Musketeers?

[Roderick Ponce Von Fontlebottom]

I keep hearing that CA has extended M2TW to allow for musketeers at the end of the game? Does anybody know if this is true? Does this mean actual proper musketter using soldier?:juggle2:

[Dan.o6]

I hope not.

[CBR]

There are both arquebus and muskets in M2TW yes.


CBR

[Bob the Insane]

Well the earliest muskets fit into the timeframe of the game, but I do not expect to see Dartanian running around the field... :laugh4:

[Roderick Ponce Von Fontlebottom]

I wonder if this means being able to field full musketeer armies in the game?

Because doesent the apearance of muskets pretty much spell the downfall of medieval weaponry.:inquisitive: While an arquebus may be inferior to the longbow in many ways and still prove less accurate and more likely to explode, the musket was a vast improvement over the latter, ushering in the development of an entire new style of warfare. A fully trained and experineced army of musketeer man would have no problem simply outclassing any medieval army with the apropriate cavalry support and such.

[CBR]

The matchlock musket had more power and range than an arquebus but it was also heavier and had a slower rate of fire. AFAIK it never replaced the arquebus completely. The arquebus, pike, pistol and cannons had already transformed warfare and the late 17th century flintlock musket (really a weapon in between the old musket and the arquebus) changed warfare again.


CBR

[Furious Mental]

You can't just train whole armies of musketeers. They have no bayonet and therefore get slaughtered in melee

[Watchman]

To be honest musketeers with bayonets often got slaughtered in melee too. Or rather, wet their pants and ran away before a enemy advancing with determination had even gotten to bayonet- or sword-range. Actual bayonet fights were actually comparatively rare from what I understand, but when they happened tended to be hair-raisingly bloody for both sides (not in the least because of the volleys of musketry delivered at short range beforehand).

Those long thin lines that were adopted to maximize the firepower were apparently a tad psychologically brittle by what I've read.

[Fred]

I wonder if this means being able to field full musketeer armies in the game?

Because doesent the apearance of muskets pretty much spell the downfall of medieval weaponry.:inquisitive: While an arquebus may be inferior to the longbow in many ways and still prove less accurate and more likely to explode, the musket was a vast improvement over the latter, ushering in the development of an entire new style of warfare. A fully trained and experineced army of musketeer man would have no problem simply outclassing any medieval army with the apropriate cavalry support and such.

Errrrr….No

Muskets where still not superior to bows and crossbows in accuracy, effective range and rate of fire. What Muskets did do was put an easy to use weapon in the hands of peasants that could pierce all but the very best armour, thus reducing the role of heavy armour on the battlefield. Combined with the resurgence of the pike, this meant that you could train and equip vast number of levies to a level that could defeat the old Knights and men at arms at a fraction of the price and in a relatively short time. It was however the centralisation of the European states that really caused the downfall for medieval warfare. With central government powerful enough to raise its own troops, it simply didn’t need knights anymore, in fact having groups of semi-independent warrior nobles all over the place, some of them running around with private armies, was a positive liability from central government’s point of view. Remember that pure combat effectiveness is usually a secondary consideration when countries put together an army. Cost, loyalty, logistics and politics can make just as big an impact on warfare in a certain area or period as what weapons and tactics actually work.

Gun probably didn’t clearly match or outclass bow and sling based weapons in every area other than armour penetration and possible ease of training (although that’s debatable when compared to crossbows) until the introduction of breach loading rifles.

[Furious Mental]

I don't think any of that really mattered anyway since field artillery would probably deal adequately with anyone who tried to attack such an army with bows from beyond the range of the musket.

[professorspatula]

To be honest musketeers with bayonets often got slaughtered in melee too. Or rather, wet their pants and ran away before a enemy advancing with determination had even gotten to bayonet- or sword-range. Actual bayonet fights were actually comparatively rare from what I understand, but when they happened tended to be hair-raisingly bloody for both sides (not in the least because of the volleys of musketry delivered at short range beforehand).

Those long thin lines that were adopted to maximize the firepower were apparently a tad psychologically brittle by what I've read.

This reminds me of something I saw on some Battlefield Detectives tv show, where historian buffs try to look for evidence of battles that occurred and look for reasons why the end result was what it was. One episode they looked at a battle between the English and Scots. I don't recall that much, so no doubt you lot would know more about it, but the English had muskets of some sort and bayonets. The Scots apparently relied upon their swords and shields and numbers. The guns of the English should have meant victory, but they got slaughtered. Apparently the English had to shoot uphill I think and only managed to fire 1 or 2 volleys before desperately trying to attach their bayonets, when the Scots came crashing down upon them, easily killing and routing them. Bah! At least Mel Gibson didn't take part in that battle.

[CBR]

And in the last battle the Scots made a frontal attack and lost, only managing to penetrate part of the English line.


