How late 15th to mid 16th century guns were aimed, in historic illustrations

fernando · 3rd December 2008, 05:18 PM

Hi Richard,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

...Figuring exactly how these guns were held is rather difficult for us, as artists were not always familiar with actually firing guns, yet the basic principles are very well shown in these pictures ...

I wasn't ( necessarily) referring to the pictures, but to the actual positions had by gun holding through time, specialy when accurate aiming appeared.
The different stock holding stages: chest, cheek, over shoulder and shoulder front, together with their respective stock designs, must have followed an ergonomic evolution, joining conveniences like sustaining the firing impact and a permanent improving aiming intention.
... if i make myself understood.
Fernando

fearn · 3rd December 2008, 07:23 PM

Hi Matchlock,

Neat sequence, thanks!

Hi Fernando,

I think we're saying the same things, only I'll do it a little more verbosely.

To start with, the guns probably have horrible accuracy and (most likely) a somewhat unpredictable firing time, because the powder wasn't standardized, and you might end up standing there for a while, and who knows where the ball (or whatever) is going to go. Or, for that matter, whether the gun is going to burst on you.

Now, I'm quite sure the soldiers of the time knew all about aiming weapons. That they didn't bother with too much aiming says that they didn't think it was worthwhile with the original guns. It's something like a scattershot mortar, at this point. It's a psychological weapon, not so much in the "terrify the primitives who haven't seen a gun before mode," but in the "they've got so many resources that they can waste them on soldiers with firearms" mode. Supposedly, arrows are scarier anyway, because you can see them coming, so an inaccurate gun is basically a statement about showing off new technology and resources, less about scaring the yokels (that's my opinion, anyway). It's something like the way the US Army is currently deploying it's single "Zeus" laser in Iraq.

As guns become more accurate and powder becomes more predictable, aiming becomes practical, and sighting down the shaft while it's held on your shoulder is one way to do it. If you're trying for a distance shot, hold it under your arm so that it aims up and hits indirectly.

Problem is, there's this tradeoff between power/distance and accuracy. If you want to hit a target with deadly force from a long distance, you need as heavy a gun as possible to absorb the recoil (and to not burst from the explosion). To aim accurately, you need something as light as possible, so that you can hold it steady and change the aim minutely. Imagine holding a 50 pound falconet to your shoulder, for instance.... Putting a proper stock on the gun is one way to partially deal with this dilemma, because it lets the gunner absorb some of the recoil and still keep the gun aimed down the tube.

Fernando, this is what you meant by: "Must have followed an ergonomic evolution, joining conveniences like sustaining the firing impact and a permanent improving aiming intention," right?

Best,

F

fernando · 3rd December 2008, 08:15 PM

Hi Fearn,

Quote:

Originally Posted by fearn

Fernando, this is what you meant by: "Must have followed an ergonomic evolution, joining conveniences like sustaining the firing impact and a permanent improving aiming intention," right?

Yes, mostly.
I was considering that, apart from the "conveniences" of sustaining the impact without missing the opportunity to aim, several variations took place, to find the most eficient and same time most confortable part of the body, to lean the gun against. This was the "ergonomic" aproach.
Fernando

Jim McDougall · 3rd December 2008, 08:19 PM

As always, I am completely captivated by these wonderful illustrations, especially as they show us the dynamics of how these early firearms might have appeared in use. I very much enjoy being part of the class

here in learning about these weapons, and excellent questions posed by Fernando with excellent observations and explanations by Michael, Fearn and Richard. Never having studied these firearms, it is great to have such detail brought in discussion....much better than trying to wade through technical detail in books!

From my perspective, I always enjoy looking for symbolism and clues in art, which might relate to weapons and historic perspective of the times. I hope by noting some things I have noticed it will not deviate from the course of this excellent discussion, and simply stand for reference by those who might find interest in these other perspectives.

First, I am intrigued by the allegoric theme of the artwork using the skeletons with weaponry, and other symbolic elements of the illustrations. Apparantly the theme of the dance macabre and that of the 'Dance of Death' works by Hans Holbein (the younger) in 1530-1547, and ranks of marching skeletons by Brueghel, were reflective of the allegories of death personified by animate skeletons in European art.
The terror of the deadly plagues, collectively termed 'the Black Death' in the previous century were still in the thoughts of these artists, and in noting the skeleton firing the crossbow, the allusion of death by plague was represented by being shot with arrows.
At the top of the coffin, there is a clearly marked scorpion, which apparantly in the middle ages, as 8th sign of the zodiac, 'scorpio' , represented the period of mans life which lies under the threat of death (the fall). This is but one view of the certainly more complex associations with death held by the scorpion (this one from "A Dictionary of Symbols", J.E.Cirlot, 1962,p.280) but interesting in its key placement in the painting.

