1848/49 in Transilvania, about those revolutionary years

if I remember well we were talking some time ago about how to use in battle this War scythes... similar to lances in the middle ages or better to say to hold the opponent away when he attacks, or to throw him away when he withdraws...

Reenactment of Romanian Landsturm from Transylvania, 1849

Romanian Landsturmers:


Romanian Landsturm training, loading the flintlock rifle:



Romanian Landsturm in fight, loading the flintlock rifles:


Romanian Landsturm decuria (platoon) in fight, firing the rifles:

Nice pictures 21inf, appreciate them!

1848... The days of the spherical bullet were close to an end, but it was still used everywhere.
Exactly in 1848 in France was invented the ancestor of all modern bullets:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini%C3%A9_ball

Nice pictures 21 inf.Is flintlock easy to handle?. What is the maximum number of bullets that can be stored in the magazine?. Pardon me for these questions. I really do not know much about flintlock rifles.

Thank you Claude-Étienne Minié for inventing Minié rifle.According to Florin Claude-Étienne Minié is the inventor of modern bullets's ancestor.

This post has been edited by warunasanjaya2727 on August 31, 2012 02:50 am

Hi "warunasanjaya2727",

Your "...According to Florin..." could mean that something bothers you.
If so, who is the inventor of the modern bullet's ancestor, in your opinion?

P.S: I used the term "ancestor", because the Minié bullet did not contain the explosive powder, which had to be loaded separately. And by modern bullet, I meant the one with cartridge containing the powder.
Your name sounds Indian (to me). The Indians were good in rockets in the Middle Ages, but if they were also innovative in bullets, please prove with some web links or some book reference.

This post has been edited by Florin on August 31, 2012 06:24 am

I am very far from being an expert in hand held guns, but the way I know it, the rifles available in 1848 did not store bullets in magazine. You had to load the bullet one at a time, after loading the powder. If you were good and fast, it took about 20 seconds - aiming and firing included.
The armies exchanged about 3 volleys per minute.
About 15 years later, a smart guy from the North (it was during the American Civil War) invented a rifle having about 15 bullets stored in magazine. The reload was not semi-automatic, but very easy anyway - you had to pull a lever and it took one second. This was the Henry rifle. The bullet with cartridge containing powder was a very recent invention in that moment, but the Confederate and Unionist armies were still using the "older" Minié bullets.

The leaders of the Unionist army were stupid enough to do not order the Henry rifles - it would massacre the Confederates and end the war faster. Only about 5000 Henry rifles were built during the Civil War, and they were privately own (you were in the army, but you had it on your own expense).

This post has been edited by Florin on August 31, 2012 06:29 am

Some models of Augustin rifle had a chamber, but it was not used to store bullets. The chamber was designated to force the bullet to expand at the end of the barell in order to give more strenght to it when going out.

This types of Augustin rifles were designated as Augustin rifles with chamber, followed by the model type, while older Augustin rifles with no chamber were designated simply as Augustin rifles, followed by the model type.

Only highly trained soldiers could fire 3 fires per minute with a flintlock or caps lock rifle. Giving the fact that shooting trainings occured quite rare and usually didnt used live ammo, the degree of soldiers training was rather low. The emphasis was put to march in formations, as it was very dificult to maneuvre with big masses of men on the battlefield.

Most often, when enemy infantry formations met, the fire fight was opened by the skirmishers, who advanced in front of their own formation with some tens of meters. In austrian army of 1848/49 usually the role of the skirmishers was given to grenzers, who were considered light infantry. In the french army this role went to the voltijors, who were especially selected from the soldiers of small height, in order to allow them to use better the terrain they advanced.

Usually the skirmishers fought in pairs, when one was loading, the other surveilled the terrain and fired if necesarry. Then the role inversed. From these guys developed the english term of "brother in arms". Skirmishers engaged the enemy skirmishers and also targeted enemy officers. After the fire fight was engaged well, they retreated in their own formation. Only then the bigger formations advanced at fire range toward the enemy. It was common to fire only a volley and after that to charge the enemy with bayonet. Usually the bayonet fight didnt made many victims, as one of the side gave up and retreated, avoiding the cold steel.

This was the way regular army fight. The Romanian Landsturm in 1848/49 most often fight as guerilla, as it had to few fire weapons availble and was also often short of ammo.

