Firearms in 1566

[Jaan]

OKay, I was just reading the commentary on Gene Simmons' web site and the following quote struck me:

"Though on his web-page he has Nostradamus being shot rather than dying in bed of natural causes, he seems otherwise generally well-informed on these subjects. You see, firearms were not in use in 1566, when Michel died."

Well, as far as I know, firearms were in use then.

The earliest record of a firearm, known as a "hand cannon" (since that's basically what it was) dates from 1326. Matchlocks came around the mid 1400's, wheellocks followed around 1517. The Snaphunce, and early version of the flintlock came about circa 1570 and true flintlocks appeared circa 1612.

So, given this timetable, firearms were in use in 1566 ... although they may not have been common, or available in the area. I'm sure by 1566 though, quite a few people had been killed already by firearms, especially in the new world.

Here is a picture of me if you're interested (c:
http://tinyurl.com/3a9eu

[Ian Osborne]

Yes, you're quite right. The first recorded battlefield death from a firearm occurred at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, so they were certainly in use by 1566.

[Cecil]

Originally posted by Jaan
I'm sure by 1566 though, quite a few people had been killed already by firearms, especially in the new world. Very true. One of the major factors in Hernan Cortes's defeat of the Aztecs in 1519 was the use of firearms by the Spaniards. Since the Aztecs did not have much in the way of long-range weaponry, they had no chance in combat and were slaughtered in nearly every battle. Over the course of the conquest, upwards of 200,000 Aztecs were killed, though what percentage of that is from firearms I'm not sure.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cecil
Very true. One of the major factors in Hernan Cortes's defeat of the Aztecs in 1519 was the use of firearms by the Spaniards. Since the Aztecs did not have much in the way of long-range weaponry, they had no chance in combat and were slaughtered in nearly every battle. Over the course of the conquest, upwards of 200,000 Aztecs were killed, though what percentage of that is from firearms I'm not sure.

And, of course, horses. The Aztecs thought that the Spaniards were one with their horses, and therefore, sort of mythical creatures. Add to that, the thundering noise of the firearms, and the ability to strike at a distance.

How many soldiers did Cortez have, a few hundred? With no ships to go back with? That's motivation. They had nothing to lose. There's only one way, caballero, and that's forward.

What did the Aztecs have? They outnumbered the Spaniards, but they had only swords with sharp stones. No metal. And they had a great fear of these metal-clad horsemen who could make thunder and kill at a distance.

It was a hands-down victory.

[Cecil]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
How many soldiers did Cortez have, a few hundred? With no ships to go back with? That's motivation. They had nothing to lose. There's only one way, caballero, and that's forward.From tntn.essortment.com/conquistadores_rzpq.htm

Hernan Cortes had 11 ships, 100 sailors, 508 soldiers, and 16 horses. These plus a few small cannons that fired rounded rocks and the normal weapons of his day like the musket, crossbow, pikes, and swords were his army's arsenal to defeat tens of thousands of native warriors. He also had his men burn the ships upon arrival to eliminate any possibility of retreat. Not that there was any need to, with their overwhelming advantage.

If you're interested in the Aztecs at all, and even if you're not, read Aztec, by Gray Jennings. It's a fabulous book.

[CFLarsen]

Cecil,

Thanks! It's a fascinating story.

16 horses. Less than a thousand men. Amazing.

[dann]

Don't forget 'biological warfare'! They brought a lot of germs to the 'new world', albeit unintentionally.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by dann
Don't forget 'biological warfare'! They brought a lot of germs to the 'new world', albeit unintentionally.

True, also. It took somewhat longer than their firearms, but the result was definitively more devastating!

Have you read "Guns, Germs and Steel", Dann?

[kookbreaker]

Don't forget that Cortez was also able to recruit huge numbers of disaffected natives who were sick of Aztec rule. Add to that the fact that Aztec culture was in serious decline and you have a recipie for a falling empire.

