Recently Jamestown Settlement staff and volunteers got together as a squadron sized body of soldiers to learn and experience an infantry drill formation.
People often think that muskets especially matchlocks were pretty much useless at that time because they think in modern day what I call "call of duty tactics" they generally don't think about this being done as a unit and the whole unit working together as different parts of one body.
The French in North America defeated superior US forces by having their best musketeers do the firing from behind cover. Behind each musketeer was a whole assembly line of other soldiers reloading and handing the muskets back to the front.
@@AudieHolland the 7 year war or the french and indian war as it is called in the US was in the midt 18th century, when everyone was using flintlock muskets. This is showing 17th century arms, armour and tactics. Also, there where no "US forces" at that point in time.
I must say, I love the Alamein rivet on the second rank man’s shoulders. That was very much a common arm defence for soldiers in the 17th century. Are the spaulders held in place by rivets to the gorget or by buckles and leather straps?
The Almain rivet is a great example of the old cheap armour that found its way to Virginia, because well, its old and cheap. In the case of this reproduction the spaulders are held in place with straps and buckles.
So so awesome. Some sergeants and other officers actually used snaphaunce pistols from behind their iron targets(shields)which as far as I’m aware is the only instance of pistols being used in conjunction with shields in military history. Beautiful drill work.
This is just so cool. I’ve never seen these earlier form of drills in real life. Amazing work guys. I am a new subscriber since seeing the bloke at the front describing the additions to chest plate with firearms.
i've been with a dutch reenactment group, and have done some drills with the lance, but doing this kind of stuff with the guns is a lot cooler to look at.
The targeteers ears must be ringing by the end of the drill. Very interesting demonstration. Others I've seen from the period result in the formation slowly advancing as the rank to fire takes position in front of the first one and stays there.
Yes, in this case the drill was firing in the steadfast. And as you described, a formation can fire in the advance with the targeteers making a forward movement advancing the firing line aligned on them. A rank of musketeers are then brought up to that firing line to fire their muskets and reload. The next rank of musketeers are then brought forward of the previous musketeers who are now reloading, to a new firing line reestablished by the forward movement of the targeteers, to take their shot, reload and continue the forward movement of successive ranks of musketeers. A fighting withdrawal can also be made with a rank of musketeers brought up to the firing line to fire their muskets, then retiring to become the rear most rank of their files and then begin to reload. Each successive rank of musketeers firing and withdrawing to become the rear rank of the formation. This rearward movement allows the formation to withdraw from the fight while also keeping the targeteers at the front of the formation slowing moving the firing line to the rear and maintaining a steady fire.
@@JYFMuseums According to Brandon F., they used a similar tactic when fighting in the streets, about a hundred years later, without the targeteers, of course. On the advance, or on the withdrawal.
I noticed that the guy giving commands (sergeant?) raised his shield and the other guy turned his head upon firing. Fascinating. Different from ACW where we simply place the second rank rifle muskets where the front man doesn't get the boom from the muzzle or the bang from the hammer & perc cap! 17c drill is new and exciting to me
This was very cool to see! I have a couple questions, if that's alright: 1) What is the source this drill was based on? 2) Does "firing by ranks in the steadfast" refer to each rank coming up, firing, and then going back to their position in the block, rather than countermarching to the back and reloading as the block cycles forward? And what is the utility of that? Or does "firing by ranks in the steadfast" refer simply to the formation remaining in place, rather than gaining or giving ground? Or is it something else entirely? 3) I saw your musketeers firing while wearing armor, which I think I remember you remarking in a different video was because PPC combatants liked to get up close and personal. Does the use of a matchlock change much when firing in a corselet and almain collar or maille sleeves, as opposed to firing unarmored? In any case, this was very impressive to see! I'm always so excited when I see a new entry to your Primed and Loaded series!
Thank you for the questions. The drill has been a work in progress and based on what we understand from the English, Dutch and Spanish sources/accounts with inferences made on the potential method of employment of targeteers in Virginia. Firing by ranks in the steadfast simply means that the formation maintains its position neither advancing nor withdrawing. Simply holding fast. In the museum setting we do not find that the wearing of armour causes any change to the use of the matchlock. If anything it does take deliberate drill and practice to become accustomed to handling the musket while wearing armour. Having said that, one of the wonderful archeological revelations has been the excavation of modified breast plates (1 from Jamestown and 2 others from other 17th century Virginia sites), where a small metal plate has been riveted to the right armhole of plate armour. We presume such a modification was made to allow a more secure bracing of the musket against the shoulder while in the armour and to keep the butt of the musket from slipping while firing. historicjamestowne.org/collections/artifacts/modified-breastplate/
@@JYFMuseums Thank you! I remember seeing pictures of the modified breastplate before, so it's cool to hear that you're incorporating that into your drill experiments!