It is interesting that the scorpion was a well known makers or perhaps guild marking on Italian bladed weapons from about 1530's to about 1600 (see "Armi Bianchi Italiene" Boccia & Coelho, 254,310, 447,455) which possibly referred to the deathly potential of these, much in the sense of the deadly Indian dagger 'bichwa' (=scorpions sting).

The bizarrely colorful attire of the Landsknechts has interesting note as well, as from what I understand this wild appearing clothing developed from these troops sometimes taking clothing from dead opponents, as well as items of thier own being slashed or torn in battle. These battle worn elements served as distinguishing marks of a seasoned, and presumably fierce (by the simple fact of surviving) warrior. The flamboyant colors and tattered battle clothing, sometimes even bloodied, issued psychological effect upon opponents.

It is intriguing to view these paintings as contemporary illustrations of these symbolic elements, in addition to considering the accuracy of weapon forms and components, which as noted, were often not as carefully portrayed as the detailed symbolism added by the artist.

While enjoying learning more on the firearms (such as the keen detail of noting position of the rear sight on the barrel in determining period) I just wanted to share notes on what I have taken from this wonderful art.

Thank you so much Michael! and Fearn, Richard, and Fernando for the detailed and fascinating discussion.

All the best,
Jim

Pukka Bundook · 4th December 2008, 03:20 PM

Jim,

Wonderful contribution!

It appears we all have roughly the same amount of arms, legs, brains, etc, yet it amazes me what some can 'see' and other's don't!
Your contribution has helped immensly to round out this discussion, and filled in many blanks.

Fernando,

I understand perfectly what you mean abot the developement of aiming and firing.
This is a very interesting subject, and I will try and look out some information I have somewhere on accuracy.

Michael,

Thanks for putting me right on the early tube sights having a 'V' hidden underneath. I thought they were a type of 'peep' sight.
What I was getting mixed up with, was the slightly later 16th century cheek-stocked target shooting matchlocks, which did have a tunnel sight of sorts, but with pin-hole replaceable apertures, just like modern peep sights.
I believe the apertures were oftn made of horn or bone, and could be slotted in with the aperture hole in a differnt location to correspond to different ranges.

Best wishes,

R.

Matchlock · 4th December 2008, 09:12 PM

Fernando, Jim, Richard (in alphabetic order),

Thank you all so much. You're just great.

Good night from a rainy Bavaria - and from my collection

Michael

fernando · 4th December 2008, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matchlock

... Good night from a rainy Bavaria - and from my collection

...

Also raining in Portugal ... but no collection like yours

Fernando

Pukka Bundook · 5th December 2008, 04:01 AM

No rain in western canada, and no collection either!

I think my brain was frozen this morning,(-20C)
when I said the apertures were made of horn,...don't know what happened, but they were made of Copper!
However did I get copper and horn mixed up?

Matchlock · 7th December 2008, 04:08 PM

Richard,

Please forgive my not being fully correct in claiming that all tubular back-sights had V sights underneath. This is really only true up to the mid 16th century.

From ca. 1550 to ca. 1600, there were tubular back-sights, of both iron and brass, that were dove tailed at the end of the barrel, in the direction of the muzzle, with no V sights at all. As they detached so easily, they are often missing with only the dove tail remaining.

Michael

7th December 2008, 04:08 PM	#9
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Tubular back-sights - an amendment Richard, Please forgive my not being fully correct in claiming that all tubular back-sights had V sights underneath. This is really only true up to the mid 16th century. From ca. 1550 to ca. 1600, there were tubular back-sights, of both iron and brass, that were dove tailed at the end of the barrel, in the direction of the muzzle, with no V sights at all. As they detached so easily, they are often missing with only the dove tail remaining. Michael

3rd December 2008, 07:23 PM	#2
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Hi Matchlock, Neat sequence, thanks! Hi Fernando, I think we're saying the same things, only I'll do it a little more verbosely. To start with, the guns probably have horrible accuracy and (most likely) a somewhat unpredictable firing time, because the powder wasn't standardized, and you might end up standing there for a while, and who knows where the ball (or whatever) is going to go. Or, for that matter, whether the gun is going to burst on you. Now, I'm quite sure the soldiers of the time knew all about aiming weapons. That they didn't bother with too much aiming says that they didn't think it was worthwhile with the original guns. It's something like a scattershot mortar, at this point. It's a psychological weapon, not so much in the "terrify the primitives who haven't seen a gun before mode," but in the "they've got so many resources that they can waste them on soldiers with firearms" mode. Supposedly, arrows are scarier anyway, because you can see them coming, so an inaccurate gun is basically a statement about showing off new technology and resources, less about scaring the yokels (that's my opinion, anyway). It's something like the way the US Army is currently deploying it's single "Zeus" laser in Iraq. As guns become more accurate and powder becomes more predictable, aiming becomes practical, and sighting down the shaft while it's held on your shoulder is one way to do it. If you're trying for a distance shot, hold it under your arm so that it aims up and hits indirectly. Problem is, there's this tradeoff between power/distance and accuracy. If you want to hit a target with deadly force from a long distance, you need as heavy a gun as possible to absorb the recoil (and to not burst from the explosion). To aim accurately, you need something as light as possible, so that you can hold it steady and change the aim minutely. Imagine holding a 50 pound falconet to your shoulder, for instance.... Putting a proper stock on the gun is one way to partially deal with this dilemma, because it lets the gunner absorb some of the recoil and still keep the gun aimed down the tube. Fernando, this is what you meant by: "Must have followed an ergonomic evolution, joining conveniences like sustaining the firing impact and a permanent improving aiming intention," right? Best, F

