ADM

You seem not to understand what this discussion is about. We are talking about French infantry (and dragoon) arms and French terminology. In French, a "mousquet" was always used to describe infantry type matchlocks. Infantry flintlocks, on the other hand, were called a "fusil" - and this was so from the late 17th throughout the 18th and early 19th centuries. Things are different in English and German. From the 18th century, the terms "musket" and "Muskete" respectively were used to describe not only matchlocks but, in a general sense, all infantry arms, i.e. flintlocks as well and, eventually, flintlocks alone (as matchlocks were no longer used).

Regarding cavalry weapons things are different again. Flintlocks only were used which in English and German were called "carbine" and "Karabiner" respectively. The French, on the other hand, appear to have used the term "carabine" only rarely and used the term "mousqueton" instead (why this was so is explained here, for example, in French: https://blackpowderonly.forumactif.org/t8183-carabine-fusil-mousqueton) .

So don't mix up "mousquet" and "mousqueton", and don't mix up "mousquet" and "musket". The link you provided does exactly this, for which reason it is worthless and contributes nothing to solve our problem. The same goes for the lengths given for infantry weapons there as they may refer to either matchlocks or flintlocks, of any time, and of any nation.

Your links to the Musée de l'Armée matchlocks are irrelevant as well, as the weapons shown there all date from the early 17th century and tell nothing about the length of the last matchlocks in service in the French army.

I know what is mousquet, mousqueton, fusil and also their english counterpart, there's no confusion at all.
I'm just showing you that short infantry Mousquet (and also a version for the cavalry) existed during this period and you can see some of them here :

http://www.passionmilitaria.com/t17151-quelques-reconstitutions-d-armes-du-xvii-siecle

those are accurate copy from museum.


The need for a short musket was to save weight, the barrel of those weapons was thick and heavy, because the infantry had to walk on very long distance, and when the silex rifle appeared those infantry regiment still received short rifle and were designated light infantry because able to move faster and quickly. This french tradition started with the "mousquet" and lasted for a very long time.

The french short "Mousquet" suplanted the long one in infantry regiment before it was replaced by silex rifle (so it was the case for the war of spanish succession). can you prove it's not right ? you have to accept reality even if it hurt what you've learnt.:wink:

Dear ADM,

"premier quart de XVIIe" and "debut XVIIe" in your link means 1600-25 and not 1700 and after.
It´s eventually misunderstanding or?

Yes it's misleading just read this comment on the previous link :

------------------------------------------
L'arquebuse a disparu de l'armée Française vers 1627 pour être remplacée par le mousquet plus court et plus léger.
Il a été lui même remplacé par le fusil à silex en 1699.

translate :
The arquebus disappeared from the French army around 1627 to be replaced by the shorter and lighter musket.
He was himself replaced by the flintlock rifle in 1699.
------------------------------------------------

this link cover the whole period, you can even see the first model of silex rifle who replaced french "Mousquet"

The arquebus mostly used during the 30 years war (1618 – 1648) needed a wood fork to sustain their long barrel, a short barrel mean no more accessories to maintain the barrel while firing, A short Mousquet for infantry already existed when the Long mousquet (but not as long as the arquebus) replaced the Arquebus, and finely the short Mousquet became the norm in the infantry, it was considered an improvement of the long french mousquet before it was replaced by silex rifle.

ADM

I disagree. Can't follow your reasoning as I see no evidence for what you say.

As mentioned before, the barrel of the "mousquet" of c .1684 was c. 120 cm long according to Boudriot and Pétard.

Now let's see what Manesson-Mallet has to say in his 1684/85 "Les Travaux de Mars", tome 3.

p. 32:

"Explication particuliere des parties du Mousquet ... A. ... le Canon; ... on l'a reglé à trois pieds & six poûces de longueur, sur une ligne d'épaisseur vers sa bouche, & de quatre [I read: pouces] à sa culasse ..."

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k10431291/f52.item.r=Les%20Travaux%20de%20Mars,%20ou%20L'art%20de%20la%20guerre.zoom

This is 3 pieds 10 pouces or c. 124 cm in total, which neatly corresponds to what Boudriot and Pétard say.

Cf. p. 33:

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k10431291/f53.item.r=Les%20Travaux%20de%20Mars,%20ou%20L'art%20de%20la%20guerre.zoom

and although the "mousquet" looks rather short on p. 33, its true length becomes perfectly apparent on p. 35:

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k10431291/f55.item.r=Les%20Travaux%20de%20Mars,%20ou%20L'art%20de%20la%20guerre.zoom



Regarding the fusil, he says:

p. 36:

"Le Fusil ... a d'ordinaire quatre pieds & dix poûces de longueur ...", i.e. c. 157 cm, which is the total length.

and further:

"Le canon qui est long de trois pieds & huit poûces se distingue en Corps & en Culasse..."

