"Musket rests - when discontinued??" Topic

IIRC, musket rests fell out of use between the battles in the early 1630's and the ECW period.

Is this simply a matter of muskets becoming lighter in weight and when did the process happen?

Some units carried them in the first year of the ECW. After that they seem to have disappeared. Elton writing just after the end of the third civil war still includes commands for musketeers using rests but also gives the commands for musket without rests and comments that this is the normal use.

Certainly as "bastard muskets" become the norm rests are no longer required. Lighter firearms such as calivers don't seem to have been issued with rests even during the TYW. Although I can't give a definitive date I would suggest sometime after 1630 they start to become less common and by 1644 they are no longer in general use in armies with modern equipment.

…by 1644 they are no longer in general use in armies with modern equipment.

Thank god; I am theming my Royalist regiments around the Relief of Newark and forgot to use the musket rests.

Thanks, Elenderil.

Was the change to reflect technical improvements in gunpowder and musket craftsmanship? Or was it that heavy armour was no longer prevalent and massive shoulder weapons no longer necessary to get penetration?

The rate at which the musket rest fell out of use tends to get exaggerated, in continental Europe it saw use into the 1650's. And it was not a case of "modern" armies vs "unmodern" armies either, the Swedes issued some untis with musket rests as late as 1655 though there was also plenty of muskets in service that did not require the rest. It is only after that issue that the rest disappears from Swedish service.

There is not much evidence of the rest became dramaticly less common in the 1630's, it was consistently purchased and issued by the thousand by Swedish/Protestant and Imperial/Catholic armies alike. It s only during the 1640's that the numbers issued seem to drop but at least in the Swedish case this could be due to a lack of documents as supply shifted from the armouries and factories in Sweden to German sources. (Loss of Torstensson's and Baner's archives in 1697 does not make research easier)

While artwork needs to be used carefully it is worth noting that Pieter Snayers showed musket rests used by Imperial troops even in the paintings Commissioned by Piccolomini which were painted during 1639 to 1651.

While it is a bit of pain to lug around on the march the musket rest provided real benefits by help to steady the weapon as well as absorbing some of the recoil. It's noteworthy that in the 1670's Swedish officers complained about how the "old" muskets would injure the soldiers and leave them with torn cheeks and bruised shoulders from the recoil leaving the recruits afraid of their weapons and begging the officers on their knees to not have to fire the weapon a 3rd time. Clearly it had not been a good idea to restock the "old" Spanish style heavy muskets with new light stocks and having the men fire them without rests.

I guess an alternative explanation for declining use in Britain – if such is the case – is the tendency for the ECW armies to do things "on the cheap". I am just reading Glenn Foard's Naseby book and noted with interest that pikemen were no longer issued armour in England by 1645.

Presumably (as there was no tactical shift that I am aware of in the preceding years), this was just a cost-cutting measure. I get the impression that the late ECW armies lavished time, money and effort on their horse, but considered foot expendable and not worth equipping properly.

1880s in the East with jezzails and similar?

David F Brown

Daniel you are as informative as ever, I didn't know that the Swedes were still issuing rests as late as that. That makes sense of Elton keeping commands for the use of a rest as late as his 1665 edition.

" I get the impression that the late ECW armies lavished time, money and effort on their horse, but considered foot expendable and not worth equipping properly."

As far as armour is concerned. much was that the men themselves, especially those with muskets, found armour to be a hinderance whether on the march or in combat.

As far as armour is concerned. much was that the men themselves, especially those with muskets, found armour to be a hindrance whether on the march or in combat.

No, according the Foard, pikemen were no longer issued armour by 1645. Considering that pike were the ultimate battle infantry and of limited use in raids and garrisons, this sounds like cost cutting by armies that had run out of funds and expected to lose much of their infantry in that summer's fighting and who didn't want to blow the money on an expendable asset.

The Royal Armouries believes weight to be the issue
"Armour was quickly given up at the beginning of the war because of its weight and there is no evidence that any was even made after 1640."
What sort of casualty rate do you think there was for the infantry? Why was armour which had been initially issued no longer worn?
As with any army, cost would be a factor, but this is not simply a top down decision of 'you are going to die anyway so why bother giving you armour'. Remember that the cavalry also saw a lightening of armour, continuing the process which had started before the war in the light of TYW experience.

Infantry could be virtually annihilated in a large battle, as it did not have the ability to escape, as did cavalry. The royalist infantry was largely destroyed at Naseby.

Is there any evidence that armour was made in England BEFORE 1640?

Cavalry armour lightened from full suits for cuirassiers to buffcoats and back and breast. It's not as though horse were suddenly riding around in wool doublets.

The Royalists lost most of their infantry but of the whole army 1000 were killed. 5 times many were captured.

The majority of battles pre-Naseby had nowhere near this many losses as a proportion. Marston Moor is a notable exception. If the cost to the Royalists to re-equip their infantry was their main incentive, then we should see Parliamentary troops well equipped with armour since they could have captured it at Marston Moor. The armour of most dead soldiers could have been re-used. Overall, the losses do not show that there was an expectation that much of the infantry would be lost.

The cavalry have still reduced their armour by a large degree. They found that they could perform their job as well – or better – than if they wore the full lobster gear. They start from a heavier degree of protection and most ultimately do end up in woolen jackets – it just takes longer – i.e. in time for the next round of European conflict.

"Is there any evidence that armour was made in England BEFORE 1640?"
link
has various pieces of London made armour.

Thanks for the nice link, Swampster. I will consider your points.

Cavalry wore buff until the last couple of decades of the century and were still wearing back and breast – or breast at least – at Blenheim.

Hi everybody,

Regarding the use of the musket rest, I was quite surprise to see in a visit to the Museo de America of Madrid, a painting dated from 1716 "Entrada del Virrey Morcillo en Potosí", where soldiers in the cortege hold musket rests.

I can understand that many times, overseas equipment were not up to date but 1716 isn't really too late? Or those were declassed weapons used for ceremonial, parade purpose?
If so, was this a common practice?

The painter, Pérez de Holguín, was a direct witness it seems, as he portrayed himself in the canvas.

Sadly I couldn't find any closer view of the scene other than minute 0:47 in this video :
YouTube link
Or this,
link

scroll down to the middle of the article, fig.5, and click to have a closer view, musket are in the bottom left corner.

By the way, this painting is worth to check out by anyone interested by the Colonial Americas history, lot of details about society , clothing , uniforms .

Cheers

Alberto.