The long climb out of the dark ages brings to Europe the genesis of what would become all that we consider “normal” life.
Early Renaissance
Time Frame – 1350 to 1520
Politics/Economics –
The high water mark for absolute monarchies. The feudalism of the past is too cumbersome to deal with the expanded economic opportunities made available through trade and goods from Asia, Africa, the Americas, and the Middle East. With greater economic centralization comes a lessening of the power of regional lords and a concomitant increase in the power of a reigning king.
New manufacturing and trade centers within Europe, combined with periodic drops in the population due to the plague, meant that the value of the individual worker soared. Wages tripled, and large numbers of workers could leave traditional agricultural employment for the higher pay of “factory” jobs. City populations swelled, as did their economic power. Increasingly, the middle-class burgomasters of a large township would wield more effective political power than a county lord.
Although the crusades began as an effort to subjugate the “infidel” and increase the power of Christianity, they ended by extending trade routes into Asia and the Ottoman Empire, bringing in not only goods but also knowledge in science, engineering, and philosophy long lost to Western Europe. This transfer of knowledge was further spurred by the relocation of Greek scholars from the declining Byzantine Empire to the wealthy urban centers of Italy. These parallel influences led to a sudden flourishing in the learning of and emulation of ancient Greek and Roman philosophy.
The Renaissance is also the beginning of the first wave of youth culture. This is not all that dissimilar from the Hippie movement of the 1960’s. All things “old” were viewed with distrust. Only new thoughts had value. Ironically, “new” was considered the adaptation of ancient Greek philosophy, and a turning away from strict deference to church teaching. Knowledge now became something that could be found by individual intellectual pursuit. But the period is also marked by a more harsh body of critical thought, with each wave of plague and each defeat at crusade further eroding the faith in an ordered world. Philosophy and art look to find a grand balance outside of the rigid framework set forth by the Vatican.
Fashion/Manners – With a higher standard of living and a much wider variety of fabrics and colors available, personal expression in attire was highly valued. The heaviness and sense of protection from nature that was suggestive in Gothic clothing gave way to apparel more open and relaxed, evocative of a person far more comfortable living in the natural world. It is a look and attitude far less fearful of the universe.
With looser and showier clothing come manners also more open and relaxed. There are no prescribed gestures or poses, but rather an easy yet proud carriage, legs generally turned out but no longer excessively so. A certain lightness of bearing was cultivated, distinctly different than that medieval stalwart stance. The look was supposed to imply that one was ready to spring at a moment to fight or dance. The bow in greeting is now used only at formal occasions, and would be performed with the back leg remaining straight and the front leg stepping forward slightly and bending at the knee (think of a very small fencer’s lunge). Notice how this movement naturally opens the chest and gently propels the person forward, rather than shrinking away in fear. When not worn, the hat was generally held in front of the body, but not stiffly. Rather, the hand was relaxed, as though the hat was altogether forgotten by the owner. For a greeting between friends, the convention of the bow was eliminated altogether as too pretentious. Instead, friends, male or female, would simply join in a heartfelt handclasp.
Just as art sought balance, so did the concept of the ideal man. A gentleman of position was expected to be not only proficient in the practice of arms, but also become familiar with all areas of learning, languages, philosophy and art.
Civilian Conflict – With the exception of some larger daggers that Italians and Germans began wearing, there were no substantive changes in the way civilian disputes were settled. However, with the breakdown of ecclesiastic and manorial authority, the number of private disputes increased in many nations. In Italy especially, when a crime was committed by one individual the entire family was considered guilty, often leading to never-ending reprisals and counter reprisals.
Although there are many current plays set in this period that use civilian rapier fights, the weapon had not yet been invented. Civilian disputes were settled by knife, cudgel, or fist.
Warfare – Edged weapons for the battlefield were the same in basic layout compared to the Gothic period, although the variety expanded to fit different tactical uses. Steel became cheaper, and with the slow diffusion of technical knowledge from the Moorish cultures, far stronger swords were available.
Continuing the trend of the earlier medieval period, large numbers of mercenary companies were routinely used for war. What was new was that these units augmented the newly created and very effective native infantry units. For the first time since the ancient Greeks, large numbers of regular foot soldiers were given specific training in the use of their pole weapons and were given a primary rather than tertiary tactical assignment. By acting as a disciplined unit, a line of soldiers with spear or halberd could take the field and nullify any charge by the mounted cavalry. To aid in that task, they were given specific weapons for the job. Instead of trying to outfit them as “light-knights”, their weapons were based on the agricultural implements that they already knew, but refined so as to be appropriate to the battleground.