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k10431291/f56.item.r=Les%20Travaux%20de%20Mars,%20ou%20L'art%20de%20la%20guerre.zoom

So, the barrel of the fusil - which like that of the mousquet is looked upon as consisting of the actual tube and a lock section - has a total length of c. 119 cm, which is slightly shorter than that of the "mousquet".

Cf. also p. 37:

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k10431291/f57.item.r=Les%20Travaux%20de%20Mars,%20ou%20L'art%20de%20la%20guerre.zoom

At least we agree about one thing, there's no complete information about French mousquet for the period of the Spanish succession war, which leave the field open for many possibilities, according to the information available.

Of course I'm not contesting your information but it can't be considered a rule for WSS period, I've studied the french army and from the tactic and deployment you can understand what kind of weapons they have. And for me it was the short mousquet for sure. This short infantry mousquet existed for sure and long before WSS, there's no doubt about it. several sources confirm it.

Look at this amasing model,
a mousquet-revolver built like a colt pistol of the old west, with 5 shots !!! :

https://www.europeana.eu/portal/fr/record/2048001/Athena_Plus_ProvidedCHO_KIK_IRPA__Brussels__Belgium__AP_10374232.html

dated of 1632 !!!

Not only that but also with a silex platine, 78 years before it was adopted by the army !!! nobody could believe this if such model was not preserved in a museum, you will also notice the different size of all those mousquet on the other photos !

here are 2 mousquet for the 1700 period :

https://www.europeana.eu/portal/fr/record/2048001/Athena_Plus_ProvidedCHO_KIK_IRPA__Brussels__Belgium__AP_10374135.html?q=mousquet#dcId=1583517971499&p=2

but it look more a royal gift than a military model

So the lesson is : everything is possible !

Let's agree to disagree. :upside_down_face:

I'm not expanding into the WSS (reluctantly: it's a time & space issue) so I don't have a dog in the fight.

But, if I was, and I found the short muskets to be anathema, I'd modify them: either remove & replace entirely, or simply add on the requisite mms.

I don't think I'm alone in having a very full 'bits box' with lots of muskets on redundant figures. I have, on many occasions, modified "inaccurate" figures in the past and I doubt I am alone in this practice.

OK, is this a solution or am I being naive?

I think you have a point there, Paintdog. On the strength of the nice command figures (including the extra serjeants) in this set, which can add variety to my growing French and allied WoSS force made up of multiple sets of fusiliers, I've been looking again at this new set and my original attitude is softening somewhat. I too have a large bits box, and it just so happens that some forthcoming conversions using up some sets of old Revell Prussian SYW figures will release a few dozen 'spare' long musket barrels with bayonets; I can use these to modify these French musketeers, and a bit of trimming around the lock ie: taking away the match cords, will allow these to serve as flintlock-armed infantry. For variety, it will be good to have some French still with the older and larger cartridge box carried over the shoulder.

I may also convert some of these to serve as dismounted cavalrymen of the period, or dragoons with carbines. With the long coats it will not be obvious unless close up that gaiters and shoes painted a dark grey-black are not actually 'riding boots'.

All part of the fun of this hobby of ours.:relaxed:

If it's not fun, it's not a hobby.

I'm currently smiling as I assemble large numbers of the somewhat fiddly Zvesda SYW grenadiers. Not to mention, cutting off mitres & gluing on the HaT extra tricornes.

I must admit the process is....challenging....but the final effect is pretty good.

I'm not persuaded by the "short musket theory", though the debate has made an interesting read. Since I am also unpersuaded that matchlocks would have made an appearance at Blenheim or Ramillies, let alone later, that is no great loss to me.

I'm with Minuteman, however, in thinking that Paint Dog is onto something with his conversion suggestion.

If flintlock barrels are added and the locks changed, I think there is a threefold gain. As Minuteman has said, it gets us some real "early war" fusiliers with the shoulder-belt cartridge box, and it also gets us some useful variety in command figures.

Third, as the figures also have examples of both horizontal and vertical pockets, it would allow us to supplement the figures in Set 236, giving us a second version for several poses within each pocket type. That could improve the look of the formations significantly.

In short, if converted to flintlocks, Set 234 confers many of the benefits of a second fusilier set, which, given that Set 235 appears to be dedicated to Grenadiers, is just as well.

Of course, I have to assume that battalions can carry a mix of cartridge box types in a single unit, as if a phased issue of replacements.

There is a limit to how many I'd want to convert, but I would certainly try a couple of boxes.