"Handguns versus Arquebusier" Topic

In the topic on Perry handgunners I noted that the handguns themselves have firing mechanisms. Front Rank in their WoTR listings shows the same kind of firearm and lists it as a handgun. Could someone explain to me what I am looking at. A handgun or an arquebusier (or something in between?) Are these two designations arbitrary later descriptions for something that was organically developing during this period (which is how I took your comments RNSulentic to mean.) Any comments appreciated!

There were no "firing mechanisms" in the 15th century. Even the serpentine trigger holding a lighted match cord hadn't been developed, although it had probably been invented by the end of the WotR. The match was handheld and touched to the priming hole….

The weapons provided for the Perry plastic handgunners do look surpisingly modern. I was hoping for something rather more crude… though this is based on absolutely no knowledge at all.

There were no "firing mechanisms" in the 15th century.

What evidence can you provide to support that?

Milanese documents record an army in 1482 containing 352 arquebuses to 1,250 handguns (and 233 crossbows), so the distinction of names is certainly contemporary, and it may be the presence of a firing mechanism that makes the difference. The earliest depiction of a crude serpentine firing mechanism may be the one in Johann Hartlieb's Kriegsbuch of 1411.

This article provides some useful information (and pictures):
link

Gurkan, the listing is helfpul but I'm still left wondering what arquebus and handgun refers to.

Good resource Major B and some useful information. From what I can get it seems the Handgunners in the Perry European Armies are really carrying an early arquebus. When I look at the TAG Italian arquebusiers the firearm itself looks more like what I would expect for an arquebus. I suppose this could be either artistic interpretations or that the arquebus continued to evolve over the next 20-30 years (the TAG are meant for the early part of the 16th century, Perry the last quarter of the 15th cenitry.)

Oops, memory failed me again. But I will make a case for the hand gunne being by far the more common weapon in Europe throughout the 15th century. It was still being used in the early 16th century. The arquebus would seem to be a development to make the firearm more handy in the field, whereas the hand gunne was quite suitable in sieges, where its clumsy weight and ignition method could be supported by siege works or battlements.

The most annoying feature of a serpentine-held match cord would be the propensity of the end going out without the shooter noticing. A handheld match cord could be continuously kept alight by the shooter swinging it or blowing on it. More reliable match cord in the later centuries reduced this problem but never eliminated it. If it worked that well, then the flintlock would never have been invented….

The deficiencies of a loose match were recognised very early in the development of portable firearms. The serpentine was a way of keeping it safely away from loose powder while at the same time giving greater control of the actual ignition – but it was far from perfect.

The wheel-lock was an effective solution but both expensive and delicate.

Match cords were made in much the same way throughout their use so I can't see that improvements can have had much effect on their reliability.

I don't think you'd be very popular in a unit of men handling loose powder if you were swinging a lit match around.

Speak up Gatta, that kind of response is just rude and annoying. HOW am I wrong, O knowledgeable One? From what I read, even on this thread's links, what I said is right. The "gunne" remained in use alongside the early arquebus, and it appears that the gunne was mostly a siege weapon.

Btw, "swinging" a lighted match cord was not around in circles, but up and down by flicking the wrist. Short, rapid motions. Sometimes that would be preferred to blowing on it….

So if I understand correctly any late 15th century firearm used by infantry with a serpentine lock would be considered an arquebus. Would the arquebus have had any significant improvements between the end of the Burgundian Wars in 1480 and the Battle of Pavia in 1525? Thanks to everyone. I am finding this research interesting.

This is a common problem when discussing medieval/early renaissance items – vocabulary was variable, not fixed as much of it is today.

To assume from contemporary references to items that there is a specific and commonly accepted difference between them just because different names are given to them is a mistake. A common mistake but still a mistake.

Add to that that many contemporary references to firearms are badly translated terms from other languages or even Anglicised transliteration of German, French or Italian terminology.

Even in the English Royal records you find considerable inconsistency in terminology for artillery pieces right up to the end of the Tudor dynasty.

@Gildas: that's what I am guilty of, and it has goaded some pedantic reaction out of Gattamalata.

In discussing technical aspects of history, like evolving warfare systems and forms, "we" must separate different weapons by names that were interchangeable back in the day, but cannot remains so this far removed from their origins, if we are to make sense to each other. Gatta leaped on a couple of apparent assertions I made by my use of certain names for types of early firearms.

"Gunne" (or gonne, whatever) is, to my mind, any primitive stocked weapon with a relatively short barrel, large bore and a crude touch hole in the top of the breech. It often comes equipped with a "parapet hook" to steady it and absorb the recoil. It is never held to the shoulder and is either held with the stock under the arm or on top of the shoulder, like larger crossbows often/usually were. The "gunne" went entirely out of use by the early 16th century.

Overlapping with the "gunne" is the arquebus. It is not a distinct weapon type until the length of the barrel and reduction of the bore/caliber resulted in a new style of stock to accommodate the increased length of the barrel and the ramrod which evolved in pace with the barrel length – by which point it was a weapon held into the shoulder, usually, and sometimes underarm, still, but fadingly so. At almost the same stage of development, the earliest triggers to hold the match cord were invented. At first, these were centered like the trigger on contemporary crossbows. But soon the touch hole on firearms was being placed on the side rather than the top of the breech, to facilitate applying the match cord: it was easier and more natural to merely hold the cord very close between the knuckles of the rear hand and rotate the wrist to bring the lighted end of the match cord into contact with a touch hole placed on the side, instead of having to lift the hand higher and find a touch hole on the top. The side positioning of the touch hole allowed more of the hand's strength to bear up the weapon while at the same time having the touch hole right there (this relates to developing the best way to aim the weapon, which crossbows had already shown to be as close to shoulder height as possible, to reduce the tendency of a weapon resting on the shoulder to block the shooter's view, or the problem with learning to compensate for parallax when the weapon is held against the body lower down under the arm; a shoulder position is the best, but very clumsy with a heavy weapon that must be held up with the rear hand). With the touch hole placed to the side, the serpentine trigger (still very much in appearance and dimensions like a crossbow trigger) was also placed to the side.

The arquebus was now a completely different weapon from the "gunne". That both continued to be used in the field does not deny what I said about the gunne being very suitable for sieges, or any static warfare, but the arquebus being (increasingly) the firearm for field battles….

I thought what was meant by " Gunne" or "Gonnne" was an artillery piece. A hand gonne was just that, a weapon that could be held in one's hands. Arquebus were simply sub categories (and refinements) of hand gonnes.