When these units took the field (first the Swiss, then the Germans, then the rest of Europe) they became an even match for the cavalry. When combined with equally disciplined contingents of archers or crossbowmen, they were unbeatable. It was here, rather than with the introduction of gunpowder, that the mounted knight began his inexorable decline. Unable to defeat the infantry in a head-on assault, and with mobility limited by disciplined archery, the mounted cavalry lost its battlefield advantage.
Weapons Available: Every type of poleweapon, mace, axe and straight edged battle sword, both single and double handed is now seen on European battlefields.
Mannerist Renaissance
Time Frame – 1520 – 1620
Politics/Economics – A period of turmoil, where the conflict of circumstances would lead to some of the largest changes that Europe would ever see. The earlier Renaissance was a great flowering, a liberation of expression, but did not bring radical changes in thought. That change occurrs in this period, what we call the Elizabethan era.
Overall standard of living rises with the influx of gold and silver from the Americas. This, along with a dramatic increase in the size and mobility of the population, moves the continent away from barter and to a completely monetary economy. With that arise the creation of independent and trusted banks and exchange houses. The liberalizing of thought allowed by the Renaissance and the weakening of Catholic power after the waves of plague led directly to what would be generically known as Protestantism. First promulgated by Martin Luther as a challenge within the Church, it came to divide Europe politically and dynastically. When a newly powerful Germany (under Charles V) allowed its troops to sack Rome, it not only ended up strengthening Protestantism, but brought to an end the Italian Renaissance. The “accidental Protestantism” of Henry VIII and the subsequent creation of the Church of England would draw Great Britain into the center of the conflict, both within the nation in bloody civil wars and also in international intrigues.
The entire continent sees changes happening on a grand scale. The explosion of printed materials disperses knowledge, and with books becoming plentiful and remarkably inexpensive, more people of every level of society are motivated to learn to read. Not only knowledge, but opinion too can travel widely and quickly, increasing the complexity of philosophical thought and radical notions such as independent reality, humanism, and Copernican astronomy. Imagine suddenly being confronted with these two radical thoughts at the same time: that the earth is not the center of the universe, and that the Holy Roman Church is not the center of religion. Art now explores the ambiguities of life, no longer content with trying to replicate the grand classical balance of the previous period.
Just as with the beginning of the Renaissance, there is a further shift in societal outlook. But now it continues past criticism to pessimism. There is a general return to superstitious thought, and violent reaction against the unknown. This spurs the power of the Inquisition, and not without reason ushers in a climate of fear. With fear comes violence and repression, both from the Catholic Inquisitions as well as Puritan purges.
I must make some mention here of one guy who wrote a couple of plays during this period. You might have heard of him. His name was Shakespeare (or maybe Shaksper, or Shaxpere, Shakespere, or Shakspere). It is likely that you are reading this section in particular right now because you have a play of his coming up. So how does he fit in with the rest of the information above?
It has been said many times that Shakespeare straddled both worlds, the medieval and the modern. But just because that is almost a cliché doesn’t mean that it isn’t also dauntingly true. In his time he was perhaps one of the last holdouts of conservative thought. Part of this is understandable. As a successful playwright who wanted to stay successful, he made sure to play to the house and to the authorities who had the power to shut his theatre down. Throughout his plays he unquestioningly accepts the divine right of kings and shows the terrible tragedies that spring from usurping a legitimate ruler from his (or her) seat of power. He must have read the latest scientific studies of the prior fifty years, but continues to write of a universe in which the Earth is at its center, where the body is regulated by humours, and that humans are born into their natural position in society. Disrupting the natural order can bring about calamity to all. And yet …
…. he is also undeniably a humanist, who has his central characters deal with their situations by reasoning them out. In Hamlet, other characters may call him melancholic, but he does not allow that or any other humour to rule him. We see Hamlet struggle through the right or wrong of an action by using his mental capability, even by setting up something of a scientific experiment. In Richard II, the king may have been a poor ruler or he may have been unjustly overthrown, but Shakespeare’s interest is in seeing him deconstruct his rapidly imploding universe. He undergoes a true existential crisis. Using his rational thought alone, he finds a new place for himself, and a certain amount of peace, in a world that reduces him to nothingness. Every character in every play has a counterpart in the simplistic plays of Medieval Europe, and yet he endows them with understanding of their own motivations that anticipates psychological realism by centuries.
