Paddy Griffith's contribution to the June issue was, as usual, a highly informative and thought-provoking article, a real pleasure to read. Paddy is one of the few wargaming writers whose theories correspond with my experiences in re-enactment with the Napoleonic Association, for what that is worth, as re-enactment can at best only give a vague idea of what conditions in the Napoleonic Wars may have been like. I thought it may be of interest to readers of the Newsletter if I were to expand on some of Paddy's points, basing my comments on that experience. Firstly, the question of misfiring muskets. I have found the muskets I have used to be inefficient and unreliable, even in the best of atmospheric conditions (some people have said it is the idiot using them). One part of a flintlock musket which I find proves to be particularly unreliable is the flint itself. To ignite the primer, that is the powder in the pan, the flint needs to spark against the frizzen when the trigger is squeezed, and this spark needs to reach the charge in the pan. After a number of shots, the flint wears out, looses its sharp edge and ceases to spark. Each flint was expected to last for around sixty shots, but I have had some flints which have lasted a good deal longer, and others which inexplicably cease to function after two or three shots, which proves to be extremely awkward in the middle of a re-enactment battle as it takes several minutes to change flints and in real battle conditions may well have been impossible to rectify. And what if one's spare flint is a "dud", one that does not spark at all? It does not need as much as a rainstorm to impair the rate of fire of muskets; a surprisingly small amount of dampness will do this. A musket left out in the open and not securely covered will get damp from dew, and the powder loaded into a musket in this condition could become too damp to fire -- bear in mind that on campaign, Napoleonic soldiers camped out in the open on many occasions, this often in miserable conditions. Furthermore, even a slight drizzle may make the priming too damp to fire. But by far the greatest problem I have is wind. A slight breeze can blow sparks from the flint away from the pan, thus not igniting the priming. A stronger wind can blow the priming itself away. I do feel that wargamers should place a much greater emphasis on the atmospheric conditions in their games. Melee and Muskets My next point is the effects of a melee on muskets. Direct contact with an enemy in hand- tohand combat is not advisable - not just because he may kill you, but also that after a melee, one's musket may no longer be in a fit state to be fired. Besides the stock getting broken, there are a number of smaller mishaps which may occur. One may loose one's flint - there have been occasions when I have crawled around muddy fields looking for a lost flint which is not the sort of thing one can often do in the middle of a battle. The strength of the steel from which Napoleonic bayonets were made gives some indication of how rare a bayonet charge to contact must have been. Last year, myself and some collegues of mine in the Napoleonic Association's 10th Silesian Landwehr conducted some tests with bayonets. We charged and stabbed bales of straw - we couldn't get anybody to volunteer to be our targets - and had great difficulty in extracting the bayonets as they simply bent. This rather unfortunate event led me to the conclusion that about the only part of the human body that should be stabbed is the stomach area, and one has to be careful not to push the blade so far home that it jams on the ribs. But could a soldier be so precise in the heat of battle? There is a story of some Prussian Landwehrmen who were asked why they preferred using the butts of their muskets. They replied: "It works better that way." "If muskets were such poor weapons, then why were they used, and why weren't pikes used instead?" is a question I am often asked. Pikes were used by some Napoleonic formations, such as the front rank of the Prussian Landwehr in August 1815, and not without some success on occasions. However, if all the factors involved are considered, muskets did have the edge on pikes. Firstly, in the advance to contact, a musketeer did have the chance, even if it were quite small, of shooting a pikeman, and here the musketeer had the advantage, both in morale and capability. (If rain, etc., prevented the muskets from being fired, then this superiority was cancelled out). In the initial contact, the longer reach of the pike would put the musketeer at a disadvantage. In hand-to-hand contact, the pike is unwieldy, so the musketeer again has the advantage. I have yet to see a set of wargame rules which takes this into account. Packs Lastly, some remarks about packs. I have found it almost impossible to fight in full pack, not only because of its weight, but because packs, etc., are so cumbersome. Items of equipment tend to fall off, or even fall apart, if one moves at a speed any faster than walking pace. Buttons especially those holding on the shoulder-straps, tend to fall off, meaning that crossbelts, etc., start falling off also! Any athletic movements in a melee are out of the question unless one wants to spend a long time picking up bits and pieces of uniforms as well as trying to sew buttons back on. May I also take this opportunity to any of your readers who are interested in receiving further details either on the Napoleonic Association, or the 10th Silesian Landwehr re-enactment unit to contact me at : 16 Redlaw Way, Rotherhithe, London SE16 3HQ, remembering to enclose return postage. Back to Table of Contents -- Wargamer's Newsletter #210 To Wargamer's Newsletter List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1979 by Donald Featherstone. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com