In fact I'd give far more credit to the recruiting of native soldiers than to musketry.

Mind you, there were still plenty of points where the whole thing could have fallen on its face. Crotez was doing this little adventure without any official sanction.

Read "What If..." and its Aztec chapter for an interesting tale of what might have been.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Jaan
So, given this timetable, firearms were in use in 1566 ... although they may not have been common, or available in the area. I'm sure by 1566 though, quite a few people had been killed already by firearms, especially in the new world.


One thing is fairly certain: firearms would not be in use for common murder. Muskets were expensive as it was, and pistols (particularly wheelocks) were downright prohibitive. Far cheaper (and more reliable) for a thug to use a club.

[thaiboxerken]

Ahh.. but the Mayans will get their revenge for the Aztecs in 2012 when the calendar ends. The world will also end. So please, send all of your money to me as it will be of no consequence anyway.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Don't forget that Cortez was also able to recruit huge numbers of disaffected natives who were sick of Aztec rule. Add to that the fact that Aztec culture was in serious decline and you have a recipie for a falling empire.

In fact I'd give far more credit to the recruiting of native soldiers than to musketry.

Mind you, there were still plenty of points where the whole thing could have fallen on its face. Crotez was doing this little adventure without any official sanction.

Read "What If..." and its Aztec chapter for an interesting tale of what might have been.

Bold face mine

AFAIK what really scared the Aztecs and might have contributed greatly was horses - the Native Americans didn´t know horses and must have considered riders some kind of monsters...

[TeaBag420]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


One thing is fairly certain: firearms would not be in use for common murder. Muskets were expensive as it was, and pistols (particularly wheelocks) were downright prohibitive. Far cheaper (and more reliable) for a thug to use a club.

Do you have even one figure to back up this gratuitous assertion, or shall we simply consider it gratuitously denied and move on?

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by TeaBag420


Do you have even one figure to back up this gratuitous assertion, or shall we simply consider it gratuitously denied and move on?

You want figures for murder methods in the 16th century? Sorry, I don't got 'em.

Would you prefer to show examples of a flakey weapon that was generally only issued to cavalry being used in the streets for the majority of murders in Nosty's era?

Otherwise flake off, poser.

[TeaBag420]

You missed the point, Sir and/or Madame. The root of your assertion was that the expense would be prohibitive. The firearms of the time were relatively primitive machines. Even today, better firearms can be made by an untrained person at home with hand tools.

WHAT DID THE FIREARMS COST?

Gratuitous assertion, gratuitously denied (standard rule of rhetoric).

The only evidence you offer is that YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE.

I'm not good at rude remarks (on this board anyway), so you'll just have to imagine one here.


http://www.cincinnatiskeptics.org/newsletter/art4-2.html

With warm wet kisses that go on forever......

Originally posted by kookbreaker


You want figures for murder methods in the 16th century? Sorry, I don't got 'em.

Would you prefer to show examples of a flakey weapon that was generally only issued to cavalry being used in the streets for the majority of murders in Nosty's era?

Otherwise flake off, poser.

[eli54]

It may be just me, but I can't think of anyone I know that has the capability to forge steel at home, let alone make the black powder and cast the shot.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by TeaBag420
[B]You missed the point, Sir and/or Madame. The root of your assertion was that the expense would be prohibitive. The firearms of the time were relatively primitive machines. Even today, better firearms can be made by an untrained person at home with hand tools.

WHAT DID THE FIREARMS COST?


Look bobo, I don't have exact figures in front of me, and such firugres are useless anyway since they would vary from region to region. However a cheap, cruddy munitions grade matchlock musket cost at least 11s in the middle of the 17th century (when firearms were compartively better and cheaper). A matchlock in the 16th century would have doubtless cost more. A wheelock is a far more complicated animal. They were far more expensive and harder to make (is this too hard for you?). Conservatively, let's say that they were about 5x the cost, or 55 shillings (this is verrrrrrrrry low figure). Now, this is when an average laborer was paid about 8pence a day. (note, this figures would vary in other countries).

