How many times have you heard ‘how could primitive man’ pulled off construction works?
Vikings were mostly blind at sea as were Polynesian, and Hunter gatherer spent all day starving
I keep my salt shaker handy when reading a lot of history books

 

[TobJohn]

Historians often do not shoot, and tend to misunderstand real life mechanics.
In ‘George Washington’s War’ the author said musket-balls fall harmlessly to the ground at eighty yards. Similar thing was said in Time Life’s ‘The Texans’ when writing on the Alamo.
Ekkert often wrote rifle in his books when discussing muskets and fusils.
Books on tge great age of sailing and exploration makes it sound lucky that ships don’t sink when launched
How many times have you heard ‘how could primitive man’ pulled off construction works?
Vikings were mostly blind at sea as were Polynesian, and Hunter gatherer spent all day starving
I keep my salt shaker handy when reading a lot of history books

Oh yeah, I definitely agree. I’ve noticed the trend is particularly pronounced in this era, because the historians are mostly European and have a low exposure to firearms. The worst is when they list a specific range for gun bores at the time. They are often vastly different between authors. It would be better if they did not list specifics or say the sample size and location, like “5 1630 muskets from the Royal Armouries”.

That’s why you look at multiple sources and then go on a forum and ask the old experienced folks their perspective haha.

His further explanation is also quite a big claim on society at the time, but interesting either way.