• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Fluffy_Fishy

Provveditore all’Arsenal
73 Badges
Feb 16, 2014
2.145
1.393
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
I made this for somewhere else and thought people here might be interested in this:

The machine gun, now a staple of any military force the world over has long been credited with being invented in America in 1862 during the American Civil war, the famous Gatling Gun named after its creator Dr. R.J. Gatling revolutionised the world of warfare. The Gatling Gun itself was just the amalgamation of something that had been pondered over for millennia, with notable rapid fire weapons being designed throughout history, long predating the use of gunpowder weapons with inventions such the Lián Nŭ (The Chinese repeating crossbow). The gunpowder age saw many attempts to try and create a fast firing weapon system, most notably the Ribauldequin of the medieval era developing into a whole series of different mechanisms for multi barrel weapons, however none of these were true rapid fire weapons, they were just volley guns set to do devastating damage with long reload periods. The first potential example of a true machine gun comes about as a somewhat theorised mythological creation of Leonardo da Vinci, who allegedly designed a crank handle rapid fire weapon (brought to life in the assassins creed series), however its not clear whether the design if ever real would have worked due to it being lost to history. By the time we get to 1718 we see the invention of the puckle gun, which while saw limited service and response showed a major step forwards in rapid firing weapons, and while not remarkably fast as an action, requiring cranking forwards to use the next battle it was a huge step forwards, sadly not taken up by those it was proposed to, mainly due to conservatism the potential of this new weapon was never truly realised.

PuckleGun.jpg


Moving further into the 18th Century, a century known for its almost constant warfare between the major European powers we start to see some major lurches forwards in weapons technology as states competed for any advantage they could gain. The period also saw massive growth of instability as states fought themselves to bankruptcy whilst major climate changes left poor harvests and people hungry, these conditions created a sense of paranoia in Italy, the small nations with the best farmland in Europe saw increasing threats from international conflict capitalising on their wealth and land, these conditions lead to the Italian states investing huge sums into promising weapon makers exploding the 1770s and 80s into a golden age for Italian weaponry, with most famous example of inventions from this period being the Girandoni air rifle invented in 1779 by Bartholomäus Girandoni.

c2be20310b356e31b8f72726fbd73dc6.jpg


Looking further at Venice in particular, the richest state in Italy you see huge external threats posturing for the rich farmland of the Po Valley and Fruili region as Austria sought to consolidate its Italian territory, Venice was also under increasing pressure from the Barbary states, who during the time were getting more and more aggressive as France and Spain were focussed on the war of American Independence, then later the collapse of the French monarchy. This period oversaw a huge update program as Venice modernised its weapons and fortifications to potentially deal with any of these threats, its during this period we see the complete overhaul of their naval framing and construction methods by Angelo Emo, the adoption of a new service musket, designed by Gasperoni Tartana a significant improvement over the Prussian Potzdam and the Austrian Kommissflinte it was based on. The other notable advancement of this period was a machine gun.

The Machine gun was the brainchild of a gunsmith named Giorgio Bergamin, it answered a continual issue for the Venetian state in that they were forever pressed for manpower when compared to the other European states, despite both having a strong mercantile legacy as the largest traders in the eastern Mediterranean and and red sea whilst also owning wealthy land holdings on the Italian mainland. The benefit of this weapon is it dramatically grew the fighting capability of the main military needs of the republic, as a swivel gun on their ships and as an emplaced weapon in their fortifications, the lifeblood of the Venetian state.

CP2akfv.png


The gun itself was first presented in 1772, and appears in the 1773 inventory report undertaken by the Venetian senate, it works with the same paper cartridges used by the Venetian muskets, (18.3mm), these cartridges were stored in a magazine which was fed into one of the multiple barrels through gravity. The machine gun fired through a complex flintlock arm that not only set off the powder charge but also primed the barrel and cleared out any misfired shots. The barrels were easily removable, similar to the famous MG42, where after sustained fire they would need to be changed mainly to scrape out the fouling. This all meant that a team of 3 or 4 men could potentially deliver similar firepower as a small company, significantly levelling the playing field for the man strapped Venetian forces when threatened by larger foes.