Fashion/Manners – It’s not called the mannerist period for nothing. The free and easy designs and movements of the earlier Renaissance become codified and lose much of their feeling of casual elegance. German and English were more restrictive than French or Italian – they were held back by a very late entry to the benefits of the Renaissance, so much so that they still held a generally medieval outlook long after the rest of Europe flourished.
For all of Europe, the hallmarks of fashion were exaggeration, ornamentation without a conceit of utility, and stylized, almost tortured, three dimensional embellishments. In a dramatic break from the long and loose hair of the early Renaissance, men’s hair suddenly is cut much shorter. Stiff, padded, and encased, the body must conform to the new style. As dress shoes were soft and heelless, walking became slower, with the ball of the foot nearly brushing the ground in order to keep the backless shoes from falling off. Because of the wide (“pumpkin”) breeches, the legs were kept at a medium-wide stance, and movement led with the hips. In addition, no man was considered completely dressed unless he also wore his rapier. It seems that all of these factors conspired to create a sort of “sailing” walking gait, a push from the hips side to side for each step forward, while trying to keep the torso level. When sitting, one would always perch on the edge of the seat, with the feet kept side by side, not crossed nor wide apart. The rapier hilt would be tilted back so that the tip of the scabbard was pointed forward, this in order to prevent anyone from tripping over it. Small wonder that many men took lessons in general movement from fencing masters.
The etiquette for greeting also became formalized. Gloves were kept on indoors and removed when offering a hand to a woman. To bow, the feet were turned outward slightly and the weight shifted to the right leg. The left leg then moved back, with the left knee now turned out even more. Keeping the back erect, both knees would bend, with the center of balance now shared by both legs. In an extreme bow, the left knee might almost touch the floor. On rising, the weight moves back to the right foot. This is what Shakespeare calls “making a leg”, and is not really a bow for the restrictions of the tight doublet prevent a graceful bend at the waist. During the entire procedure the stiff ruff of the collar could prevent the inclination of the head, but the attempt should be made to submissively lower chin and the gaze if at all possible. The hat is removed and allowed to sweep humbly to the side.
Civilian Conflict –
To the consternation of many directors trying to set a Shakespeare play within Shakespeare’s time, there are certain things that they often request that simply don’t exist in the 16th century. There was no civilian pistol. There was no hunting rifle. All firearms for this period were purely military weapons, no exceptions. Hunting, for deer or boar, was done with bow and arrow (backed up with lance and sword). Bird hunting was done with light crossbows, using blunted broad bolts so as to knock birds out of the sky rather than harpooning them. Even the smallest pistols were large ungainly objects used from horseback. No, if someone was to threaten another, it was done with the rapier.
Around 1530, the invention of the rapier provided the opportunity for any man to walk about the streets armed with a sword. Much lighter than the swords used in battle, it did not pull down at the hip as did broadswords, so one could comfortably wear it all day. It was a cut and thrust weapon, doing neither particularly well but certainly capable of doing a good deal of damage without having to have massive upper body strength. The English had a love-hate relationship with the rapier. They felt that nothing was more honorable than a simple stout English broadsword, but realized that it was not nearly so portable as the rapier. They knew that the rapier was also not only a badge of status and style but also an extraordinary weapon in case of a street attack. It was relatively expensive, so a common highwayman or street thug was not likely to have one. On the other hand, it was not restricted to the knightly class, so anyone with the money and training could wear one. The fighting style assumed that one would have a secondary weapon in the other hand, so as to knock down an opponent’s weapon and provide an opening for your own thrust or cut. With so many people now fully armed, it was only natural that innumerable fencing schools popped up. Wherever the rapier flourished, so did experts charging students in its use.
It was considered a sneaky and deceitful weapon, what with the underhanded thrusts and point-tip feints and evasions. For no small reason did the English of a certain age want the rapier eradicated since it was “useless in war, and kills our youth in peace.” Nationalism played a part, since most of the swordmasters were Italian or French. The traditional English weapons of stout sword and buckler or the cudgel or quarterstaff might break an arm or occasionally crack a head, but being impaled by a rapier led to deep loss of blood and often horrific delayed death from systemic infection.
