Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There must have been hundreds of thousands of rifles floating around at the time and easily obtainable in the chaos of the Civil War. Captured Mosin Nagants and Mauser 98’s come to mind.
What about Europe? Did they have more lax gun regulation before WW2? During that era the Euro Powers always had tense relations. Europe fought itself a lot. Id imagine, the monarchs will want every able bodied man be ready and able to fight.
We'll need to pin down the era, because things changed dramatically in just a few centuries. Before the age of conscription, fighting was a matter of raising an army of more-or-less professional warriors and taking it to the field. Standing armies were a small cadre of professional warriors, boosted by men hired for the duration. Even a small force by modern standards could - and would, if needed - make short business of any local farmers trying to mobilize. Wars (on land) were settled by pitched battles where one army would reduce the other, or by sieges. Weaponry is expensive, and iron in the farmers' hands was better used for plows and scythes to keep the actual warriors fed. It was completely SOP for kings to rent out their armies as mercenaries as well, of course.
Militias would be raised in cases of roving gangs, but not in a proper military sense.
Quote:
Given the transportation tech of the day, sudden distribution of any supplies must be very slow. If suddenly attacked in certain region, you need to muster/mobilize quickly.
Invading armies would march unhindered for days, sometimes weeks. Concentration of force made them unbeatable until you could concentrate on your own.
Now enter the conscription era - the first inklings of mass-produced weaponry, uniforms, boots even. You can train and equip a huge proportion of your young men. Combine that with the new concept of nationalism where you owe it to your father nation to risk your life in war, even if you're not actually a warrior by trade. Frederick I started the Prussian army on this road and as Frederick the Great came on the scene, the industrial revolution came into its own as well.
But weapons weren't issued to be kept at home. Battles were fought in ranks and under strict command. Instead of distributing weapons to the men, you had the men come to their designated muster barrack, to form up their ranks, have weapons distributed, and march to the battlefield as a unit.
Then, arguably, a third phase with railroads in the mix. Now you could mobilize entire armies in mere days, and transport them with their full logistic train to - well, to where the railroad ended. Which is of course WWI in a nutshell.
TLDR: In the era of conscription armies, there is little or no advantage to having an armed populace. The invaders are already concentrated - you need to concentrate your force. And that's easier done by having your men come to where their weapons, equipment and units are.
Russia was at war, you had weapons everywhere. Being manufactured, being transported to the front, in the hands of young men marching to war. Finding a weapon would not have been a problem, particularly near the front.
What's that saying? "If the time comes where we really need rifles, there'll be plenty lying on the ground." Russia weren't the only ones - look at the Kiel Mutiny.
Actually, even with the reliance on probate inventories, which may only give a partial picture, your link actually supports the conclusion that firearms were common in early America (the last page of your first link):
"in probate inventories (1) there were high numbers of guns in early
America;1 2 (2) guns were much more common than swords or other
edged weapons; 5 ' (3) women owned guns;.5 4 and (4) the great
majority of gun-owning estates listed no old or broken guns.'"
You are correct. It is only a partial picture, but its all we have. In VA, wills were all inclusive listing everything from guns and slaves to clothing. VA was a litigious colony and remained litigious after the Revolution. (Virginia still maintains a system for estate settlement that is unique in the USA.) The estate of Col. Parke - the Dunbar estate lawsuit - who died in 1710 was still tied up in the courts when Washington inherited the responsibility of representing the family. (He settled, but like other estate cases of the time, it took 50 years.)
The other point is not every home had a musket or weapon much to the common myth. Many of the weapons were not suitable for defense. The flintlock fowler was an early version of a shotgun - totally ineffective for defense; smooth bored, it was best used with "buck and ball" it was so inaccurate. Dual barrel swivel guns were also in households (not to be confused with swivel cannon), but they were useless except for hunting and of course there were blunderbusses.