NYjDqOw.png




25di0VY.png


The weapon saw limited production, mainly testing models to take part in a long and drawn out trial period, where it was deemed potent but rather inaccurate, its inaccuracy and quite costly production coming under question by prominent members of the council of 10, who were concerned over the costing, preferring to have more accurate traditional cannons over this new rapid firing invention, Venice suffering an overly bureaucratic state of mind with a culture of military penny pinching that didn't respond well to the wasteful nature of these weapons and how rapidly they went through powder and shot. The council of 10 were also greatly concerned for what might happen should these weapons fall into the wrong hands or their enemies, mindful of the rising tensions of the era. Despite this a handful of these guns did accompany Angelo Emo's expedition against the Bey of Tunis, where they were incredibly effective in ship to ship combat whilst also offering a fantastic effect on opposed amphibious assaults and on the morale of the enemy in general, despite this success in the field they were still given a fairly poor reputation back home by the high officials of the Venetian government for being seen as an expensive part of an expensive campaign.

V1GzXRi.png


After the cessation of the Venetian Barbary war those guns that saw service were mothballed and warehoused alongside those that had slowly been produced over the period, they remained a state secret until Napoleon's campaign into italy, where they were briefly discussed to be rolled into active service again, however the Venetian senate noted the complexity of the situation where Austria and France continually occupied and counter occupied various areas of the Venetian mainland meaning secretive deployment to important positions would have been impossible, furthermore it was discussed that the weapons should be dispersed secretively away from the conflict so as not to fall into the enemy armoury so these weapons found themselves hidden away around Italy. Following the fall of the Republic and the Napoleonic conflicts they slowly resurfaced mainly as curiosity pieces for Italian nobility, 20 making it back into the hands of Venetians. The machine guns were later used in the Italian wars of unification, although after around 80 years of weapon development they were somewhat outdated.

Today the weapons are mostly prize pieces of collectors, however a handful of museums contain examples of these stunning weapons, most notably the Armoury of the Doge's Palace in Venice, The History Museum of Bergamo and the Italian Artillery Museum in Turin. There are also sketches of the weapon as part of the pictorial collection of Venetian weapons in Domenico Gasperoni’s Artiglieria veneta (1782), which provides detailed sketches of some of the most impressive, beautiful and horrifying Venetian weapons including some of their closest kept state secrets, copies of the book are scattered all around the world such as the one housed in the Wallace Collection in London.

9BmjbsB.png


W2c20MR.png


Thank you for reading
default_smile.png


Se1ivw7.png


QdhN5fU.png


f6VuQtk.png
upload_2018-5-2_19-20-22.gif
 
Interesting and subject I've yet to read about!
 
Very interesting, thank you.
 
Neat.

Was it used again durring the Tunis campaign (besides the single ship-to-ship clash)? Was a similar weapon ever tested prior to Gatling?
 
Neat.

Was it used again durring the Tunis campaign (besides the single ship-to-ship clash)? Was a similar weapon ever tested prior to Gatling?
The fairly small number made were used fairly extensively over the 1784-90 war between Venice and the Berbers, the guns were often used in the coastal raids that dominated the conflict. They would be mounted on some of the landing boats and used to provide covering fire as the marines disembarked to take the beaches, they proved pretty effective when used like this. They were used pretty cautiously though, because of their scarcity and cost they weren't used to their full ability, bearing in mind that they are a new type of weapon and proper tactical use wasn't really established yet.

The Mitralleuse was developed in the 1850's. Is kind of a mix between a volley gun and a machine gun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitrailleuse
The Miltrailleuse isn't really a machine gun at all, its basically just a modernisation of the volley gun aimed to improve and replace canister and grapeshot with its greater range and stopping power. It can't offer the same kind of effects wanted from a machine gun like suppressive fire, it can only sweep ranks. It's an interesting design though :)
 
Mr. Gatling's innovation has 2 main advantages over this earlier weapon, of course.

First of all, the Gatling model was clearly mechanically simpler than this weapon. It's basically just a crank and a gravity feed. This made it easier to produce in very large numbers, which is critical for a major battle weapon. Showpieces and prototypes have their place, but if you can't proliferate a weapon through an entire army, its utility is sharply limited, as the Germans, for example, found out with the Tiger tank.

Secondly, the fact that the design is so much simpler also probably made the weapon easier to train with. People think machine guns are point-and-shoot, but that's really not the case. Gatling's model is very simple -- just point it at the enemy and turn a crank while your buddy manages the gravity feed. The Venetian mechanism looks more sophisticated, but maintenance also looks a lot more complicated and difficult to learn how to operate and maintain.

