Pilgrim guns

[dcriner]

Snaphaunce were common in the low countries and they could have picked up a few.

The pilgrims originally departed from Holland - where they lived for several years after decamping from England.

 

[BillinOregon]

Yes. My Pilgrim ancestor sailed to Plimoth from Leyden in the 1630s.

 

[Artificer]

I found the following most interesting:

In Peterson's Arms and Armor in Colonial America there is an inventory list of the common arms supply of the Massachusetts Bay Company from 1630-

80 Bastard Muskets,w snaphances
4 foote in the barrel w/out rests

6 long fowling pieces w/musket bore
6 foote longe,1/2

4 longue fowling pieces w/musket bore
5 1/2 foot long

10 full muskets,4 foot in barrel w/matchlocks and rests

About 10 years after the Pilgrims landed, this inventory shows a better grasp of what firearms were the most useful.

Importantly to to my mind, the 10 full muskets were still matchlocks. These larger guns would still have been fine for defensive use and not unlike "crew served" weapons today or even fulfilling the role of extremely light artillery in the period.

Is there such a thing as an inventory like this for when the Pilgrims landed in 1620?

Gus

 

[Artificer]

BTW, the First "Thanksgiving" in what would become America/The United States was celebrated in Virginia on December 4th of 1619 at Berkeley Hundred (later known as the Berkeley Plantation), the year before the Pilgrims landed.

Gus

 

[leslie]

Bigfoot,nonsense, obviously you don't live in the Pacific NW.

 

[Alden]

BTW, the First "Thanksgiving" in what would become America/The United States was celebrated in Virginia on December 4th of 1619 at Berkeley Hundred (later known as the Berkeley Plantation), the year before the Pilgrims landed.

Gus

Well I'll be darned. I just love history. All of it...

That's the same, exact, year they introduced the "peculiar institution" of slavery. The year before the Pilgrims landed. Coincidence? I don't think so!

 

[Nativearizonan]

After I had taken grade school history, I was convinced the Mayflower was the first bunch of English to hit the American shores.

That was before I discovered most of my relatives were from Virginia, and some were here before the landing of the Mayflower.

I felt cheated, once I discovered that.

Durn history changing Yankees, anyway.

 

[Artificer]

I thought about going into the history of slavery in Massachusetts and how they were the MAIN source of slaves to other colonies in New England and also sold to Virginia and North Carolina during the 17th century.

I also thought about how Massachusetts started their own "Special Institution" of routinely trading Native American POW's for African Slaves from the West Indies, beginning from the Pequot War in 1638 and done routinely afterward.

Hey, even the Massachusetts Puritans got into the act and codified slavery in 1641.

But the true fact of history is that ALL the American Colonies or States "enjoyed" the benefits of the Evil Institution of Slavery right up to and in some cases during the War Between the States, including some New England Slavers still fitting out slave ships during the War.

It would definitely be interesting for you to document the tie you have suggested between the First Thanksgiving in Virginia and Slavery, though.

Gus

 

[Alden]

Gus, YOU tied the two together. A prideful year of "firsts" wasn't it? Congratulations!

BTW, the First "Thanksgiving" in what would become America/The United States was celebrated in Virginia on December 4th of 1619...
Gus

That's the same, exact, year they introduced the "peculiar institution" of slavery.

And then you went off on some tangent about New England, slaves, blah, blah, blah...

It was from Wikipedia but at least it wasn't just cut-n-pasted and too long to bother with, just too unrelated a (mis)direction... Shocker!

 

[Artificer]

Sorry, just not historically factual.

Those who participated in the First Thanksgiving at Berkeley Hundred had no slaves.

The person who brought up slavery was you and those slaves you mentioned were brought to Jamestown, not Berkeley Hundred.

So there is no historic record of tying them together, as you tried to do. Wikipedia and Google, both, would have informed you of those facts.

Or of course you might have actually visited Berkeley Plantation, like I did in the 1980's, and found out for yourself before there was a Wikipedia or Google.

The reason I mentioned the information on slavery in Massachussetts was just like there were no slaves at the site of or with the English Colonists at the First Thanksgiving in Virginia; there were no slaves with the Pilgrims in their first Thanksgiving - the following year. Though both Colonies enjoyed "the peculiar institution of slavery:" slavery was not a part of, or in any way related to, the first Thanksgiving in either colony.

Gus

 

[Alden]

:yakyak:

Now would the troll PLEASE stop trying to hijack the thread?

