In 1887, a bronze arquebus barrel came into the possession of the Hungarian National Museum. Based on its documentation, the barrel comes from the field of the battle of Mohács in 1526, and we have no other information about the location or circumstances of its discovery.

The gun barrel is on display in the permanent exhibition of the Hungarian National Museum, so there has not yet been an opportunity to measure it accurately. Thanks to Dr. Ákos Sánta, historian and chief museologist of the Museum’s Modern Period Department’s weapons collection, we have now had the opportunity to examine the artefact in more detail within the framework of the Janus Pannonius Museum Mohács 500 research group, which represents a very exciting, but still unknown stage in the development of firearms.

A Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum mohácsi csatához köthető arkebúz csöve / The arquebus barrel of the Hungarian National Museum

It is important to deal with the weapon not only because of its involvement in the Battle of Mohács, but also because we tend to oversimplify the development of firearms and skip the stages between the hand cannon and the matchlock musket. The tinder-lock arquebuses, which we have now placed in their rightful place, fell victim to this, and their direct predecessors, which are no longer hand cannons but not yet tinder- or match-lock arquebuses, are similarly not given emphasis. Our article presents this transformation process, while specifying the assumed time of the production of the Mohács arquebus barrel.

A type of light small arms without a lock mechanism or featuring only an S-shaped hammer and a simple stock, developed in the second half of the 15th century. The bore size of these weapons typically falls into the 10-16 mm range. We cannot yet speak of uniform calibres either regionally or within types. These weapons are the direct descendants of hand cannons and the direct predecessors of the tinder-lock arquebuses.

The hand cannon had neither a stock nor sights. The earliest accurately dated hand cannon, the Tannenberg gun, was certainly made before 1399 and already shows a developed form: the diameter of the bronze cast, octagonal barrel is thicker at the breech and decreases towards the muzzle, which shows that they understood the peculiarities of pressure generation.

The bore of an iron or bronze hand cannon could be loaded through the muzzle. Above the gunpowder charge, which until the mid-15th century was meal powder and not granulated gunpowder, arrowheads, lead or iron, stone or other material projectiles were loaded.

The main charge was ignited by a smouldering match or red-hot iron through a touch hole at the breech. The weapon could not be shouldered, and it did not have a secure grip. The long wooden handle either fit into a socket at the breech or was an extension made of the iron material of the barrel.

Büchsenmeisterbuch, 1411

During the 15th century, primitive firing mechanisms appeared, which did not yet have a spring mechanism. The first depiction of this can be found in the Vienna Codex 3069, dated 1411. In the picture, the firing of a hand cannon is assisted by a Z-shaped lever, which holds the wick and is also a firing lever.

Hand cannons began to develop in the second half of the 15th century. A more convenient stock appeared, which allowed the shooter to hold the weapon with both hands while placing it on the shoulder, pressing it against the shoulder or against the face.

The development of gun stocks during the 15th century was significant. Hand cannons had a simple handle, which allowed the weapon to be held in two ways: under the arm and on the shoulder. In the latter case, the weapon could be held with both hands. This was made possible by the fact that the meal gunpowder used as a primer ignited slowly, so after lighting it, the shooter had some time to change grip and aim the weapon, placing it on his shoulder. In this case, he could aim with the upper plane of the barrel, which resulted in a much more accurate shot than if he had held the weapon under his arm with one hand. Such holding methods can be identified in a Swiss military codex written between 1420-1440.

Swiss Military Codex, 1420-1440, fol. 117r

The first stage in the development of arquebuses came in the middle of the 15th century, when a new stock form for hand cannons appeared that were clearly designed to be placed on the shoulder. These early stocks still did fit in the socked on the back of the arm, in place of the handle.

Such depictions are found in large numbers in the second half of the century. Cristoforo de Predis’s 1477 painting of Galeazzo Maria Sforza praying shows in its central section shooters equipped with such weapons. One soldier is aiming with a rudimentary arquebus, while the one standing next to him is loading it. The weapon is clearly a socket-type handgonne barrel with more modern stock that is not bedding the barrel from below all along to the muzzle. The stock is fixed on the shooter’s shoulder thanks to the circular notch at the bottom of the butt, while he holds the weapon with both hands. The lock mechanism is not visible on this arquebus.

Cristoforo de Predis: Prayer of Galeazzo Maria Sforza, 1477.

