Aside from the effects of increasing velocity, there is a far more significant confounding effect on the accuracy of smoothbore fire. Smoothbore rounds do not leave the barrel with zero spin, but rather with an unpredictable spin, which can be quite fast, especially for ball shot rounds. (“Bullet-shaped” projectiles didn’t exist until the “Norton’s bullet” of the British Army ca. 1823, and wasn’t truly widespread until the “Minie ball” ca. 1847, which was the first to consistently expand to engage the rifled barrel on all sides)
I don’t know the muzzle velocity of the smoothbore hand pistols of the era, but let’s say 300 mph (440 fps) or 3-4x the speed of a baseball curveball, which can deviate on the order of feet at 90 ft range. Many aerodynamic forces increase with the square of the speed, so muzzle velocity alone could increase deviation by an order of magnitude or more, compared to a curveball.
Moreover, the ball can easily leave a barrel at 100s or 1000s of rpm compared to the fairly lazy spin of a curveball or screwball, which may not complete a full revolution from mound to plate. Imagine a 1 oz ball flying down a smooth bore barrel at 300 mph. A brief contact with any side of the barrel could set it spinning madly. The exact direction and magnitude of the spin wouldn’t be exactly predictable, since the ball would not have started perfectly centered in the chamber. The grazing impact would also deflect it toward another side of the barrel. Assuming the ball didn’t “run out of barrel” in the short pistol barrel, any secondary contact would further complicate the spin.
At that velocity the aerodynmaics can actually be quite complex in the confines of the barrel, but once the ball leaves the barrel, the Magnus effect on the imperfectly round ball would be overwhelmingly significant. By contrast the weapons you mention have low velocity and little spin.
Don’t think I saw this posted. Sorry for the slight hijack. Duelling, known as jousting was common back in the 11th and 12th centuries. Before that I’d have to point to Scottish Games, though risk of death was much lower, of course.
In the medieval ages judicial combats, duels, etc were common place.
The joust was typically an affair that was not fought to the death (although certainly, people died). I believe Knights participated in these events for the fame and honour it brought them and it was a way to display their skills, not necessarily kill one another.
Judicial combat and duel were fought regularly as well, and these were (much as in the renaissance) fought to satisfy honor, and certainly could be fought to the death.
I stand corrected. I had assumed death was common since most jousts i’ve read about ended in the pike entering the losers head/eye. shrug Learn something new everyday
The ‘Coup de Jarnac’ was a cut to the rear of the leading leg, basically on the calf muscle. Usually unprotected even when armored, this makes a logical target. It is likely that the cut in this particular duel severed the hamstring muscles.
[QUOTE=Kinthalis]
…
The joust was typically an affair that was not fought to the death (although certainly, people died). I believe Knights participated in these events for the fame and honour it brought them and it was a way to display their skills, not necessarily kill one another.
…QUOTE]
The best metaphor that I’ve heard about this kind of “recreational” jousting/duelling, as opposed to the judicial duel or the duel of honor, is to think of it as being very much like professional football or baseball. Dangerous, and ostensibly not about what its REALLY about, but done for accolades and fame. Sure, its not a precise parallel, but one that I found helpful in considering the issue.
Its been a while since I reviewed the details of the Hamilton/Burr duel, but if memory serves, it wasn’t quite the straightforward melodrama that history usually makes it out to be. IIRC, Hamilton had many opportunities to get out of it, and he initially provoked Burr to a point where anyone else (in that social milieu at the time) would have done exactly the same thing. Burr may have been a bloodthirsty maniac in many regards, but I recall reading about the details and thinking that Hamilton kind of got what was coming to him.
Back to the OP, let me direct all concerned parties to an article written by a former fencing instructor of mine, which directly addresses the question of duelling injuries, from both a historical and contemporary medical perspective: the dubious quick kill. It is, understandably, concerned with sword-related injuries, but it is about as objective an analysis as you’re going to find out there. Lurz, the author, of course mentions all the big historical duels. You can even find out why the “coup de Jarnac” is such a big deal.
Interesting, Montresor, haven’t finished reading the whole thing yet, but the first page atleast makes it clear why the rapier was not a sword of war, and the cut and thrust sword remained the prefered weapon of the soldier in the renaissance.
I seem to recall, from research, that it was actually considered, at one point, really cool to fire at the ground between you and your opponent if your opponent missed their shot.
I also saw the same episode of Conquest, and while the History Channel website says something about the 16th century in the summary, I remember it as being about the history of the duel, from the start to its demise.
(emphasis mine)
They also talk about La Maupin a 17th century female duellist/opera singer/bisexual/generally infamous person. I also remember the majority of the re-enactors wearing clothing that was definitely not 16th century garb. (I’ve been researching Elizabethan clothing for at least three years, with the aim of getting involved in SCA, when and if I’m ever not busy.) These folks were wearing three-button knee britches, andwhite-powdered wigs, definitely not 16th century wear. That alone would put at least one of the duels shown in the 17th or 18th century. (Although dating popular historic shows by clothing is kind of a tricky thing – they’re either right on or ridiculously off. The History Channel’s pretty good at it though.)
hmm, well it has been a while, History channel keeps on changing the time it’s on. Actually I just dug up a tape with the show on, and you’re 100% correct
I’m a historical fencer and have been looking to join a local SCA group, no one knows anything about a decent group in NJ who might be interested in exploring historicla fencing (or whom might alreayd be doing so). Mayhaps you have some advice?
And yes, I know, a bit of a hijack, sorry to the OP!
E-mail me, Kinthalis, and I’ll see if I can tell you more about an organization that I’m not technically a member of. I mean, what are you looking for in your group? Authenticity in patterns and methods? Attention to authentic clothing? SCAdians use rattan weapons because they’re safer and combat seems to meet weekly, usually with archery. Are you looking for groups that use actual steel? Anyway, e-mail me. And I’m so starting a SCA poll in IMHO.
Sarah
I’m a highjacker and I’m okay, I like to pick wildflowers . . .
Okay, stomping my own ignorance, here. With a little brief surfing on the rapier section of the Kingdom of Atlantia, I discovered that actual blades (epee, rapier (d’oh!), schlagers, what have you) are used in combat, but “[s]harp points, edges or corners are not allowed anywhere on any equipment.” Let’s just assume I meant children’s combat, okay?
Sarah
I’m highjacker and I’m okay . . . I cut down trees, I wear high heels, suspendies and a bra-r . . .