The fact that it was invented before the principle of interchangeable parts was standard practice and any problem with an individual weapon involved a trip to the gunsmith rather than slapping a replacement part on there and keeping on rolling, probably doesn't help

Also, Gatling deserves his plaudits despite these previous weapons, because his Gatling gun was the weapon that really put rapid fire machine type weapons on the map as the key piece of the battlefield. Showpieces and secret weapons don't get you there. The Venetian invention was a dead end because it was kept secret, it was the proliferation of John Gatling's weapon that propagated the machine gun throughout the known world.

It's like the same debate on the subject of flight. There were others that developed flying machines before the Wright Brothers did, but invention is not just creating the prototype, propagating the technology is a key piece of invention. If your prototype isn't the reason why a technology became commonplace, you didn't invent it, even if you came up with a working prototype first.

This is also the sense in which Columbus really did discover America, even though others had clearly been there first. He was the one whose reports, accounts, charts, and records, and the publicity behind them, made it possible for the rest of the world to travel there.

This is why the greatest inventors have always had to also be great publicists. People like Franklin, the Wrights, Edison, Tesla, etc have to have a marketing flair as well as a grasp of technology. The Venetian device proved that the technology was plausible, but because they didn't propogate the technology, the opportunity was lost. It was in fact John Gatling that invented the moderm machine gun, and Hiram Maxim that pushed the technology from Gatling's foundation to the beginning of its current state of the art.

Others I'm sure had devices they were working on as well as the Venetian device, but because they have no place in this technological succession, they are in the same boat as Gustav Weisskopf's flying machine -- historically interesting but otherwise irrelevant curios.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Gatling's innovation has 2 main advantages over this earlier weapon, of course.

First of all, the Gatling model was clearly mechanically simpler than this weapon. It's basically just a crank and a gravity feed. This made it easier to produce in very large numbers, which is critical for a major battle weapon. Showpieces and prototypes have their place, but if you can't proliferate a weapon through an entire army, its utility is sharply limited, as the Germans, for example, found out with the Tiger tank.

Secondly, the fact that the design is so much simpler also probably made the weapon easier to train with. People think machine guns are point-and-shoot, but that's really not the case. Gatling's model is very simple -- just point it at the enemy and turn a crank while your buddy manages the gravity feed. The Venetian mechanism looks more sophisticated, but maintenance also looks a lot more complicated and difficult to learn how to operate and maintain.
The actual feed isn't too different from the Gatling design, both using a rotary and gravity based feed system, the main difference is that the Gatling had the advantage of about 90 years of weapons technology later, which means it gets to enjoy developments such as the percussion cap, meaning you can have a much simpler system for firing the weapon because it doesn't rely on there being a powder connection between the charge and a flint strike.

The fact that it was invented before the principle of interchangeable parts was standard practice and any problem with an individual weapon involved a trip to the gunsmith rather than slapping a replacement part on there and keeping on rolling, probably doesn't help
That's simply not true, Venetians had been using interchangeable parts in warfare and weapons for well over 4 centuries by the time this gun was invented and almost 600 years before it was adopted as a more universal idea for western Europe during the mid to late 19th century. The gun itself is even designed to use interchangeable parts as was part of the cultural norm of the Venetian military, which is how they got away with multiple barrels to avoid problems with fouling.

Also, Gatling deserves his plaudits despite these previous weapons, because his Gatling gun was the weapon that really put rapid fire machine type weapons on the map as the key piece of the battlefield. Showpieces and secret weapons don't get you there. The Venetian invention was a dead end because it was kept secret, it was the proliferation of John Gatling's weapon that propagated the machine gun throughout the known world.

It's like the same debate on the subject of flight. There were others that developed flying machines before the Wright Brothers did, but invention is not just creating the prototype, propagating the technology is a key piece of invention. If your prototype isn't the reason why a technology became commonplace, you didn't invent it, even if you came up with a working prototype first.

This is also the sense in which Columbus really did discover America, even though others had clearly been there first. He was the one whose reports, accounts, charts, and records, and the publicity behind them, made it possible for the rest of the world to travel there.