So few Virginians could afford weapons for militia duty that in 1757 a series of laws were passed so that those serving in the militia would be provisioned. (See link below)
By the time of the Revolution, the situation had not changed when the new government passed a new militia law where the Commonwealth would provide the arms if needed. https://encyclopediavirginia.org/ent...ia-may-5-1777/
(As an aside, Virginia still maintains an unorganized militia into which every male and female are enrolled between 16 and 55 § 44-1. Composition of militia. Its not the same as the National Guard. Arms are not provided nowadays since its not been called other than for events that don't require arms - such as during flood control evacuations and volunteers are enough.
As for self-defense weapons, upper-class men would go armed as a matter of course for centuries. Then firearms appeared on the scene and you no longer had to be of the leisure classes, with time to study fencing since you were six, to fight effectively. Within a century, dueling fell out of fashion except as a niche for hotheads (read: students and young officers).
Roads would quite often be unsafe, so people who'd travel with any sort of valuables would arm themselves. (Class distinction coming into play again, but more of a practical matter. If you have time to travel and funds for stabling a horse, you're likely to be somewhat upper-class, and you can afford a horse-pistol or two. If you're driving His Majesty's mail, your employer will provide a blunderbuss)
The distinction between who'd go armed and who wouldn't is really quite interesting. To say nothing of the use of arms. A gentleman accused of lying - by another gentleman - would be expected to fight. A gentleman accused of lying by some riff-raff on the street would be quite within his right to merely sneer at the ruffian - but also to send a few servants out to beat him.
We'll need to pin down the era, because things changed dramatically in just a few centuries. Before the age of conscription, fighting was a matter of raising an army of more-or-less professional warriors and taking it to the field. Standing armies were a small cadre of professional warriors, boosted by men hired for the duration. Even a small force by modern standards could - and would, if needed - make short business of any local farmers trying to mobilize. Wars (on land) were settled by pitched battles where one army would reduce the other, or by sieges. Weaponry is expensive, and iron in the farmers' hands was better used for plows and scythes to keep the actual warriors fed. It was completely SOP for kings to rent out their armies as mercenaries as well, of course.
Militias would be raised in cases of roving gangs, but not in a proper military sense.
Invading armies would march unhindered for days, sometimes weeks. Concentration of force made them unbeatable until you could concentrate on your own.
Now enter the conscription era - the first inklings of mass-produced weaponry, uniforms, boots even. You can train and equip a huge proportion of your young men. Combine that with the new concept of nationalism where you owe it to your father nation to risk your life in war, even if you're not actually a warrior by trade. Frederick I started the Prussian army on this road and as Frederick the Great came on the scene, the industrial revolution came into its own as well.
But weapons weren't issued to be kept at home. Battles were fought in ranks and under strict command. Instead of distributing weapons to the men, you had the men come to their designated muster barrack, to form up their ranks, have weapons distributed, and march to the battlefield as a unit.
Then, arguably, a third phase with railroads in the mix. Now you could mobilize entire armies in mere days, and transport them with their full logistic train to - well, to where the railroad ended. Which is of course WWI in a nutshell.
TLDR: In the era of conscription armies, there is little or no advantage to having an armed populace. The invaders are already concentrated - you need to concentrate your force. And that's easier done by having your men come to where their weapons, equipment and units are.
But those mercenaries/soldiers of fortune had to come from somewhere. Likely, they were the sons of said farmers. I thought they had to supply their own arms and armor. Especially during the pike and shot era with the Swiss, Landsknecht, and Condottiere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
As for self-defense weapons, upper-class men would go armed as a matter of course for centuries. Then firearms appeared on the scene and you no longer had to be of the leisure classes, with time to study fencing since you were six, to fight effectively. Within a century, dueling fell out of fashion except as a niche for hotheads (read: students and young officers).
Roads would quite often be unsafe, so people who'd travel with any sort of valuables would arm themselves. (Class distinction coming into play again, but more of a practical matter. If you have time to travel and funds for stabling a horse, you're likely to be somewhat upper-class, and you can afford a horse-pistol or two. If you're driving His Majesty's mail, your employer will provide a blunderbuss)
The distinction between who'd go armed and who wouldn't is really quite interesting. To say nothing of the use of arms. A gentleman accused of lying - by another gentleman - would be expected to fight. A gentleman accused of lying by some riff-raff on the street would be quite within his right to merely sneer at the ruffian - but also to send a few servants out to beat him.