A similar posture of arms can be seen in Roberto Valturio’s De Re Militari, published in 1472. In the illustration on page 402 of the work, the gunner positioned in the bow of the ship holds his very short-stocked arquebus in a similar position. Here too, the butt is fitted to the top of the shoulder with a crescent-shaped notch.

Valturio: De Re Militari (1472)

It is not excluded that the handle-operated hand cannons could also be modernized with such mounts, but the illustrations rather testify to the fact that in addition to the mount, the gun barrel also began to develop significantly, which led to the birth of a new type of weapon, the “escopeta” in Spanish, “schioppo”, “scopietto” in Italian.

The hand cannon barrels became longer, thinner, and had a smaller calibre, which increased the effectiveness of the weapons in several respects. The rear sight and the front sight appeared on them, while the stock was also lengthened, now reaching almost to the muzzle.

The stock, which bedded the barrel from below and reached the muzzle, resulted in a more comfortable grip: on the one hand, it protected the shooter’s hand from the overheating barrel, and on the other hand, the stock no longer had to be held on top of the shoulder, but against the face or shoulder. The plane of the stock no longer coincided with the plane of the barrel, the two formed an obtuse angle, which made aiming easier and gave the opportunity to place a sight (a notch on the barrel breech) in front of the eye and a simple blade of bead front sight at the muzzle.

The peculiarity of muzzle-loading weapons is that the charge must be pressed into the bottom of the barrel without an air gap. If an air gap remains between gunpowder and the projectile, pressure can build up that can even burst the barrel. To avoid this, the charge must be pressed tightly into the barrel breech with the loading rod.

The soldier initially carried a ramrod of the appropriate size for the barrel length attached to his belt. For this purpose, we often see ramrods from the second half of the 15th century that have a hook at the end. This can be seen in the mentioned depiction by Cristoforo de Predis, but we can also see something similar in the hand of a shooter loading his arquebus on page 243 of Diebol Schilling’s Amtliche Berner Chronik.

Amtliche Berner Chronik

The longer barrel and the sights not only increased accuracy, but also the power of the shot: a given gunpowder charge, in a given caliber, can accelerate the same projectile to a higher speed if the length of the barrel is increased.

Some of these guns were equipped with a rudimentary S-shaped hammer/lever for a more secure hold while firing. If this mechanism was not present, the soldier had to put the smouldering match to the touch hole/pan with his hand. This could also be done with holding the match in the mouth as depicted in the Amtliche Berner Chronik.

We can see such weapons in the Berner and Lucerner chronicles published in the second half of the 14th century, but they can also be identified in the Landshut inventory, Ludwig von Eyb’s Kriegsbuch, the armory of Maximilian I and many other period sources.

Ulrich Beßnitzer: Zeughausinventar von Landshut, fol. 38va

Inventory of Maximilian I, p. 116.

The long stock, bedding the barrel from below, also offered a new opportunity to place the ramrod. The soldier no longer had to attach it to his equipment or simply hold it in his hand, but could place it back in the channel formed at the bottom of the stock, which significantly improved the comfortable handling.

Von Eyb Kriegsbuch, fol. 276r

By the time of the battle of Mohács hand cannons were already phased out from service, but not all the arquebuses of the time had springed tinder-lock or sear-type match lock mechanisms. The small-caliber arquebus barrel of the Hungarian National Museum related to the Battle of Mohács belongs to the group of firearms that clearly show the development of the arquebus, but does not have a springed lock system.

According to its carton the 55.3174 of the arquebus barrel in the armory of the Hungarian National Museum comes from the Mohács battlefield. It came into the museum’s possession by purchase in 1887. Its original owner was György Georgienics.

The weapon is an exciting firearm. This is a true arkebuz barrel, because the barrel is long compared to its caliber: the bore from the muzzle to the touch hole is 51.5 cm long, and its calibre is only 13.3-13.5 mm, which also fits exactly with the projectiles from the Majs village trace, a culmination point of the early 16^th century conflict artefacts on the battlefield of Mohács.

A 13,3-13,6 mm-es csőtorkolat a jól látható öntési hibával / The 13.3-13.6 mm barrel muzzle with the clearly visible casting defect

The barrel was cast from bronze and was not flawless even when it was finished: we can find casting defects and inclusions at the muzzle and in the bore. We can clearly see an enlargement on the outside of the barrel at the place of an air inclusion formed in the bore, which is a sign that the barrel, weakened by the gas pressure at the inclusion, became bulging. The barrel was therefore used despite its defects.