@MLLamble You said, "...countermarching to the back and reloading as the block cycles forward..." we believe the flaw in this method of cycling ranks forward to the line of fire, and then having the musketeers retire to the rear of the file is that within a formation that should be holding fast a constant rate of forward motion is created that inherently disrupts and disorganizes the formation. Once the musketeer has retired to the rear of their file to reload, they must also begin a foward motion, again while reloading, so that they eventually are at the head of their file and ready to fire again. The problem is that in this method the files become strung out, while the ranks become misaligned, and each progrssive countermarch of musketeers compounds the problem, because each musketeer reloads and moves forward at different rates. The formation then occupies more space than is necessary and the mutual individual defence of the formation is eroded. By having each rank of musketeers advance from and retire to the same place in their file, this constant motion is eliminated while the formation occupies its appropriate space and maintains alignment and discipline.
@JYF Museums I like it when people do experimental archeological. It puts some myths to bed but raises somany more questions as well. I love history, and unfortunately, modern-day people, people sneer and think that our ancestors were crazy or not smart to fight in that manner. What people do not understand is that the technology that is available dictates the tactics that are used. It is not that they wanted to fight that way, but because of the limitations of single shot muzzloading fire arms matchlocks, wheellocks, and so on and although they were state of the art technology of their day they still had their problems and limitations such as they did not always go off when needed and other factors. That's why they fought in blocks of pike and shot close together, which was for command and control, and if 12 muskets failed to go off, you had fifty others that would go off it was a group effort where every one fought in support of the other. And the pikes and targeteers were to cover the musketeers from cavalry or being rushed by other infantry or natives while they reoloded
Mostly as a defense from arrows. But the role of close quarters fighting among Tidewater Native peoples is some I wonder about . My theory is that the Powhatans were very cautious with the lives of their warriors; melee combat is very risky and prone to be bloody.
There is the passage of several decades, but the main differences would be the reliance on armored musketeers & targeteers and the lack of the use of pike in Virginia.
@@JYFMuseums awesome thanks. I just got into this period of history in earnest. I figured the English Civil War was a good thing to learn about since it’s often referenced by early Americans well into the antebellum period.
I find the use of Targeteers rather interesting in that all the way until the 17th century, an age that saw an increased use of firearms and cannons, that there were still dedicated units of swordsmen.
The firing and reloading process seems to be pretty effective however I dont think the two standing up front wide open to enemy retaliation and shouting commands would last too long. I believe the two up front would have very short lifespans in a combat situation!
Those men up front are targeteers, men in armor, with sword and shield. Capable of blocking arrows, but most importantly capable of immediate melee. In Virginia the use of targeteers by the English, was the result of their looking back at their experiences in Ireland and the Netherlands at what worked, and putting those lessons to use, especially with regard to their small unit actions.
I always had this idea that the matchlock was mostly a European arm that stayed in Europe and we had mostly flintlocks in America. Thank y'all for sharing.
Be sure to check out our videos on the matchlock and snaphaunce ignition systems in our Primed and Loaded series for a little more insight on both match and flint ignition systems
Sure we can say there are "volleys"in this period, but with formations having narrow fronts and a depth of many ranks, plus a want to maintain a steady deliberate rate of fire, the volley does not have the same effect than the 18th century formations with very wide fronts and shallow depth that uses a volley for shock.
@@JYFMuseums Ok, granted. But still, there would be more than the dozen men shown here, right? So a volley would still be more than was shown here, even if it was more like "fire by file" used much later.
@John Mullholand If we are talking about what is going on in Virginia, much of the explorations and fights with the Powhatan are often involving a dozen or so men, or just a squadron strength. And are often reflective of the small unit actions as part of sieges, experienced by many of the English veterans in Europe before coming to Virginia. Let's take the squadron that is illustrated in the video and add two more squadrons to flesh out a company with 4 officer -- a captain, lieutenant, ensign and sergeant. We now have 24 musketeers, 6 targeteers, 4 officers and a formation of 6 files and 5 ranks. In this manner if the formation is managed correctly, there are only 6 musketeers discharging their muskets at a time. We certainly can create larger blocks of musketeers, but the volley of these blocks will still only involve a minor fraction of the total number of musketeers and are not going to have the same affect as a volley from an 18th or 19th century infantry formation, that is wide and shallow, when the entire infantry company or battalion discharges their weapons all at once to shock the opposing infantry. The big open field battles get all the press and are easy to document, but it's the messy small unit actions that are so common.