The members, if only the ones who contribute, would appreciate it.

 

[Artificer]

I merely mentioned the fact the First Thanksgiving was in Virginia and not the Pilgrims. The post was short and in no way meant to hijack the thread.

I agree, enough with the historically inaccurate nonsense of hijacking the thread by trying to tie slavery to the First Thanksgiving in the American Colonies.

Gus

 

[Zonie]

I agree Gus.

The subject of slavery has nothing to do with this topic.

To even bring up the subject is, IMO, an attempt to hijack the thread.

 

[Artificer]

Thank you, Jim.

Gus

 

[Alden]

OK guys, we let him have the last word. It should be safe to come back and try to rebuild the momentum (unless someone belches out that the first Hanukkah was in Virginia)...

 

[spudnut]

I get the stangest looks from tourist when they point to my blunderbus and say Look a pilgrim gun. When Ipoint out that , No this isnt what the pilgrims used they look at me like Im lying to them

 

[Alden]

And don't forget the stovepipe hat with buckled band around it.

These folks had a clue what they were getting into. As private people under a chartered grant from the King (the adherence to which I won't elaborate on at this time) the most advanced and reliable gun would have been the choice of every man to the extent he could afford it. This was not necessarily so with others of the beachhead generation that were "company" sponsored and whose contingency was rather more disparate levels of society and groups thrown together.

 

[tenngun]

Every man who could afford it is a good point. Some of the folks were farily well to do. Most of those that wernt puritians, and some who were, were 'living pay check to pay check'. Lower working class. Before comming to America they didnt go hungry or wear worn out clothing, but they didnt have 2-6 months salery to spend on the latest gun.

 

[Artificer]

Is there such a thing as an inventory like this [of Arms the Pilgrims brought] for when the Pilgrims landed in 1620?

Gus

According to this Author, there were no such Inventory lists. However, some may find the following information interesting:

“The Pilgrims did not leave behind any lists of the items they brought with them on the Mayflower, but historians have used a provision list put together by Captain John Smith (of Pocahontas fame) to take an educated guess. However, in 2012, Caleb Johnson, Simon Neal, and Jeremy Bangs started transcribing and studying a rare manuscript (a page of which is here illustrated) in the possession of the Massachusetts Society of Mayflower Descendants, that was written by one of the investors in the Pilgrims' joint-stock company. This manuscript actually contains several lists of suggested provisions the colonists should bring with them. It is the closest thing we can get to a list of what the Pilgrims would have actually brought. A summary of some of the key items on the provision lists:”

And

“Arms
Light armor (complete), fowling piece, snaphance, sword, belt, bandoleer, powder horn, 20 pounds of powder, 60 pounds of shot” http://mayflowerhistory.com/provision-lists

Unfortunately as a summary of a suggestive list of provisions, we may not be able to draw too much from the above. However, I think it notable that at least one of the Original Investors understood that the Snaphance would be more useful than a Matchlock (if the Saints and Strangers could afford them, of course).

Definitely agree that just because the Wheelock Rifled Carbine now in the keeping of the NFM was found in the Alden home, it does not mean it belonged to Alden and especially when the Pilgrims landed. However, many sources state that between 1633 and 1675, Alden was assistant to the governor of the Plymouth Colony, and he often served as acting governor. Perhaps he obtained the Wheelock in that capacity? Who knows? Maybe more documentation will come to light in the future?

Though I personally viewed the “Alden Wheelock” while it was on display in the NRA Headquarters in downtown Washington, DC in the 1970’s and again at the “new” location in Fairfax, VA when I visited there in the 90’s, I did not know of the Beretta connection to the gun. Perhaps some forum members will be interested in Beretta’s connection to the gun?

“According to curators at the NRA’s National Firearms Museum””where the gun has found a most comfortable home””markings recorded on both the barrel and lockplate demonstrate a connection with the Beretta family of armorers.”
http://www.beretta.com/en-us/mayflower-gun/

Last but definitely not least, here is a report on the “ Firearms in Plymouth Colony” from the “Plymouth Archaeological Rediscovery Project (PARP).” It details some of the guns the original Pilgrims used from narrative accounts. It also compares newer information and the archeological record.
http://plymoutharch.tripod.com/id71.html

Gus

 

[cynthialee]

In that inventory you posted it mentions "Bastard Muskets".

What is a Bastard Musket?