Its workmanship is rough. There are also irregularities and smaller or larger casting inclusions on the outer surface. The surface was smoothed with a file after casting, traces of which can be clearly identified on the octagonal butt plates.

A csődudor helye / Location of the barrel bulge

The barrel does not have any features that would prove that it was attached to a forend, but behind the butt there is a 69 mm deep socket in which the stock fitted, meaning that the wooden stock of the weapon is most likely the Cristoforo de Predis type. Since the weapon had no forend under the barrel, the soldier could carry the loading rod on his person.

Irányzék a csőfaron / Sight on the butt of the barrel

A recess is visible on the top of the breech, which in all probability could have functioned as a primitive rear sight. This also confirms the shoulder-mounted position, since if the arquebus had not had a buttstock but a simple handle, this would have been an unnecessary addition.

The barrel bore – apart from the indicated casting defects – is in good condition. After the barrel was cast with the core, the bore could have been equalized and cleaned by drilling, reaming, and polishing. Spiral traces of this are visible on the inner surface.

There is an obstacle in the barrel at a depth of approx. 38 cm, which can indicate that the weapon is still loaded. If the obstacle is indeed a projectile, then calculating the mass of the gunpowder column with a density of 0.6 g/cm3, we arrive at Giorgio Martini’s 80-100% charging ratio, which has already been confirmed by the Kopaszi-reef gun barrel, as well as Spanish and Italian sources. Of course, for this, the gun barrel must be subjected to CT or X-ray examination.

The gun’s touch hole is very large, in its current state it cannot be determined whether it is 7-7.5 mm due to burnout or corrosion, or whether it was originally made to be that size. It is certain that if it was originally this large, a significant portion of the gunpowder’s working capacity was lost due to this.

So where do we place the 1887 Mohács arquebus barrel in the history of firearms? Due to the length of the barrel, the small calibre, and the lack of a hook, it is clearly a light arquebus barrel. It is definitely not a handgonne bore.

The sight proves that it was equipped with a buttstock to be placed on or in the shoulder, or pressed against the cheek, which fitted into the socket in the back of the bore and was not suitable for storing the ramrod. The weapon therefore clearly represents a mature stage in the transformation of the hand cannon into a light arquebus, as it has a stock, a rear sight, and a long, small-caliber barrel. However, the presence of a lock mechanism cannot yet be proven. The touch hole is located on the right side of the barrel so as not to interfere with aiming, and a rudimentary pan was also created here, but it cannot be closed yet.

These types of arms could have used a simple lever-operated match-lock mechanism, but the firing hole located on the side of the barrel is not yet sufficient evidence for this. It is worth examining the 15th-century firearms from Pilsen Municipal Armoury in this regard, whose touch holes are also located on the side of the barrel, but none of them have a firing mechanism or a hammer. The placement of the touch hole on the side of the barrel may have been more justified by the desire for accurate aiming.

Based on all this, the Mohács arquebus barrel, which was collected in 1887, can be dated to the period between 1450 and 1480 based on its stylistic features. We can rightly ask the question of how outdated the weapon was at the time of the Battle of Mohács in 1526? It is undoubtedly more primitive than the arquebus with a lock, the remains of which were found at the Majs village site, but 50-70 years is not necessarily a long time in the history of firearms. We can also give a modern example of this: since World War II, the development of industry has been enormous, while the AK-47 Kalashnikov assault rifle, which was adopted in 1949, is still in service today.

The Ottoman army’s tactical superiority in firearms may have stemmed partly from more advanced military technology: the Janissaries may have uniformly had more modern arquebuses with spring-loaded locks, while the Christian army’s firearms were more mixed, including less modern, lockless weapons that were less suitable for accurate shooting.

If it is proven that the obstacle in the breech is indeed a projectile, then the personal tragedy of a Christian soldier in the Battle of Mohács will come alive before our eyes: he still had time to reload his outdated, poor-quality rifle, but he could not fire it…

Balázs Németh

associate professor

Janus Pannonius Museum Mohács 500 Research Group

MATE Institute for Wildlife Management and Nature Conservation