Since the rapier could prove so deadly, not everyone was terribly keen to engage in a fight. Certain rules were established as to when circumstances were appropriate for a duel. The “code duello” or dueling protocol was a series of understandings as to the reasonableness of entering into a duel with honor, but not on how the duel itself was to take place. There were many codes, specific to different countries and often ignored or referenced as it suited the needs of one or the other party. Most held many similarities in terms of what circumstances permitted the challenge. “Giving someone the lie” (charging someone with deceit, revealing a deliberate falsehood) was clearly the most common grievance, although this could be answered back several times by counter charges and a great deal of diplomatic manoeuvering with the hope that all could be resolved or at least so confused that it could end without any confrontation at all. A private apology sent by courier could also do much to prevent bloodshed.
Because it was assumed that having a rapier meant that you should know how to use it, and therefore had at least enough disposable income for the lessons so required, a challenge to a duel was generally only done among members of the middle to upper class. Using a sword against a servingman, no matter what the insult, was against civil propriety as well as legally considered murder. Beating a lower class person with a stick or with the flat of the sword was perfectly acceptable, so long as there was “justification”.
A duel itself was a very straightforward affair. The use of “seconds”, assistants to the participants of the duel, was not yet formalized, although it was common practice (and common sense) to bring a few friends to prevent being ambushed or other such trickery. Indeed, the danger of being murdered on the way to a duel was as much of a danger as the duel itself. Once at the agreed location, the two belligerents would merely close distance, draw at their pleasure, and begin. There as no salute with the sword. That is a Victorian era invention from sport fencing.
The sword was generally held with the arm fully extended and pointed at the opponent’s face, and the left arm also fully extended holding the dagger. One hand might be held high and the other low, or both held out at the same height. A certain amount of changing hand positions while circling the opponent would have been common before actually beginning combat. The left, not right, foot was forward, thus bringing the dagger and sword tips at equal distance to the opponent. Among more skilled fighters, a slight standstill might occur, similar to that of samurai warriors facing off, in which one waits for the other combatant to make the first move. Then a blur of movement as one duelist quickly parries the incoming weapon with the left hand and strikes a finishing blow with the right, all in one decisive instant. The samurai would do this using the single katana; the Renaissance fighter would divert the incoming sword with his dagger and then thrust his sword towards the opponent’s eye.
Historically, most fights were thus over in one or two moves. One can imagine, however, that many duels reverted to fearful slashing contests well out of range and of limited lethality until both sides could agree that honor had been served and all could return home healthy and happy.
A minor but interesting point is the symbolism of the rapier as a badge of place in society. Although anyone could wear a sword, the wearing of the rapier began to be associated with the wealthy, as it was assumed that only those with enough time and resources could afford a good sword and the lessons required to learn how to handle it. This was a very gradual process, and certainly in Shakespeare’s time it was more of a generational divide rather than class, but by the 1620’s certainly anyone who considered himself a gentleman or who had such aspirations owned a rapier and usually wore one in public. For many men, the only use of the rapier was to finish an elegant outfit worn for important ceremonies or exclusive entertainments. For those unwilling to spend so much money on an item of dress, “dancing swords” were available at a greatly reduced price. These were elegant hilts on false (sometimes wooden) blades, worn in scabbards but never drawn, and were sufficient to meet the demands of society. Portraits of the wealthy of the period often have the subject wearing a rapier for the same reason. Dancing swords could even be rented for a special occasion if the user didn’t want to spend good money on a limited use item, much as we rent tuxedos for weddings and proms.
One firm exception to wearing the rapier for social status is that for the reigning monarch, always pictured wearing a sword of war but not a rapier. As a weapon of duels, rapiers decide matters of personal honor, but a king is supposed to be above such concerns. His use of the sword should only be in defense of the entire country as well as being a sword of impartial justice in domestic disputes.
Warfare – A continuation of the prior order, but with some small changes, especially the introduction of pistols as light cavalry weapons, fired with the right hand from horseback. The arquebus was used as a field artillery, something like a mobile cannon, but they were of limited range. Continuation of the same swords, although we see more contingents of sword and buckler men, very lightly armored, fighting along side either the pikemen or the archers, protecting them should the fight move their way.