So this means that to kill someone with a pistol, your murderer must be very rich or have such a weapon on loan (stop me if I'm going too fast for you). The former is unlikely, and the latter just laughable.


Gratuitous assertion, gratuitously denied (standard rule of rhetoric).

The only evidence you offer is that YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE.



This is a minor history discussion, not a hardcore debate. You're rude and unwarrented reply, including the lame excuse of 'rhetoric' can be properly shoved in whatever orofice of your you prefer.

You wanted evidence? Then you might have asked for it. Instead you chose to be a jerk. Goodbye.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by eli54
It may be just me, but I can't think of anyone I know that has the capability to forge steel at home, let alone make the black powder and cast the shot.

Well, one could make a passable musket using high pressure gas piping and a metal lathe.

Zip guns that require cartridge ammuntion are made all the time.

[eli54]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


Well, one could make a passable musket using high pressure gas piping and a metal lathe.

Zip guns that require cartridge ammuntion are made all the time.

How do you make high pressure gas tubing at home?

I don't have a metal lathe at home, do you?

I believe you originally said it could be made at home, not purchased parts assembled at home. Try it sometime, using 15th century technology.

[TeaBag420]

eli, thank you for your nice reply.

Let's break it down:

How do you make high pressure gas tubing at home?


---- I didn't introduce the term "high pressure gas tubing" into the discussion, but I would SUPPOSE that tolerances between the projectile and the barrel would be more permissive than today, so pressure would be less of a problem.

I don't have a metal lathe at home, do you?

---- Are you saying that there were no metal tubes at that time, or sheet metal? Have you looked at firearms of the time? Speaking of which....


I believe you originally said it could be made at home, not purchased parts assembled at home. Try it sometime, using 15th century technology.

---- uh, we were discussing the SIXTEENTH century. Try it? I've DONE it.

[TeaBag420]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


Look bobo, I don't have exact figures in front of me, and such firugres are useless anyway since they would vary from region to region.

Your argument continues to boil down to "I don't know."


However a cheap, cruddy munitions grade matchlock musket cost at least 11s in the middle of ........blah blah blah this figures would vary in other countries).


You just said you didn't have the figures. How could a cheap item be expensive?


So this means that to kill someone with a pistol, your murderer must be very rich or have such a weapon on loan (stop me if I'm going too fast for you). The former is unlikely, and the latter just laughable.


several possible scenarios:

1. stolen gun
2. rented gun
3. victim's gun
4. gun's weren't all that expensive

This is not rocket science.


This is a minor history discussion, not a hardcore debate.

Hence your attitude?

You're rude and unwarrented reply, including the lame excuse of 'rhetoric' can be properly shoved in whatever orofice of your you prefer.


Someone needs to work on:

1. spelling
2. typing
3. manners


You wanted evidence? Then you might have asked for it. Instead you chose to be a jerk. Goodbye.


I DID ask for it. Insert rude remark here.

[eli54]

At that time, it was rocket science.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by TeaBag420
You just said you didn't have the figures. How could a cheap item be expensive?


Read what I actually wrote. Don't bother replying. You are in the ignore file.

[TeaBag420]

Originally posted by eli54
At that time, it was rocket science.


No, at that time, ROCKETS were rocket science. The firearms of the time were quite primitive and did not require an exorbitant amount of money or a high level of skill to manufacture.

[TeaBag420]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


Read what I actually wrote. Don't bother replying. You are in the ignore file.

I read what you wrote and addressed it point by point. I suppose if I am "in the ignore file" then I shan't see a reply from you. Pity.

Maybe we should cut to the chase and ask just what you DO know about the subject under discussion, because your "I'm right because I don't know" argument is becoming tedious.

Do you know anything about firearms?

Remember you are the one who introduced "wheelocks" into the discussion. That's called a "straw man".