I wonder why the Sallet helmet fell out of use? The sallet was so popular in the 15th century, it is quite amazing helmet especially used for Infantry. There are even armets being used by infantrymen as well. Now there are depictions in rare occasions of soldiers wearing sallets mostly artillery men during the 17th century that I came across which amused me.
The sallet provided good neck and head protection, especially for blows brought down on the wearer’s head by cavalry. By the late-16th century the nature of war had changed with the advent of pike and shot warfare. For the pikeman in Europe the danger was less about the sword blows and more likely the pistol shot from cavalry, or the thrust of a pike from an opposing pikeman. A significant reason for the sallet to fall out of favor was the ease of manufacture of helmets that came afterwards, approaching mass production in a proto-industrial period. A helmet such as the cabasset was easier to manufacture, in a shorter timeframe and at a lower cost, but still offered quality protection.
@@JYFMuseums yeah I can't find anywhere on the internet of the few original depictions that I had that show a few soldiers out of a bunch wearing a sallet in the 17th century. It seems to be very hard to find. I'm going to look in my e-mails when I get a chance because I sent to a friend showing this because I was blown away. There's two depictions of it, one of them was an artillery man reloading a cannon and it was clear as day he had on a Sallet will all the other soldiers didn't. The other one where 17th century soldiers marching, and it shows two men out of all of them wearing a sallet while the rest had Morion type helmets. In those two pages are the only 17th century depictions I could ever find of such thing. And I remember reading they were from the 17th century, which blows my mind! There is no way I mistaken this because I emailed this to my friend, also blown away by it. I have the pictures in those emails and also the links from the historical page. I need to find them. If I find them or at least one of them I'll let you know maybe I can send you the email too? I have a question, though: Do you think those are hand-me-downs? Perhaps somebody's taking their great-grandfather's steel sallet helmet that's still in great shape and was either pressed into the military or a militia or joined? Or do you think on some rare occasions they created some new ones in the armories? Don't mean to bother you about this. You seem to be more knowledgeable than I am on the 17th century. A lot of my history I'm very knowledgeable in is before the 17th century. Thank you so much and happy new year.
I've been binge watching these vids and they're amazing. I wanna ask, was this formation specifically made for the settlements to fight against the natives or rival settlements or was this just an already existing formation that was adapted from Europe into the colonies?
A formation such as the one in the video would have evolved from similar formations used by the English in Ireland and the Netherlands. The leadership in Virginia were all veteran officers of service in Europe, in theaters of conflict like Ireland, the Netherlands, Normandy, or the Balkans. One volume of interest might be -- ==>"Virginia Richly Valued, by the description of the maine land of Florida, her next neighbour out of the foure yeers continuall trauell and discourie, for aboue one thousand miles east and west, of Ferdinando de Soto, and six hundred able men in his companie. Wherein are truly obserued the riches and fertilitie of thos parts, abounding with things necessarie, pleasant, and profitable for the life of man: with the natures and dispositions of the inhabitants. Written by a Portugall gentleman of Eluas, emploied in all action, and translated out of Portugese by Richard Hakluyt. At London: Printed by Felix Kyngston for Matthew Lownes, and are to be sold at the signe of the Bishops head in Pauls Churchyard, 1609."
@@JYFMuseums Do not forget Humfrey Barwick, who responds to both John Smythe and Roger Williams, and served as a longbowman in his youth and later a harquebusier, and as a soldier for France. (I would rather say that Smythe was a nut, perhaps on par with the likes of Machiavelli)
@Red-jl7jj Humfrey Barwick, "A breefe discourse, concerning the force and effect of all manuall weapons of fire..." quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=eebo;idno=A05277.0001.001 Other than that his book was banned for criticism of the English government, it is interesting to note that Sir John Smythe was the nephew of Jane Seymour. He at least had that family connection.
In the museum we manufacture our own, check out this video we posted back in February --ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EngbsKNQIpI.html
is how theyre moving historically accurate? to me it would seem more logical that everyone kept moving forward until its their turn, then those who just fired move back through the middle and re-enter the lines at the back.
How bad it is for the targeteer with the musket firing next to them would be subjective. If there is any issue its going to be the flash of the burning priming powder in the priming pan. Everyone will hear the report of the burning gunpowder, the "bang", but that bang will be the loudest at the musket's muzzle at barrel's length out in front of both the musketeer and targeteer. Both the musketeer and the targeteer are going to hear the same noise level back at the breech of the piece.
As far as reenactors go, we're sure that many of them do at their own events and programs. For the 17th century we do not recall a historic account of hearing protection.
