Why did the most famous of (fictional) musketeers so rarely show up with muskets? Some have suggested they might have been “afraid” of muskets, but “fear” is not the answer. Let’s look at the military history.
In the first half of the 1600s (when the Three Musketeers are depicted, when Cardinal Richelieu was destroying things), the “musket” was a matchlock musket. The switch to flintlock muskets came at the end of that century. A musketeer in line of battle was protected by 7-8 pole-arm soldiers, usually with pikes. Why? Because the firing rate of matchlocks was SLOW. 1-2 shots every two minutes. You can find videos of loading a matchlock online; it was a complicated process, starting with the “match”—a length of fairly thin rope treated to burn slowly at a given rate. A length of match would get its light from an officer’s flame-source (lantern) and from then on be blown on to keep the burning ember alight.
The match would then light the black powder, first in the pan, and then in the barrel, to propel the ball (solid lead) down the smooth barrel. Balls were not perfect spheres, and between the powder tamped down the barrel and the projectile ball there’d be a patch of some sort, to clean the inside of the barrel from unburned black powder and compress the powder behind the ball. The tool for pushing patch and then ball down the barrel was called a scouring stick, not a ramrod. Caliber varied but was usually large…half an inch diameter or more. Black powder was used in two places..in the “pan” and down the barrel. When the measured amount of powder had been loaded in the pan (and the pan cover closed) and down the barrel, followed by the patch and then the ball, the match would be attached to the “serpentine” jaws. This was an s-curve of metal with gripping jaws at the top end, hinged to swing down and apply the hot match to the powder in the firing pan. Now the musketeer was ready to open the firing pan lid, lift the weapon, aim, and fire, by lowering the serpentine with its hot match ember to the pan. BOOM.
Even with well-drilled troops, the loading process, which required keeping the burning match safely away from the powder even as the powder was poured into the pan, the pan lid closed, the musket set vertically, muzzle up, on the ground, more powder poured down the barrel, the patch shoved down the barrel with the scouring stick, the ball shoved down the barrel with the scouring stick, the muzzle picked up, the match fitted to the serpentine, the pan lid opened, and then the weapon lifted to firing position and aimed….that loading process was nowhere near instantaneous. It might take a full minute, especially in field conditions, with cannons roaring, cavalry charging, pikemen bellowing, pikes rattling against each other. Musketry was effective if the ball actually hit an enemy but slow, much slower than later weapons. Lots of ways to make mistakes.
Not a process you could do on horseback (you could pre-load and fire a pistol much faster), or if suddenly accosted by the Cardinal’s Guard. The matchlock musket was a short-medium range weapon, very effective against plate armor, useless in melee combat, almost useless at longer than short-medium range. The smooth bore and the irregular shape of the balls resulted in lousy accuracy at anything farther away than maybe half a football field length. Musketeers were useful in a planned battle, or guarding a fixed position (with additional foot soldiers. But such battles were less common than the need for light-cavalry duties such as scouting, escorting, communication (carrying messages), and suchlike. In those duties the musket was useless, and the right weapon was some form of sword, backed up by one or two pistols. Contact with the enemy would either be distant (and fast—horses galloping) or very close melee style either mounted or afoot.
For readers, galloping horses and swordplay are far more interesting to read than the slow repeat of the loading process of a 17th century matchlock. So the King’s Musketeers are a household light cavalry who *can* act in the line of battle with their matchlock muskets, but are more economically used for spying, scouting, escorting important persons traveling incognito, and most commonly fighting in alleys, streets, courtyards, palaces, highways, etc. in circumstances where the musket of their period is useless.
All through the 17th century, weapons were being developed and trialed in the constant wars, nation by nation, across Europe. By the end of the century, the flintlock musket was taking over from the matchlock and wheel lock, and through the 18th century muskets began to yield to rifles, first as specialist weapons and finally as the standard, as the technology for producing rifled barrels advanced. Rate of fire improved, accuracy of fire improved, and tactical changes came with the changes in firearms.
I hadn’t thought about musket vs. sword efficacy. I’ve heard/seen some neat stuff about musketeer vs. archer. Short version, archers (in the time) were faster at shooting, could shoot further, and were more accurate. However, they required good food and regular training. Musketeer general ranks just required the supplies and directions (pictures) and could be taught VERY quickly.
Yes. Firearms have (with some exceptions) proven to be simpler in use, easier to train, then either archery or swordfighting. Modern forms continued to make them easier…so easy a 2 year old can fire a pistol accurately enough to kill someone, and that little girl (elementary school age, 9, wasn’t i?) when a really stupid “firearms instructor” let her have a lesson on a highpowered automatic “big” gun accidentally killed *him* because she couldn’t control the recoil. He deserved it…for not standing up to her parents, explaining why having any child that age handle that weapon, was a really stupid idea.
I’ve been enjoying the dramatized audible editions of the Serrano Legacy. The reader for Cecilia has the perfect voice.
I just have to remember not to listen to far into the evening – as I then stay up far to late!
And then the Overmoutain Men changed combat again with their long rifles against the British, sharpshooting commanders instead of just putting a round down range.