CBR

[lars573]

This reminds me of something I saw on some Battlefield Detectives tv show, where historian buffs try to look for evidence of battles that occurred and look for reasons why the end result was what it was. One episode they looked at a battle between the English and Scots. I don't recall that much, so no doubt you lot would know more about it, but the English had muskets of some sort and bayonets. The Scots apparently relied upon their swords and shields and numbers. The guns of the English should have meant victory, but they got slaughtered. Apparently the English had to shoot uphill I think and only managed to fire 1 or 2 volleys before desperately trying to attach their bayonets, when the Scots came crashing down upon them, easily killing and routing them. Bah! At least Mel Gibson didn't take part in that battle.
That's the first or maybe second Jacobite rebellion. The Scots actually relied on the Highland charge and impact to win. :charge: Scare the bejesuses out of the other guys so they do a runner. Then killem all! :duel:



And in the last battle the Scots made a frontal attack and lost, only managing to penetrate part of the English line.


CBR
That would probably be Culloden Moor. And the government army was formed up in 2 lines (front line of 3 regiments and guns between and a second line of 2 reserve regiments and guns) and the second line moved in and shot into the melee when the Scots broke through on the right. Also they only partially broke through because the left side of the battlefeild was the actual marsh itself and the highlanders were slogging through it and getting cut to pieces by the government guns and muskets.


:focus:
The earliest muskets were bigger and heavier than arguebues. So much so that they needed stands to rest them on to fire them and reload. But they had a more reliable form of the matchlock (and eventually yhe wheellock). I don't know the name of it but unlike the 15th century snapping matchlock (which just snaped the cord into the pan and extinguished it) it moved the match cord into the pan and pulled it back.

[Bagpuss]

shame no Musketeers as I was hoping on training my elite unit ...





DOGTANIAN AND THE MUSKAHOUNDS ! :)

[lars573]

shame no Musketeers as I was hoping on training my elite unit ...





DOGTANIAN AND THE MUSKAHOUNDS ! :)
French Royal musketeers are actually Dragoons. Mounted infantry, they ride to battle on horseback then fight as infantry. :book: And they aren't even founded until the Bourbon dynasty. The first bourbon king Henry IV of Bourbon took the throne in 1598.


1 minute on google netted me this site on Matchlocks. (http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Campground/8551/index.html) With decent drawings and descriptions of matchlock firearms.

http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Campground/8551/arquebus1.gif
1) Arquebus with Serpentine Lock
The serpentine lock was essentially an "S" shaped piece of metal with a central pivot attached to the side of the gun. By pulling on the bottom half of the pivot you lowered the upper half, which held a burning slow match, into a touch hole or priming pan. Although more advanced matchlocks were developed, many arquebuses still used the simple serpentine lock up until the time of the muskets introduction.

http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Campground/8551/serpentine.gif
Gif animation of the serpentine working

http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Campground/8551/musket.gif
Musket
Introduced in Spain in the early sixteenth century, the musket quickly gained popularity throughout Europe due to its power and reliability. Many muskets were five feet long and weighed around twenty pounds. Due to its weight the musket required the use of a forked rest to support the gun during firing. The musket used either a trigger lever or conventional trigger to operate the matchlock mechanism.

http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Campground/8551/matchlock.gif
It's operation.

[Marius Dynamite]

Thanks for that Lars573 that was interesting to see. :2thumbsup:

[Templar Knight]

This reminds me of something I saw on some Battlefield Detectives tv show, where historian buffs try to look for evidence of battles that occurred and look for reasons why the end result was what it was. One episode they looked at a battle between the English and Scots. I don't recall that much, so no doubt you lot would know more about it, but the English had muskets of some sort and bayonets. The Scots apparently relied upon their swords and shields and numbers. The guns of the English should have meant victory, but they got slaughtered. Apparently the English had to shoot uphill I think and only managed to fire 1 or 2 volleys before desperately trying to attach their bayonets, when the Scots came crashing down upon them, easily killing and routing them. Bah! At least Mel Gibson didn't take part in that battle.

The Battle of Killiecrankie, 1689, First Jacobite Rising.

And the battle was not between the English and Scots, it was between Catholic Highlanders and Protestant Lowlanders.

[ProudNerd]

I wonder if this means being able to field full musketeer armies in the game?

Because doesent the apearance of muskets pretty much spell the downfall of medieval weaponry.:inquisitive: While an arquebus may be inferior to the longbow in many ways and still prove less accurate and more likely to explode, the musket was a vast improvement over the latter, ushering in the development of an entire new style of warfare. A fully trained and experineced army of musketeer man would have no problem simply outclassing any medieval army with the apropriate cavalry support and such.

after centuries of medieval based warfare it would be great to ahve some musket based line to line combat. Sounds great to me.

[Bagpuss]

Lars573

cheers for that info , an the picture clips very good :)

[lars573]

I've always prefered 16th-19th century warfare to ancient and medieval. So I know a fair bit about early firearms.