[epepke]

Originally posted by eli54
It may be just me, but I can't think of anyone I know that has the capability to forge steel at home, let alone make the black powder and cast the shot.

I think it is.

Casting shot is trivial. So is making black powder. I've done both. Hell, I made nitrocellulose in 10th grade. Almost set the physics building on fire, but that's a different story.

As for forging steel, you don't forge a gun barrel. You smelt the iron, burn off the carbon to make steel, and cast and then bore the gun barrel. This, however, is pretty tricky. I never got past the sand casting phase when I was a kid. Mostly because I was afraid the gun barrel would blow up. Which they did with some regularity back then.

I did make a cartridge with a ball from a bearing, some flash powder, a cap, a separator, and a U-connector with the U-part fired off. It wasn't very accurate, though.

[chillzero]

Surely cost and so on is irreleevant anyway?

The fact remains that firearms existed. Now, whether they were a household item, or not, doesn't really matter. There are endless scenarios that could place one gun in one person's hand to commit one - only ONE - murder that is under scrutiny.

e.g. theft
e.g. an ex-army person committed the murder
e.g. a loan (I fail to see why this is laughable)

etc etc etc...

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by cabby
Surely cost and so on is irreleevant anyway?

The fact remains that firearms existed. Now, whether they were a household item, or not, doesn't really matter. There are endless scenarios that could place one gun in one person's hand to commit one - only ONE - murder that is under scrutiny.

e.g. theft
e.g. an ex-army person committed the murder
e.g. a loan (I fail to see why this is laughable)

etc etc etc...

Thank you for being more civilized about the question at hand.

Yes, it is entirely possible some murders involved firearms in murder, but it was without a doubt going to be rare. Expense was a factor in that. Even today, the vast majority of gangland killings are done with the cheapest firearms available. Hence a bunch of .22's and .25 pistols are the weapons in use. You don't see drive by's in real life that use $5000 military submachine guns. Instead you see a lot of cheap AK knock offs, and other cheap weapons. While Hollywood lovesto show gang-bangers using expensive military weapons and such,the reality is a lot more cheap.

That said, yes, one could still committ murder with a wheellock in that day and age. However it is still going to be a very, very rare event. I doubt very much anyone is going to loan you an expensive sniper rifle in this day and age, which is what the wheellock was in its time. Ex military? Well, if someone scooped one off the battlefield,and managed somehow not to sell it, yes that's also possible. It wasn't likely that a murderer mustered out of the military with a pistol...those were cavaly weapons and the wing was usually dominated by the nobility... who'd probably prefer using a rapier. Theft is always possible, but I doubt anyone who stole such a weapon would keep it to use it. Selling it would be the preferable option.

So, yes,while it is possible to have murder by firearm, my money is still on the club.

[TeaBag420]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


Thank you for being more civilized about the question at hand.

Yes, it is entirely possible some murders involved firearms in murder,


Game. Set. Match.

but it was without a doubt going to be rare. Expense was a factor in that.

Argument by assertion. Here's the simplest counterargument: find someone with a gun. Hit him on the head with a club. Take the gun.


Even today, the vast majority of gangland killings are done with the cheapest firearms available. Hence a bunch of .22's and .25 pistols are the weapons in use. You don't see drive by's in real life that use $5000 military submachine guns. Instead you see a lot of cheap AK knock offs, and other cheap weapons.

Do you know anything at all about firearms? The cheapest firearm available is a stolen firearm. The second cheapest is one bought or RENTED on the street.

"$5000 military submachine guns only cost that much because of the gun control law banning the import of automatic weapons for civilian use. I admit I am hazy on the law, but it COULD be the crime control act of 1990, although I thought it was one from the mid 1980's.

http://www.uh.edu/~dbarclay/rm/cca1990.htm

Because of this law, submachine guns (fully automatic weapons firing a pistol cartridge) which cost only $1200 on the police/military market cost $5000 - $7000 on the civilian market. Supply and demand. An "AK knockoff" would be a fully automatic rifle and rather expensive in the US, although cheap in the rest of the world. By the way, in Pakistan, in the town of Darra, they are made BY HAND.