Вопрос. Делая выстрел из аркебузы или мушкета не нужно ли отворачивать лицо, чтобы не повредить глаза или лицо от вспышки? Ведь прицеливание уже произведено
Good question. In the late-16th and early-17th century the nature of European “pike and shot” warfare required the use of armour among the cavalry, as well as infantry equipped as pikemen or targeteers -- those men expected to fight in close quarters with edged weapons and pole arms. The musketeer and calivermen were not armoured, because they were generally expected to engage their targets from a distance. Virginia was a unique case though. English leadership in Virginia, being veteran “Low Country captains” certainly appreciated the deadly skill of the Powhatan bowmen and in the face of that danger placed great importance on the use of armour by their men. Under Sir Thomas Dale, all Englishmen were required to be armoured against the Powhatan. So, while the English musketeer serving in the Low Countries did not wear armour, the English musketeer in Virginia absolutely did wear armour. The use of armour in Virginia starts to decline around the mid-17th century as the Powhatan gains wider access to firearms.
@@JYFMuseums thanks for the reply as a reenactor here it was interesting seeing the earlier style style targeters and more armoured stuff, and glad to hear about the reasons!
Hi! Are you asking, what does present your piece mean? If so, it is the command that tells the musketeer to bring the butt of his musket to his shoulder and take aim.
I don't want or mean to be insulting to these men but I would put money on a lot of them having not served. People that have move a certain way that's hard to explain but if you know what you are looking for you can spot them. Now the reason I bring that up was again not to be rude but it makes me wonder, were military men back then the same way? It seems like they would be and in my mind im wondering would it have been like this historically? I keep going back and forth because as it's been brought up many times many of the men fighting there were originally brought over to do something else and then they got double duty with fighting. What brings on moving in a way that is recognized as a solider is from both the strict discipline you are put under in training and then combat. The movement itself doing these kind of drills would be very fluid like running water. After a few years do you think they be battle hardened enough to have that soldier movement down where drills are second nature or did they have enough men to spread out the soldiering duty so it wasn't muscle memory and they still had to think about what they were doing when fighting?
the english used pikes and halberds in the new world.... and longbows, crossbows. There are depictions of early english settler/soldiers carrying halberds. Sometimes a group might only have a couple of arquebuses or muskets to supplement the firepower of crossbows and longbows. The greatest effect being the sound and smoke.
Our video Soldiers of the Virginia Company does cover this topic very well ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2uHN-S_BvGY.html It is worth noting that pike heads, halberds and cross bow quarrels as well as spear points from officer leading staffs have been found in the archaeology of the Jamestown Rediscovery Project at Historic Jamestowne: historicjamestowne.org/collections/artifacts/pike/ historicjamestowne.org/collections/archaearium/gentleman-soldiers/halberd/ historicjamestowne.org/collections/artifacts/crossbow-quarrel/ historicjamestowne.org/collections/archaearium/gentleman-soldiers/leading-staff/ We would expect pikes to be found. The Virginia Company’s expected military threat was from the Spanish with the arms expected of European warfare of the early 17th century. However, the pike is a weapon of heavy infantry warfare and serves as an anti-cavalry arm, it gives infantry the ability to oppose likewise pike armed infantry of the enemy. But the nature of warfare in Virginia did not involve cavalry or heavy infantry and the pike would not have been an effective weapon of the light infantry, skirmishing and small unit actions experienced in Virginia during the Anglo-Powhatan wars. Halberds are found in part because Lord de la Warr arrived in Virginia with his 50 personal soldiers armed with halberds. Beyond that, the leadership allowed for sergeants to be armed with halberds in garrison, the Lawes Divine, Morall and Martiall stating, “ And likewise every Officer armed as before, with a firelocke, or Snaphaunse, headpeece, and a Target, onely the Serjeant in Garrison shall use his Halbert, and in field his Snaphaunse and Target.” The crossbow quarrels indicate sporting crossbows with points for hunting small game, not warbows. Before this period England had given up the longbow and crossbow for warfare and had embraced the caliver and musket. The leading staff is an emblem of rank. You may consult the 1624/25 muster rolls for an inventory of the firearms in use: www.virtualjamestown.org/Muster/muster24.html The reality is that the English in Virginia are not relying on pikes, halberds, crossbows or longbows in battle in Virginia. Crossbows and longbows were old and outdated and spears/leading staffs and halberds were badges of ranks. The arms relied on are muskets, calivers, swords and shields. George Percy does mention the use of a dagger, he writes, "And Lieutenant Puttocke, encountering with one of the savages hand to fist, grappled with him and stabbed him to death with his poniard." They may have modified armor for more effective use of armor and muskets together: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7RdvLaalTho.html