This is why the greatest inventors have always had to also be great publicists. People like Franklin, the Wrights, Edison, Tesla, etc have to have a marketing flair as well as a grasp of technology. The Venetian device proved that the technology was plausible, but because they didn't propogate the technology, the opportunity was lost. It was in fact John Gatling that invented the moderm machine gun, and Hiram Maxim that pushed the technology from Gatling's foundation to the beginning of its current state of the art.

Others I'm sure had devices they were working on as well as the Venetian device, but because they have no place in this technological succession, they are in the same boat as Gustav Weisskopf's flying machine -- historically interesting but otherwise irrelevant curios.
At no point have I claimed that the Gatling gun wasn't the weapon that created the most influence, I'm not sure why you bring this up at all. I wrote this mainly as a curiosity piece to share a bit of history that deserves having a bit more light shed on it, not as a major debunk or attack on John Gatling or his invention as this machine gun is known to a variety of academic sources already.

Furthermore, being an inventor doesn't necessarily mean you need to be a publicist at all, inventing something independently and later than someone else but leaving a larger cultural legacy is nothing to be ashamed of, neither is inventing something that doesn't become widely used or recognised, I'm sure there are other machine guns and concepts that have been drawn up during the 17th-19th century which are also lost to history, it doesn't make them any less interesting or valuable to look at when we can.

Just enjoy it, its a really stunning piece of engineering and military history, its aesthetics are pretty spot on too.

Also just as a pointer Columbus didn't conduct the modern discovery of America, it was Giovanni Caboto for the north and Amerigo Vespucci for the south, Columbus just discovered the Caribbean
 
When I say "curio" I probably picked the wrong word, as there's an implicit disdain in the term that I didn't intend. The Venetian device was truly interesting.

And I think that propagating a technology or discovery is a critical factor in making the claim to be the inventor of it, which is why I place Gatling as the father of the modern machine gun despite the existence of this well crafted piece of Italian technology. Because Maxim was improving on Gatling's work, and the inventors of later machine guns take their inspiration from the Maxim gun.

You don't necessarily have to be the marketing genius yourself, like Edison or Franklin were, but unless you publicize your discovery and claim credit, you wind up like poor Gustave Whitehead, who flew a flying machine a full 2 years before Wright, and because he did a poor job of capitalizing on it, never gained the fame he deserved, and the dawn of aviation took all its ideas from Wright's machine and none from his.

As for your quibble about America... come on. The Carribean Islands are part of the broader American continents in any reasonable geographic sense, in the same way as England is considered part of Europe, Madagascar part of Africa or Japan part of Asia. Nobody disputes any of these islands belonging to the nearest mainland, and the Carribeans are the same. One might split hairs about which Carribean islands pertain to which american continent, but they're clearly continental islands.

What's more it was Columbus' voyage that demonstrated that there was something worth exploring (and more to the point worth exploiting) out there on the other side of the atlantic. Splitting hairs isn't relevant or interesting here..
 
Last edited:
That's simply not true, Venetians had been using interchangeable parts in warfare and weapons for well over 4 centuries by the time this gun was invented and almost 600 years before it was adopted as a more universal idea for western Europe during the mid to late 19th century. The gun itself is even designed to use interchangeable parts as was part of the cultural norm of the Venetian military, which is how they got away with multiple barrels to avoid problems with fouling.

I'm curious, can you elaborate that? Intechangeable parts means not only having a standard design, but manufacturing to closed and controlled tolerances. There are many reasons why this was not possible until de late XIXth century...
 
I'm curious, can you elaborate that? Intechangeable parts means not only having a standard design, but manufacturing to closed and controlled tolerances. There are many reasons why this was not possible until de late XIXth century...
It comes from the Arsenal, at some point not too long after the 2nd expansion 1325, I forget exactly when, the Venetians worked out that building to patterns was a much more cost efficient so they started to produce standard sized frames and work to that rather than individually crafting ships, before long they started applying the same technique to planking and the fittings for the ships and that lead to frames being produced to measurement off site near to where the timber was cut reducing wastage. Shipwrights could work several ships at once and the most experienced could oversee the construction of up to 5 or 6 ships simultaneously instead of having the more traditional naval yard setting where 1 master shipwright would oversee a ship from laying down to rigging.

