The author has no clue what he is speaking about - he obviously did not look into muskets of other armies at all, the Brown Bess musket was quite an ordinary musket, it didn't even have a front side, the ramrod still had to be wielded and the pan wasn't self priming.
In case one would talk about a legendary model of Brown Bess - then why the Land Pattern and not the India pattern?
I rather think he was referring to all “Brown Besses” as he quotes a product lifecycle of 1722-1838. He largely seems to be talking about his reproduction model.
Again, he isn’t saying ‘best’ just the model with the biggest impact
Back to the article. The author says the series of muskets he is characterising as one article changed the world. He does not say it is the best, or even significantly technically superior to others of its type.
If we take a glance at a world map of 1722 and 1838 I think it’s reasonable to detect a change in international influence by the state that used it, particularly if you attribute empire building at least in part to feats of arms. If you then fast forward from those foundations to the greatest global empire the world has ever seen, the comment looks a little less inflated.
It’s also worth considering the
publication it is in. American gun magazines are rather notorious for their hyperbole, “Gun That Won The West”, that sort of thing.
What is obvious is that the author is more of a gun enthusiast than historian. Some useful basic information therefore, but certainly no worse than some of what is written by non specialist historians about say, artillery.
History has always been about evidence and interpretation. The author reports anecdotes of American casualties from buckshot as evidence confirming the use of captured ammunition by the British.
I merely observe that friendly fire is not a new phenomenon to the continent of North America or that not all Americans fought against the crown.
Well, if you insist in calling it a revolution, when it wasn’t, counterinsurgency is a pretty understandable misinterpretation. Call it a war of independence, the correct title, and this doesn’t happen.
@Kevin F. Kiley I do not recognise this. Is this an alternative history? “The revolution turned into a world war”? Pure myth.
If this is what is being taught in US schools, this explains many things that have been puzzling me!
I was under the impression that The First World War started in 1914, and the Second World War in 1939.
There must be some kind of Gregorian/Julian calendar thing going on, as several American books I’ve read give these dates as 1917 and 1941.
The American War of Independence as a world war? Not something I recognise, but with the difficulty above, there might be something lost in the translation between the American and the rest of the world’s view of their own domestic arrangement.
The age of empires has largely passed, so there are loads of other colonies who obtained their independence. Can’t remember any of them using quite so much overblown hyperbole though about their own struggle, with the possible exception of Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe. I wouldn’t recommend either of them as reliable history teachers though.
@Kevin F. Kiley And an example of different national perspectives providing a different lens through which to see history. When viewed from the British perspective of the truly global empire that shortly followed the AWI it comes across as a little local difficulty. John Bull shrugs his metaphorical shoulders, says “you can’t win ‘em all” and gets on with colonising Africa, Asia, Far East, Polynesia and Australasia instead.
It’s natural that the ‘revolution’ (like I said, nothing of the sort) is part of America’s creation myth. It is bound up and looms large in national identity, and it is perfectly understandable that American authors would make more of it than it was. However, to characterise it as a world war is risible outside of the US. It doesn’t even throw the British out of North America.
If you do want to situate the AWI as part of a world war, the causal relationship is the other way around. The Wars of the Austrian Succession and following Seven Year’s War could more legitimately lay claim to the title World War. In that aspect, the international contribution to the AWI could be regarded in the same way as proxy Cold War conflicts are.
Like the war of 1812, on the global stage it is a sideshow. However, I can see how in the context of a Jan 6th style readership that may not play well.
'Considered the most advanced military firearm of her day...'
By whom and during what period 'of her day'?
And if it was 'the most advanced' why did the American Continental Army prefer the French model musket (1766), called the Charleville by the Americans, to the British Brown Bess?
And to amplify that choice, the United States copied the French musket for its regulation musket in 1795-the 1795 Springfield.
And classifying the War of the American Revolution as merely a 'counterinsurgency' is way off the mark.
-Small Arms of the British Forces in America 1664-1815 by De Witt Bailey.
-British Military Flintlock Rifles 1740-1840 by De Witt Bailey.
-French Military Small Arms by Didier Bianchi.
-French Military Arms and Armor in America 1503-1783 by Rene Chartrand.
-Weapons of the American Revolution by Warren Moore.
-Arms and Armor in Colonial America 1526-1783 by Harold Peterson.
-Book of the Continental Soldier by Harold Peterson.
-Springfield Armory Infantry Muskets 1795-1844 by Kent Johns.
The author has no clue what he is speaking about - he obviously did not look into muskets of other armies at all, the Brown Bess musket was quite an ordinary musket, it didn't even have a front side, the ramrod still had to be wielded and the pan wasn't self priming.
In case one would talk about a legendary model of Brown Bess - then why the Land Pattern and not the India pattern?
Back to the article. The author says the series of muskets he is characterising as one article changed the world. He does not say it is the best, or even significantly technically superior to others of its type. If we take a glance at a world map of 1722 and 1838 I think it’s reasonable to detect a change in international influence by the state that used it, particularly if you attribute empire building at least in part to feats of arms. If you then fast forward from those foundations to the greatest global empire the world has ever seen, the comment looks a little less inflated. It’s also worth considering the publication it is in. American gun magazines are rather notorious for their hyperbole, “Gun That Won The West”, that sort of thing. What is obvious is that the author is more of a gun enthusiast than historian. Some useful basic information therefore, but certainly no worse than some of what is written by non specialist historians about say, artillery.
History has always been about evidence and interpretation. The author reports anecdotes of American casualties from buckshot as evidence confirming the use of captured ammunition by the British. I merely observe that friendly fire is not a new phenomenon to the continent of North America or that not all Americans fought against the crown.
Well, if you insist in calling it a revolution, when it wasn’t, counterinsurgency is a pretty understandable misinterpretation. Call it a war of independence, the correct title, and this doesn’t happen.
'Considered the most advanced military firearm of her day...'
By whom and during what period 'of her day'?
And if it was 'the most advanced' why did the American Continental Army prefer the French model musket (1766), called the Charleville by the Americans, to the British Brown Bess?
And to amplify that choice, the United States copied the French musket for its regulation musket in 1795-the 1795 Springfield.
And classifying the War of the American Revolution as merely a 'counterinsurgency' is way off the mark.
good for the bin
Considered the most advanced military firearm of her day, the Brown Bess