The Musket and the Gunpowder Revolution
Cavalier/Baroque
Time Frame – 1600 – 1730
Politics/Economics – The final traces of medieval organization has disappeared, as countries move from being feudal monarchies to true nation-states. Instead of having a monarchy dependant on its layers of nobility for defense and administration, power is centralized so that the national government directly supports a standing army, directly manages daily administration through its own bureaucracy, and directly taxes its citizens. For the first time the aristocracy is dependant on the king, a true “absolute” monarch. The experts at this concentration of power are Louis XIV and Richelieu, and the political center of Europe shifts from Spain to France, remaining there for the next two hundred years.
With the massive increase in bureaucracy, the actual center of power is tied to a single regal court in a capital city. The daily affairs of state being far too complicated to physically move, governmental functions continue to operate in that city year-round, remaining there no matter where the king should be.
Although these changes were meant to give central governments far broader powers than they had ever had before, they also had the unintended effects of expanding citizens’ rights. Up until this time commoners had to seek permission from the local lord to marry, travel, set up a business, etc., and each locality could have wildly differing standards on what it would permit. Once all of these “liberties” came under central control, nationwide standards provided a generally more permissive and certainly more efficient set of rules by which to live and work. This came as a breath of fresh air, lifting some of the dire pessimism of the previous decades.
These changes occur at the same time that the Church of Rome is struggling with the effects of the Protestant reformation and Copernican astronomy. The Counter-Reformation and the idea of an infinite universe with us not at its center leads both to an explosion of expansive art and personal expression and the fear that where one stands on any issue might need to change depending on which way the political winds blow.
Fashion/Manners – The early part of this period is called “cavalier”, from the French word for “horseman”, with good reason. Even as the warrior on horseback loses importance on the battlefield, his status increases in the romantic perception of the population at large. The male ideal shifts from being a royal household courtier, decked in his court finery appropriate to his status, to being a robust adventurer, wearing clothing suitable for any occasion, indoor or out. Male movement becomes freer, the emphasis now on having a natural athletic swagger. Regular pants, practical boots and comfortable shirts and jackets allowed for a less restrained manner than the tortured costumes of the “mannerist” Elizabethan period. A man now strides into a room confidently. Gloves were worn for most occasions, and are rarely removed. The courtly bow also is freer, performed with abandon. In the Elizabethan bow, the head droops, then the shoulders roll, then the stomach collapses. Not so with these cavaliers. There is great pride even in deference. If anything, the chest puffs out and leads the bow. When rising up, the back foot comes forward. So you will end up closer to the person you are honoring than when you started. It is meant to look assertive. So everyone who has learned Elizabethan style bows (that’s what is usually taught at drama schools) looks a bit out of place when dressed in these cavalier costumes. This clothing and the times demand a much more forceful style of movement. The earlier bow is submissive; the cavalier bow is meant to be impressive.
Ideally, the lead foot steps boldly forward, toes pointing at the person to be honored. Then the rear (usually left) foot steps back even more, foot turned out, and the rear knee bends deeply. To add to the flow, he can then comfortably bend at the waist and lower his head, and then dramatically sweep back up in a grand gesture. All the while, the back is kept strong and straight, not allowed to roll or arch. The hat is doffed with as much elegance and sweep as possible. Indeed, great personal variation for the bow was acceptable, as it demonstrated the person’s sense of flair and grace. Certainly there are going to be times when a person simply can’t step forward, or might have to limit the spacing between the feet. But it would disturb him no end to have to limit himself in this way, as much as it would to not be able to draw his sword for a fight. Any bow, even a small one, has to be done with brio. The clothing will move majestically if the bow is done with flair. For these people, everything is athletic, elegant, romantic, powerful – all at once! Different ages might consider the lover and the fighter and the scholar to be different types – not so here. Each man is everything – all in an instant! The more romantic you are, the more powerful, so even with the bow the full sweep demonstrates that you are everything that you are. Anything less and it makes you look like a servant.
The hat was returned to the head at the completion of the bow, and it is normal to keep the hat on during all occasions. With a fine plume sprouting from the brim, the hat added to the look of no longer being diminished by the world, but ready to conquer it, to expand into it. A man might sit sideways or even backwards on a chair, and in all circumstances giving the impression that no chair, room, or even world can contain him, for if the universe is infinite, why then so is he.