Everything was meticulously planned out to maximize efficiency and by the end of the 14th century you see complete division of labour and specialisation where carpenters would produce a numbered part which would always be of the same dimensions and go in the same part of the ship which would then be taken to the right place and assembled, its all really quite remarkable. This is why the Venetians in their height of production during the 16th century could comfortably build and fit out an entire ship in a day where other nations could only manage a similar size vessel every 6-9 months, they would often invite foreign dignitaries to watch as a way of showing off. To put some perspective on things the Christian league was shocked when after Lepanto the Turks managed to replace their fleet within 8 months, be it at low quality and using the entire turkish coastline, meanwhile in the run up to Lepanto the Arsenal as a single shipyard produced over 100 ships in 2 months which is more than 3 ships a day. Thanks to the way the Venetian Arsenal worked it wasn't bested by any other production facility in terms of output until well into the industrial revolution, while its not until 1909 until you see a more productive shipyard.

While Venice doesn't go to quite the same level with other parts of society you definitely see the effect of standardisation and interchangeable parts as much as can be done in the time frame, as you say there are limitations it does continue to standardise as much as possible. The secretive arms production facilities in Brescia and Treviso also follow these standard patterns as much as possible and are in part why Venetian cannons were considered the best in the world, whilst also producing very high quality small arms too, you also see it appearing in a more limited fashion with other productive areas such as the glass works in Murano.

It kind of just became a cultural thing which was protected by fierce state secrecy but in modern society people don't really see it, they just see Venice as a place where extravagant artists and traders came from before their decline after the new world and cape horn was explored. I hope that answers your question.
 
It comes from the Arsenal, at some point not too long after the 2nd expansion 1325, I forget exactly when, the Venetians worked out that building to patterns was a much more cost efficient so they started to produce standard sized frames and work to that rather than individually crafting ships, before long they started applying the same technique to planking and the fittings for the ships and that lead to frames being produced to measurement off site near to where the timber was cut reducing wastage. Shipwrights could work several ships at once and the most experienced could oversee the construction of up to 5 or 6 ships simultaneously instead of having the more traditional naval yard setting where 1 master shipwright would oversee a ship from laying down to rigging.

What the arsenal did to shipbuilding is indeed admirable. But to do that to fire-arms and other mechanisms, requires manufacturing to 0.1 mm range tolerances, which is outside of what is achievable with manual means... Standardization of designs, calibers and so is a feat, but you would still require a gunsmith to adjust the part before assembly.
 
Hm. Would Venice have lasted as long as she did without the secrecy about her arsenal and her manufacturies? Did the Venetians forego any opportunity cost when they opted for keeping those things secret?
 
What the arsenal did to shipbuilding is indeed admirable. But to do that to fire-arms and other mechanisms, requires manufacturing to 0.1 mm range tolerances, which is outside of what is achievable with manual means... Standardization of designs, calibers and so is a feat, but you would still require a gunsmith to adjust the part before assembly.
Realistically you don't need to have it to that much detail when you are machining parts to standard measurements if the design compensates for it, which is fairly simple when you are making something like firearms or ordinance, things were made through assembly line processes anyway unlike elsewhere in the world, the precision was there, Venetians always went for quality over quantity but they did so in a way that also promoted incredibly sophisticated manufacturing for the time period. There is a famous example of quality where they took a standard arquebus from one of their gunsmiths and spent around 1000 ducats gilding and carving it into a gift for the French King, who went on to say "This weapon is worth 100 french guns". One of my books has some pretty good insights into the use of standardised production in the renaissance period Venice I will see if I can track it down for you.

Hm. Would Venice have lasted as long as she did without the secrecy about her arsenal and her manufacturies? Did the Venetians forego any opportunity cost when they opted for keeping those things secret?
Probably not but its hard to say, a lot of Venetian success was due to their ability to conduct diplomacy incredibly well but also construct world leading fort designs and man them with some very impressive soldiers, although the soldiery is in part due to their high quality equipment. Its worth also bearing in mind that Venice poured a huge amount of money into weapons technology to make the most of their comparatively low manpower, which lead them to become a world leader in artillery casting and ballistics to the point they had to stop exporting guns in the mid 16th century because it allowed other nations to level the playing field, this advantage continued to grow over time too as recipes, boring and casting techniques improved. It also helps that their main enemy The Ottomans struggled to take Venetian positions due to their low quality ship, equipment and inability to siege, combined with general christian resistance to Turkish aggression.