Talk:Arquebus

message: I am pretty sure that the first paragraph of the history section of the article is incorrect; at least, it is directly contradicted by the article on Pavia.
--128.120.185.120 05:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The later sentence is based on outdated information (it's cited to Braudel, who was copying the nineteenth-century OED etymology), and I have deleted it.  All modern etymologies derive it from Dutch. Languagehat (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Do feel free to correct things, that's how Wikipedia works. If the people who know are too shy to correct the article, the people would should have known will not learn and this is a shame :) Rama 10:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have, at the moment, the proper information to make such corrections to the whole article in good conscience. If I had the resoruces (and the time), I'd gladly do it. And probably will... at some point. :) RobertM525 18:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the author meant that plate armour was the norm *for knights* from 1400 to 1600. This would be more to the point, as most highly complicated weapons (in this case the arquebus) were favored for their ability to give infantry an edge aqainst increasingly well-armoured knights.  The author was correct in his statement about plate armour; he simply forgot to tell us who was wearing it. ASeven
-It was pretty common for pikemen, and even musketeers in some cases to wear a breastplate and metal helmet untill the end of the 1600s/17th century. Curiassers, heavy cavalry, also wore(who would of thunk it) curiasses and also helmets, as did the Polish husaria and Cromwell's Roundheads. On the eastern frontiers of Europe, chain mail was common among European light and medium cavalry who had to deal with Turkish and Tartar arrows, as it was sometimes worn by the Ottoman forces to ward off Eastern European arrows (seeing as the composite horn-bows used by both sides had greater range and firing rate, if not penatration, than any contemporary firearms, they were still widely used untill the flintlock gained widespread use in the east. Pierogipirate
This is not clearly conveyed.  It simply says plate armour, which gives the idea of a fully armoured knight.
Obolisk0430  —Preceding undated comment added 16:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect history

message: according to the article haakbus means hook gun. it doesn't. it means literally hook bus.
ik would be more logical if it came from haakbuis, which means hook tube.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.68.224 (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: haakbus

message: Since this article, though currently of mediocre quality, seems to have the potential to be a very good encyclopedic essay on the arquebus, I've put it into the WPMILHIST worklist. Lay 16:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military History WikiProject 

message: How is the name pronounced? "AR-kwe-bus" or "AR-ke-bus" or "ARK-bus" or what? SpectrumDT (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: AR-ke-bus and AR-kwe-bus are both correct, according to Webster's II New College Dictionary.  I'll see about adding something to the lead. Pirate Dan (talk) 01:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation? 

message: I think the article confuses Aelian's instructions for countermarching with a new use modern tacticians found for countermarching. I am just trying to make sense of this, so it would be improper synthesis, but maybe someone can find a reliable source addressing Aelian's contribution and modern innovations built on it. 64.118.122.163 (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why would Aelian deal with firearms? 

message: There is the word "stippelckens" in the section on effectiveness:
After that, the third and following ranks will do the same. Thus before the last ranks have fired, the first will have reloaded, as the following diagram shows: these little dots [stippelckens] : : show the route of the ranks as they leave after firing.' Once volley firing had been developed, rate of fire and efficiency had increased and the arquebus became the most effective tool available to the late 16th century armies that carried them. Once volley fire was established, the arquebus went from being a support weapon to the primary focus of early modern armies.[5]
What does it mean? I did a quick google search and every single result points back to that same text. Anyone have any idea?
--2602:306:CEC4:9610:8A7:8D78:C36A:71B3 (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stippelckens? 

message: There should be citation on the part that says that the 'most powerful crossbows took longer to reload than an arquebus'.  According to this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q23H_eQ8Yd8&index=2&list=PLmW_vcwM_qxvTqoBaHn7MjwVt_oCCr2vt - it takes roughly 60 seconds to load a matchlock.  
I'm imagining that the most powerful crossbow used a windlass pulley mechanism, which did take a while, but the loading might have taken similarly as long as a matchlock, given the number of movements seems to be similar (attach pulley, crank windlass, secure string to drawn position, detach pulley from string, remove pulley, load bolt) vs. matchlock (replace whick, light whick, load main charge, ram ball and clog, load primer, blow on whick... this doesn't include the possible added step of cleaning the barrel before all these steps).  My point is that the number of steps to load matchlock is similar and more finite than the windlass/pulley crossbow.  
Also, crossbows utilized a narrow bolt vs. the ball (stone or lead or whatever it might be) of the matchlock.  Narrow force equals pressure over a smaller area which = greater force per area, thus greater penetration (though also greater deflection when 'glancing').  Because of this, I think the penetration of a crossbow would have at least been greater (most of the time?), though I suppose a matchlock could be argued as 'more powerful' in that there's more energy to the gun than the tension of the bow.
Impfireball (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossbow vs. Arquebus 

message: It seems to me that the pictures on the Mechanism section, where a man dressed as 17th century soldier demonstrates the firing process, correspond to the firing of a musket. If this is true, a clarification should be added, in order to avoid confusion between both firearms.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.78.100 (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firing pictures 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion