Talk:Musketeer

message: I added the "nigh on" & the bits on Swedish & Japanese musketeers based on Dyer's War & Dupuy's Evolution of Weapons and Warfare.  Trekphiler 01:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Nouveau Mosquetaires''

message: I am chinese and I've never heard of the Ming and Quing dynasty using muskets. If they had them they could have kicked the British people's ass during the Opium war because they had superoir numbers. The article looks suspicious to me.CHSGHSF 23:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese Musketeers 

message: 1. Battle of Pavia was won by arquebusiers not musketeers. The whole passage is wrong.
2. There were no musketeers in Japan, but harqebusieres. The japanese teppo was less powerful and had another construction than European musket. It is very close to western arquebus.--Alex Kov 10:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish and Japanese "musketeers" 

message: In this article I've read the following sentences: "The redcoat was equipped with the 0.75 calibre Land Pattern Musket, or Brown Bess. He was the most thoroughly trained musketeer in history, the British army being the only one in the colonial era to train with live ammunition. A fully trained redcoat could fire four times a minute."
I'm wondering whether a British nationalist or an expert wrote this. I have read the book "Frederick the Great" by Nancy Mitford, and she mentions that the Prussian soldier was the finest of its time. These Prussian soldiers were active at the same time as the Redcoats. Just wanted to mention it, but I guess one can't really tell what country had the thoroughly trained musketeers. 
By the way, I've read the following sentence in the Wikipedia article "Prussian Army": "Through drilling and the iron ramrod, each soldier was expected to fire six times in a minute, three times as fast as most armies." One of the reasons of the writer is that the British musketeers were the finest, because of their four bullets a minute. Pruis (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The most thoroughly trained musketeer in history

message: Hey. Just by overlooking this article I'd say it totally misses its topic. It is mainly about handgunners and arquebusieres, not about musketeers. This is especially true for Asia. However, I am not a native English speaker, but I do know someting about definitions of historical firearms as we use them on the European continent, e.g. in French and German. So maybe a native speaker WITH some knowledge about the official definitions can help me out here: According to continental terminology, muskets are 1. the heavy, long rifles which you have to use on a stick, as improvements of the lighter and shorter arquebuse, beginning EXCLUSIVELY in Europe during the mid of the 16th century; further muskets are 2. the historically following rifles. After the original forms became lighter and more and more practical, later every rifle (not shotgun) was called a musket until the first repeaters were developed, except from the shorter carbines that could be used on horses. According to this definition, there have never been neither muskets nor musketeers in Japan until 1866. The rifles they got from the Portuguese were arquebuses, and they didn't develop them any further for 250 years. Therefore most of the Asia section would have to get kicked out of this article, and in the rest of Asia and Europe sections it' d have to be seen: what is a musketeer, what a handgunner or arquebusiere. If it's the latter, kick it out and replace the information in the relevant articles. What do others say, before I'd start with this? --JakobvS (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm totally down with this. I've been scratching my head for months about this page. Surely "musketeer" means "musketeer" i.e. Europe, 16th Century etc. I don't think this is a Western bias per se Silverwood (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this article really about musketeers? I think it's missing its topic and has to be changed all over.