While Hollywood lovesto show gang-bangers using expensive military weapons and such,the reality is a lot more cheap.


There's that straw man again.


That said, yes, one could still committ murder with a wheellock in that day and age.


Please stop talking about wheellocks. That is another straw man.




However it is still going to be a very, very rare event.


Argument by gratuitous assertion again.


I doubt very much anyone is going to loan you an expensive sniper rifle in this day and age, which is what the wheellock was in its time.


You equation of a wheellock and a sniper rifle is quite simply insa... uh, dubious. You can doubt all you want, but do you even know anyone who owns a sniper rifle?

To break it down even further, RICH PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE TOO. I know of a high profile murder in which the weapon was a Thompson Contender. (Feel free to look it up).




Ex military? Well, if someone scooped one off the battlefield,and managed somehow not to sell it, yes that's also possible. It wasn't likely that a murderer mustered out of the military with a pistol...those were cavaly weapons and the wing was usually dominated by the nobility... who'd probably prefer using a rapier. Theft is always possible, but I doubt anyone who stole such a weapon would keep it to use it. Selling it would be the preferable option.


Which explains why all the "gangland killers" have sold their guns?



So, yes,while it is possible to have murder by firearm, my money is still on the club. [/B]

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Jaan
Here is a picture of me if you're interested (c:
http://tinyurl.com/3a9eu

Uugh!! Whos the pasty nerd with the BB gun?

:p

[Jaan]

Originally posted by TeaBag420
By the way, in Pakistan, in the town of Darra, they are made BY HAND.
Isn't that amazing? As an old school machinist who's a bit too dependent on CNC machines these days ... I take my hat off to those guys.
You equation of a wheellock and a sniper rifle is quite simply insa... uh, dubious. You can doubt all you want, but do you even know anyone who owns a sniper rifle?
Not to open up another debate, but the best sniper in recorded history was US Marine Gunnery Sergeant Carlos N. Hathcock III, with 93 confirmed kills (probably more than 300 total). He did it primarily with a simple deer hunting rifle, a Winchester Model 70 chambered in .30-06 fitted with a 8X Unertl scope. He didn't even use handloaded ammunition. Back then there was no official sniper program, but the Marines keep some deer hunting rifles around for soldiers to use while on leave. They took those rifles and then bought scopes with "recreation" money (along with volleyballs and such so as not to raise suspicions) at sporting goods stores.

So given this it's safe to say I know many people who own "sniper" rifles (c:

[Jaan]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Uugh!! Whos the pasty nerd with the BB gun?

:p
Guilty of being a nerd! My friend took that picture at our camp just before going out deer hunting during early blackpowder season. I didn't get anything that day, but I did the next. Those little .54 caliber BB's sure get the job done (c:

[TeaBag420]

Originally posted by Jaan

Isn't that amazing? As an old school machinist who's a bit too dependent on CNC machines these days ... I take my hat off to those guys.


I know a woman from Pakistan who finds it incredibly hot.


Not to open up another debate, but the best sniper in recorded history was US Marine Gunnery Sergeant Carlos N. Hathcock III, with 93 confirmed kills (probably more than 300 total). He did it primarily with a simple deer hunting rifle, a Winchester Model 70 chambered in .30-06 fitted with a 8X Unertl scope. He didn't even use handloaded ammunition. Back then there was no official sniper program, but the Marines keep some deer hunting rifles around for soldiers to use while on leave. They took those rifles and then bought scopes with "recreation" money (along with volleyballs and such so as not to raise suspicions) at sporting goods stores.

So given this it's safe to say I know many people who own "sniper" rifles (c:

That's a good point. While the U.S. military currently uses custom built rifles for the job, it can certainly be done with off the shelf deer-hunting guns. And you weren't the one I addressed the remark to, it was someone who seemed not to know guns.