3rd December 2008, 08:19 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,459	As always, I am completely captivated by these wonderful illustrations, especially as they show us the dynamics of how these early firearms might have appeared in use. I very much enjoy being part of the class here in learning about these weapons, and excellent questions posed by Fernando with excellent observations and explanations by Michael, Fearn and Richard. Never having studied these firearms, it is great to have such detail brought in discussion....much better than trying to wade through technical detail in books! From my perspective, I always enjoy looking for symbolism and clues in art, which might relate to weapons and historic perspective of the times. I hope by noting some things I have noticed it will not deviate from the course of this excellent discussion, and simply stand for reference by those who might find interest in these other perspectives. First, I am intrigued by the allegoric theme of the artwork using the skeletons with weaponry, and other symbolic elements of the illustrations. Apparantly the theme of the dance macabre and that of the 'Dance of Death' works by Hans Holbein (the younger) in 1530-1547, and ranks of marching skeletons by Brueghel, were reflective of the allegories of death personified by animate skeletons in European art. The terror of the deadly plagues, collectively termed 'the Black Death' in the previous century were still in the thoughts of these artists, and in noting the skeleton firing the crossbow, the allusion of death by plague was represented by being shot with arrows. At the top of the coffin, there is a clearly marked scorpion, which apparantly in the middle ages, as 8th sign of the zodiac, 'scorpio' , represented the period of mans life which lies under the threat of death (the fall). This is but one view of the certainly more complex associations with death held by the scorpion (this one from "A Dictionary of Symbols", J.E.Cirlot, 1962,p.280) but interesting in its key placement in the painting. It is interesting that the scorpion was a well known makers or perhaps guild marking on Italian bladed weapons from about 1530's to about 1600 (see "Armi Bianchi Italiene" Boccia & Coelho, 254,310, 447,455) which possibly referred to the deathly potential of these, much in the sense of the deadly Indian dagger 'bichwa' (=scorpions sting). The bizarrely colorful attire of the Landsknechts has interesting note as well, as from what I understand this wild appearing clothing developed from these troops sometimes taking clothing from dead opponents, as well as items of thier own being slashed or torn in battle. These battle worn elements served as distinguishing marks of a seasoned, and presumably fierce (by the simple fact of surviving) warrior. The flamboyant colors and tattered battle clothing, sometimes even bloodied, issued psychological effect upon opponents. It is intriguing to view these paintings as contemporary illustrations of these symbolic elements, in addition to considering the accuracy of weapon forms and components, which as noted, were often not as carefully portrayed as the detailed symbolism added by the artist. While enjoying learning more on the firearms (such as the keen detail of noting position of the rear sight on the barrel in determining period) I just wanted to share notes on what I have taken from this wonderful art. Thank you so much Michael! and Fearn, Richard, and Fernando for the detailed and fascinating discussion. All the best, Jim

4th December 2008, 03:20 PM	#5
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Jim, Wonderful contribution! It appears we all have roughly the same amount of arms, legs, brains, etc, yet it amazes me what some can 'see' and other's don't! Your contribution has helped immensly to round out this discussion, and filled in many blanks. Fernando, I understand perfectly what you mean abot the developement of aiming and firing. This is a very interesting subject, and I will try and look out some information I have somewhere on accuracy. Michael, Thanks for putting me right on the early tube sights having a 'V' hidden underneath. I thought they were a type of 'peep' sight. What I was getting mixed up with, was the slightly later 16th century cheek-stocked target shooting matchlocks, which did have a tunnel sight of sorts, but with pin-hole replaceable apertures, just like modern peep sights. I believe the apertures were oftn made of horn or bone, and could be slotted in with the aperture hole in a differnt location to correspond to different ranges. Best wishes, R.

4th December 2008, 09:12 PM	#6
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Fernando, Jim, Richard (in alphabetic order), Thank you all so much. You're just great. Good night from a rainy Bavaria - and from my collection Michael

5th December 2008, 04:01 AM	#8
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	No rain in western canada, and no collection either! I think my brain was frozen this morning,(-20C) when I said the apertures were made of horn,...don't know what happened, but they were made of Copper! However did I get copper and horn mixed up?