“Compared to the.75 caliber Brown Bess of the British, the Charleville was the better musket. It was lighter, more steam-lined, and more durable.”

By John Danielski

ON MAY 11, 1745, the van of the Duke of Cumberland’s Anglo-allied army came over the brow of a hill to confront the center of a French army commanded by Marshal de Saxe. The lead regiment of the British, the elite Grenadier Guards, faced its French counterpart, Les Gardes Françaises across the Plain of Fontenoy.

The British line came to a halt just 40 yards from the enemy. Holding aloft a glass of wine in toast,the redcoat commander, Lord Charles Hay hailed his opposite number, the Count d’Auteroche.

“Monsieur le Comte, tell your men to fire,” he called over.

“No, monsieur, we never fire first,” replied d’Auteroche.

“I would be greatly honored if you would make an exception in this case, sir,” insisted Hay.

“Very well, monsieur.”D’Auteroche bowed in acknowledgment and gave the order to fire.

The redcoat line staggered as it was hit by the French fusillade. The British quickly closed the gaps left by the fallen. Hay’s men then advanced 20 yards, levelled their muskets and delivered a devastating, point blank reply that knocked down over 700 hundred French.

The British commander’s conduct, which many today might consider foolhardy, actually represented sound tactics for the time. The first volley in an engagement was generally the most destructive, but because smoothbore muskets were inaccurate weapons, the closer the range at which a regiment opened fire, the more damage it would do.

But while the British used superior tactics, the French soldiers had a better musket: The Charleville.

Ahead of its time

The Charleville was the first standardized long-arm used by any European army.Though a Frenchman, Marin le Bourgeoys, invented the flintlock in 1610, the technology did not come into widespread military use until the War of the Spanish Succession (1704-13).

The first iteration of the Charleville, Pattern 1717,was a one shot, smoothbore, .69 caliber piece. It was 62 ½ inches long, with a 46 ½ barrel and weighed just over 10 pounds. Its walnut stock was sturdy; giving it a lifespan of 10 years or more.

It was light enough for handy use by an infantryman, while its length,along with its ability to accommodate a 17-inch socket bayonet, meant that it could function as a pike as well. The elongated barrel also gave a charge of the slow-burning gunpowder of the day time after ignition to gather enough strength to propel a shot.

The Charleville fired a .63 lead ball that weighed .82 of an ounce; 20 to the pound. Propelled by 189 grains of black powder, it achieved a speed of 1,200 feet per second – about a third of the speed of a modern-day assault rifle bullet.

Although considered a reliable for the era, the Charleville misfired one in nine times and in the rain became useable only as a pike.

Fouling was also a problem. The French armies of the Bourbon and Napoleonic eras expected only 55 per cent of their powder to burn. The unburned portion turned into a black sludge that severely constricted the size of the bore in an extended engagement. In battle, that sludge could be reduced and the barrel cooled if a soldier urinated down the muzzle.

Multiple versions

The Charleville went through five patterns and numerous sub variations during its long lifespan.

As many as 48,000 1717 Pattern muskets were produced. Its barrel was held to the stock by four pins and one iron band. Later models eliminated the pins and substituted three iron bands.

The second iteration, Pattern 1728, modified slightly in 1746, featured a downward curving buttstock known as a “Roman nose,” and an iron ramrod. An estimated 325,000 were produced.

The 1763 pattern thinned and straightened the butt, shortened the barrel to 44 ¾ inches, trimmed the overall length to 60 inches, and reduced the weight to 9 ½ pounds: the weight surprisingly close to that of a modern M-16 with accessories. Springs were placed behind all three of the barrel bands to facilitate easy disassembly for cleaning. A front sight was placed atop the third barrel band and the bayonet lug was moved underneath the barrel. As many as 88,000 were produced.

The 1766 pattern further thinned, lightened, and straightened the butt and streamlined the weapon. A trumpet headed ramrod was added. Also, the bayonet lug was moved back atop the barrel. 140,000 were produced.

The 1763 and 1766 patterns were similar in appearance and were often confused. When in March, 1777 the Marquis du Lafayette brought the first French aid to America’s Continental Army in the form of 25,000 muskets, the Americans called both received models as Pattern 1766 Charlevilles. The weapon would become the basis for the first U.S. Army musket in regular production: the 1795 Springfield.

The Charleville was produced by four French armories: Charleville, Maubeuge, Tulle, and St Etienne. In 1806, Napoleon established further production sites at Liege, Turin, and Mutzig.

Though minor variations appeared between 1770 and 1776, the next and most important pattern was that of 1777. Later slightly altered as the Year IX model, it would become famous as the weapon of Napoleon’s armies. It would be copied by the Russians as the 1808 Tula musket, the Prussians as the 1809 Potsdam musket, and the Dutch as their 1815 Musket. The Americans would use it as the basis for the 1816 Springfield.

A dragoon version of the Pattern 1777 was produced with a 42-inch barrel, while an artillery variant had a 36-inch barrel. The marine and navy versions featured brass bands instead of iron to limit the corrosive effects of sea spray.