Not all of these outward changes were based on practical considerations. The high-topped cavalry boots were merely copies of what soldiers were wearing to protect their legs from pistol shots when riding in battle, and were certainly not the most comfortable things to walk around in, especially when the tops would start to sink down to the calves. But they gave a romantic look and even more swagger when walking, so civilians quickly appropriated them. In all, the people of the period reveled in a new world of extravagance and sensuality, of brilliance and exuberance.
Naturally, as the epoch progressed the free and relaxed stances of the cavalier turned into the carefully copied poses of the baroque. In the later portion of the century what had been free of affectation became strict rules of social conduct. In doffing the hat, if was gracefully lifted and then swept down to the right side, no longer across the body. A hat once doffed could not be returned to the head unless granted permission by a superior, and to fail to give permission was just as serious a breech of protocol. No one was allowed to keep the head covered in the presence of the king. The athletic stances became regimented into the ballet positions we know today, with the feet turned out at ninety degrees during every step, the ball of the foot landing before the heel. As most men wore heels, this required a strong pointing of the foot at each step.
In large social occasions, or when passing people on the street, a bow en passant allowed for courtesy to be extended without having to stop for conversation. It was a simple bow from the waist while allowing the back foot to drag to the forward position, never breaking stride. This passing bow could be performed either from the left or the right, with the foot nearest the person being passed allowed to drag while bowing in that same direction. Walking sticks were taller than walking canes, and allowed the user to maintain the arm at almost shoulder height, nicely mimicking the port-a-bras of classic ballet.
In sitting, the gentleman of this later period sat in the center of the cushion, neither on the edge nor fully to the back, giving the appearance of sitting regally on a throne. The handkerchief was held between the first and second fingers and allowed to drape gracefully over the back of the hand.
Most movement was still carried off with a grand flourish if possible, but here we see a dichotomy between those still influenced by the athletic swagger of the earlier period and the fops. Fops delighted in the exaggeration of clothing and movement, often walking in small, quick mincing steps and turns, the better to accentuate the bounce of the wig and clothing. The more dignified members of society kept their moves more subtle and deliberate, expansive yet solid, never fussy, heightening the illusion of power and grandeur.
Civilian Conflict – Rapier in Transition
After the 1650’s as men’s fashion starts to calm down a bit and ornamentation becomes more reserved, the extreme hilt styles of the cavalier period begin to contract as well. The parts of the hilt remain, but extend away from the hand much less than before. The sword is still both a cut and thrust weapon and, with or without a secondary parrying weapon in the left hand, is still in use. But the blade of the rapier is now lighter, and the quillons smaller, leading to a faster fighting style with far more emphasis of the thrust rather than the cut, the sword being used to parry in defense rather than simply a strong block as barrier. The difference is in diverting rather than stopping the incoming thrust attack. It is not yet the smallsword, but is certainly developing in that direction.
Warfare – This is also the time known as the “gunpowder revolution”, which saw the final decline of the importance of the mounted knight in battle and the elevation once again of the common foot soldier as the central focus of military planning.
Up until this time, foot soldiers (infantry) could hold off mounted knights (cavalry) by pointing long spears at the horses, but this is a defensive posture and as such it was hard for them to do much real damage if they tried to go on the offensive. Direct heavy cavalry charges could usually create openings in the line of infantry or simply work the flanks or charge from behind so as to disrupt their formations.
A smart opposing general would use either archers (light infantry) with longbows or crossbows to fire into the approaching cavalry and prevent them from reaching the infantry lines. But longbow archery, while very accurate, is a skill which requires tremendous strength and constant practice. Crossbows require less strength, but the apparatus itself breaks down frequently, requiring constant and costly repair, ad the bolts [arrows] they fire must be built by special craftsmen. So limited numbers of either of these types of archers could be brought to the field, and both suffered the same limitation of the bowstrings swelling in damp weather.
By the time Shakespeare retired to Stratford, the first practical firearm was developed that could be mass produced. The matchlock musket was a dramatic improvement over the arquebus, which had been in use since the 1400’s but was notoriously underpowered. The matchlock was still an ungainly beast of a thing to load and fire, but it was finally just light enough so that a line of soldiers could load and fire at the same time. To a field general, this meant that it had infantry applications as opposed to simply another artillery piece. The matchlock musket had a lighter, longer, and thinner barrel, and could therefore be attached to less wood for the stock. So the musket, though expensive, inaccurate, and time consuming to maintain and load, was certainly far easier to maintain and repair, and required far less strength to operate than bow, pike, or sword. Although it had the same rate of fire as the crossbow, armies could muster far more of them for battle, and lead musket balls were far less expensive than arrows.