Like Aaron Burr, and Alexander Hamilton. Did they use their own pistols?
You are correct. It is only a partial picture, but its all we have. In VA, wills were all inclusive listing everything from guns and slaves to clothing. VA was a litigious colony and remained litigious after the Revolution. (Virginia still maintains a system for estate settlement that is unique in the USA.) The estate of Col. Parke - the Dunbar estate lawsuit - who died in 1710 was still tied up in the courts when Washington inherited the responsibility of representing the family. (He settled, but like other estate cases of the time, it took 50 years.)
The other point is not every home had a musket or weapon much to the common myth. Many of the weapons were not suitable for defense. The flintlock fowler was an early version of a shotgun - totally ineffective for defense; smooth bored, it was best used with "buck and ball" it was so inaccurate. Dual barrel swivel guns were also in households (not to be confused with swivel cannon), but they were useless except for hunting and of course there were blunderbusses.
So few Virginians could afford weapons for militia duty that in 1757 a series of laws were passed so that those serving in the militia would be provisioned. (See link below)
By the time of the Revolution, the situation had not changed when the new government passed a new militia law where the Commonwealth would provide the arms if needed. https://encyclopediavirginia.org/ent...ia-may-5-1777/
(As an aside, Virginia still maintains an unorganized militia into which every male and female are enrolled between 16 and 55 § 44-1. Composition of militia. Its not the same as the National Guard. Arms are not provided nowadays since its not been called other than for events that don't require arms - such as during flood control evacuations and volunteers are enough.
What about during the early colonial era? The frontier settlers along the Appalachian Mountains need a way to defend against native raiding parties. The Spaniards that lived outside the fortification on a native slave plantation had to have ways to defend themselves against revolts.
What's that saying? "If the time comes where we really need rifles, there'll be plenty lying on the ground." Russia weren't the only ones - look at the Kiel Mutiny.
Not sure I understand. I'm not talking weapons laying on the ground, I was talking about increased weapon production, rifles in depots and warehouses ready to distribute to troops, rifles in training camps, and of course rifles in the hands of troops. Fully mobilized, Russia had some 5 million soldiers and was the largest in the world at that time (historical note here: Russian army had some 4 million rifles, a formidable supply but not enough to arm each soldier).
So I am talking more about the supply chain. Of course, we all know also that WW1 was one of the contributors of the revolution, with poorly led soldiers taking such heavy losses in the war that many joined the revolution.
Not sure I understand. I'm not talking weapons laying on the ground, I was talking about increased weapon production, rifles in depots and warehouses ready to distribute to troops, rifles in training camps, and of course rifles in the hands of troops.
The quote seemed apt, is all. The point being, the revolution was fought with the government's own weaponry.
Quote:
Of course, we all know also that WW1 was one of the contributors of the revolution, with poorly led soldiers taking such heavy losses in the war that many joined the revolution.
What about during the early colonial era? The frontier settlers along the Appalachian Mountains need a way to defend against native raiding parties. The Spaniards that lived outside the fortification on a native slave plantation had to have ways to defend themselves against revolts.
April 1794 goes down as a tragic time on the VA frontier. Bishop Francis Asbury (Methodist) wrote that Benge a Cherokee who was living with the Shawnees led raiding parties killed or captured about 100 people on the frontier. Elizabeth Livingston gave an account of what happened at her farm. She had one rifle and got off one shot. The front door was closed and she shot through it. In the end, the entire farm was burned. She had but one rifle and it was useless. They were heavy, hard to load, difficult to aim and inaccurate.
Mrs. Livingston and her family fled until she came across the militia. This was not uncommon at the time. When there was trouble, the settlers would pack up and move to a fort until things quieted down. They were scattered along the frontier. Fort Dinwiddie was one such fort which was inspected by Washington in 1755.
Note: it is difficult to find accounts. Reading and writing were taught separately and many who could read could not write. Reading was essential to read the Bible, other than signing a name, most people did not need to write.
Last edited by webster; 06-09-2021 at 11:35 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