The designer of the Pattern 1777 was Jean-Baptiste Gribeauval; the man who revolutionized French artillery by standardizing calibers and lightening the weights of field guns. This enabled Napoleon to make artillery a decisive force on the battlefield.

The 1777 Pattern featured a lighter and straighter butt stock with a hollowed out place for the cheek on the reverse side to facilitate aiming. The pan was made of brass and angled slightly to improve ignition. Two finger ridges were placed on the rear of the trigger guard. A button headed ramrod was also added. The streamlined stock had the usual three bands joining it to the barrel but now the springs were moved forward of the bands. In a large number of specimens, the spring in front of the middle band was eliminated. Placement of the bayonet lug varied as well: sometimes on top, sometimes at the bottom of the nosecap band.

Despite numerous specimens turning up in America, Washington’s army never used the Pattern 1777. It was issued only to the French troops under the command of Count Rochambeau.

In all, more than seven million Charleville muskets were produced by the time flintlock production halted in 1820. Percussion cap Charlevilles were made until 1840 and some saw service in the Crimean War in 1853-55. Gunsmiths in Liege made copies of the 1777 Model into the 20^th century. They were used as trade guns in the Belgian Congo.

French Tactics in the Age of the Musket

Like all smoothbore muskets, the Charleville was far less accurate than weapons with rifled barrels.

Gribeauval estimated that the Pattern 1777 was effective against fixed targets out to 300 yards but considered its effective range against an individual as no more than 50 yards. Colonel Ernst Picard tested those assumptions in 1800 with a Pattern 1777. Firing at a target 5.75 feet tall by 3.3 yards wide, 60 per cent of the shots hit at 82 yards, 40 per cent at 164 yards, and 25 per cent at 225 yards.

The author owns an original Pattern 1777 Charleville; out of 20 rounds fired from it at a man-sized target at 50 yards, only 10 hit; of those hits, only two would have been lethal.

The French employed the Charleville in various types of volley; most effective when delivered at ranges under 100 yards. With the 1717 Pattern, the French fired volleys in five ranks. But by the time of the 1777 Pattern that had been reduced to the three ranks made famous by Napoleon’s armies. The French generally fired by ranks, sometimes by files, and rarely by platoons.

The evolutions necessary to load a Charleville were complicated and laborious. Three rounds a minute was considered a good rate-of-fire, but after the first few volleys that probably dropped to one volley every three minutes. Because of the choking clouds of smoke caused by thousands of black powder musket discharges, most soldiers did not aim their pieces. They simply fired in the general direction of the enemy when their officer gave the command.

No matter how ferocious the discipline and how strict the training, the shock of battle generally caused men to shoot high. Despite the utter devastation wrought by some volleys, at Fontenoy, only about 22 per cent of the soldiers were hit despite thousands of rounds being fired at close range. In the Napoleonic era, a soldier had a better than 90 per cent chance of exiting a battle unscathed.

The inaccuracy of musket fire made a quick follow-up with the bayonet as inevitable as it was effective. Musket fire often served to unnerve and unbalance the enemy; softening him up for the cold steel.

How it measured up

Compared to the pinned stock .75 caliber Brown Bess of the British, the Charleville was the better musket. It was lighter, more steam-lined, and more durable. It was easier to clean since the barrel bands could be easily removed. Its only drawback was that the butt of the 1777, called a “ham hock” by Napoleon’s soldiers, had a tendency to snap off if the weapon was used as a club.

The British closely monitored French musket developments. The Long Land Service Musket, better known as the first model Brown Bess, was issued in 1722 as a riposte to the 1717 Pattern Charleville and had a similar length and weight. The Short Land Service Musket, the second model Brown Bess, was issued as a response to the 1766 Pattern Charleville and also had a comparable length and weight. The reinforced throat of the hammer, common to all Charlevilles, was added to the British New Land Pattern of 1809. The cost of a new musket in 1813, whether French or British, was roughly 2£.

Charleville reproductions can be purchased for prices varying from $700 USD to $1,400 USD. Originals in reasonable condition are generally found along the $2,000 to $8,000 USD range.

Conclusion

By modern standards, the Charleville was clumsy, unreliable, and inaccurate but it represented the best technology of the time and the soldiers of Napoleon considered it a firm friend. Though 21^st century people consider the idea of two solid blocks of men blazing away at each other at close range more suicide than warfare, such tactics represented the most intelligent employment of the Charleville’s capabilities. It required a special kind of courage to fight thus; conduct puzzling to modern soldiers trained to fire from cover. A soldier of Napoleon had to stand straight, immobile, and exposed, look the enemy clear in the eye, and trust to luck or God that no round in the next volley had his name on it.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: John Danielski is the author of the Tom Pennywhistle series of novels about a Royal Marine officer in the Napoleonic Wars. Book five of the series, Bellerophon’s Champion: Pennywhistle at Trafalgar was published by Penmore Press in May 2019. Watch for Bombproofed, the next Pennywhistle adventure, coming in May of 2020. For more, visit: www.tompennywhistle.com or check him out on Amazon.