The style of firearm used by the musketeers is called the Spanish matchlock musket, so-called because it was first developed in Spain in 1567 and used a lit fuse, or “match”, to set-off the explosive powder within the musket (much like a cannon). Although inoperable in the rain, the fuse could still remain lit if it were merely damp.
Due to the inaccuracy of the weapon, a line of soldiers would have to fire at the same time if they were to have any chance at hitting a column of the enemy, which meant they needed to load and aim at the same time as well. Up to thirty individual motions are required in firing each shot, and add to that the danger of carrying a lit fuse near pouches full of gunpowder and you can see why generals preferred to have well-trained and fairly intelligent men as musketeers. Their solution was to recruit among the more educated lesser nobility, and when possible to provide year-round employment for them as garrison or palace guards at a time when there were no standing armies. Remember, however, that battles were still lost or won depending on the ability of the pike men, the regular infantry, not the cavalry nor musketeers, to take and hold the field. Musketeers took the job of light infantry, protecting the pikemen from enemy cavalry.
Even with all of the drill and attention to uniformity to which the generals and captains might aspire, the reality was that even under the best conditions they were still confined by the vagaries of the matchlock system. An order of “fire” could be given, but the individual guns would actually end up firing within a thirty second span of time. Because of that, each musketeer was considered an individual warrior rather than an automaton soldier. It was assumed that soldiers would dress according to their own (usually elaborate) desires rather than wear a rigid livery. Uniforms of the modern style were unknown (regardless of what modern movies would have us believe). Certainly during their guard duties they were expected to wear the livery of their paymaster/lords. Once on the battlefield, it was every man for his sartorial self. Italian soldiers were especially fond of wearing as elaborate and colorful clothing as possible. As one general put it, who could possibly deny the warrior any liberty he might enjoy in terms of his clothing when death was his near certain fate on the battlefield.
The muskets were braced against the center of the chest, not shoulder, in order to better absorb the shock. Also, the Spanish muskets were quite heavy, and simply could not be held in one’s arms for firing. Every musketeer carried a four-foot forked pole onto which he would rest the musket before and during firing. It could take anywhere from one to three minutes to reload the Spanish musket, so obviously there were times when the enemy was able to reach the musketeer before he could reload. In such cases, the weapon of last defense was the sword or pistol, the sword being much preferred. Although no match against a horseman or an infantryman coming at you with a pike, it was better than nothing and at least gave the impression that one had a fighting chance.
So we begin to see the musketeer as imagined by Alexandre Dumas. Second son of a lord or perhaps son of a lesser noble, without any chance of receiving a significant inheritance, he was probably given a choice of going into the clergy or seeking his fortune in war. The cavalry positions were left to the firstborn higher nobles, so a position in the King’s musketeers would be a reasonable goal to achieve. Minor military duties and much drilling occupied most of his official time, while fencing would be encouraged to provide physical stamina and a sense of warrior confidence. Of course, the sword with which he would fight his duels would not be the one he would take to war. The preferred sword for battle would be a sturdy two-edged sword that could survive clashing conflicts with armor, halberd, or shield.
Pistols were of so little power that in battle the ball could be deflected by heavy leather; hence the high topped leather boots of the period to protect the legs of the light cavalry. (Horses make a better target than people, so cavalrymen’s legs were in more danger of being shot than their chest or head). Pistols continued to be used exclusively by light cavalry, who could gallop to the front line, fire a pistol, and then gallop away to safety.
It is interesting to note that England was one of the last countries to adopt the new style of warfare and incorporate the advances prevalent in the rest of Europe. Part of this was due to the insular nature of British society, locked into the feudal system of raising armies. For the better part of six hundred years lords would lead their own tenants into battle. This pattern was not broken until the English Civil Wars of the 1600’s, where feudal loyalties were disregarded, and individual loyalty shifted between king vs. parliament, Catholic vs. Puritan. Both sides found it impossible to count on feudal levies. Instead a system of direct payment to leading officers to hire their own soldiers from anywhere in the country provided a more efficient means of raising large armies.