Thanks for the specifications, as usually interesting, 21inf! I just want fill in the information with the fact that I found this role (Skirmishers) to be played by rangers in the American Revolution (Independence War) and other wars later carried by the US, wars that preceded the 1848 Revolution and Hungarian Independence War. I assume that these troops need (in Europe) was developed from the Napoleonic Wars and not by the American Revolution (Independence War)... I also mention that these troops used rifled muskets before their wide-spred use later (after 1855), rifles who had certain advantages compared to the ordinary smoothbore muskets used by line lnfantry units. In the Austrian Army the line infantry used the first rifled muskets only after 1855, when the Lorenz rifle was introduced! In 1848-49 war with Hungary most Augustin type tubelock muskets (model 1842 for the Infantry, model 1844 for the Cavalry, model 1847 cadet musket a.o.) were the main weapons used in combat with both the austrian and hungarian armies, with the addition that obsolete flintlock muskets stored by the austrian army were used by many irregular troops (militia) in Transylvania, romanian and hungarian. The effectiveness in fightings were on the part of the units who used Augustin type muskets, because of its ability to shoot several volleys more than the obsolete flintlock muskets, however it was essential that the troops were disciplined and well trained otherwise the situation changes dramatically in favor of the more motivated and aggressive ennemy, even worse armed! So happened in confrontations between the hungarian and austrian troops in Transylvania (the latter better armed) and also in confrontations between the romanian and hungarian troops in Apuseni mountains (here the hungarians were much better armed)!

I forgot to mention that the skirmisher role in the austrian border guard troops was played officially by the Scharfschuetzen (sharp-shooters) 20 men per company, who used rifled muskets, while the rest of company troopers (180 men) used ordinary smoothbore tubelock muskets (identical to normal line infantry troops)! But the specialized troops in the austrian army (as the rangers in the US Army) were the Jaeger units (battalions normally) which proved very effective in both the 1848-49 wars (in Hungary and Italy), units which were constituted also in the hungarian new-raized army (in 1849). In Transylvania in june 1849 the hungarian army led by general Bem had at his disposal the 2nd Home Defence (Honved) Hunter Regiment, which act however only as administrative unit as his subunits (two battalions), identified from documents, fought independently. It is possible that various hunter companies were deployed in battles in the Apuseni mountains, but the hunter battalions were identified by austrians and russians as ennemies in the summer 1849 Transylvanian campaign.

The flintlock muskets austrian army had were not replaced with capslock muskets when the late were available. At least for the II nr. 17 Romanian Grenzinfanterie Regiment, the flintlocks were in use in late 1848. Only when the newly raised hungarian national guards asked for armament, the flintlocks were given to them and the grenzers were armed with the capslock muskets availble in regimental storage.

I do not you argue on this 21inf! My info was based on the information received from a hungarian collector who participated in the Arad city anniversary (a week ago) who studied battles in this area in 1848-49 hungarian revolution and war. He had some copies of the documents from 1848-49 (I had the opportunity to see them!) documents on the organization of war and battles fought in Arad area by the hungarian army! I found among others, the 1 Battalion of the 1st Szekler Grenzinfanterieregiment Nr. 14, who was present in the area in late autumn 1848. This battalion was certainly equipped with Augustin type tubelock muskets, unlike other hungarian (volunteer) units, who used flintlock muskets and even war scythes and lances.

I am on the same opinion as you. 14th Szekler Grenzinfanterie Regiment was coming from austrian army, so they had tubelock muskets, while other regiment, raised from volunteers, had flintlocks. Actually, it was normal to save the newest and best equipments for the best soldiers. )

Because recently I had the opportunity to read a book quite detailed and balanced in approach about the hungarian revolution linked to its fundamental problem the failed efforts to attract the other oppressed nationalities to the cause of the Hungarian Revolution, I would like to express my opinions on this topic. Contrary to the insistence of the Romanian historiography (not only from national-communist era, even before), the Romanian-origin intellectuals of Transylvania were the one who incited the Romanian serfs to radical solutions, deceived by the false promises of the Habsburg government and administration, eager to crush the revolution. It is true that in Transylvania the politics dominated the social-economic reasons so on the Hungarian side we could find large landowners and nobles who opposed the abolition of serfdom, but the insistence of Romanian-origin intellectuals on nationality, brought them no advantage but on the contrary! Nobody showed that the Romanian population from Banat, Crisana and Maramures do not opposed the Hungarian Revolution, but even supported it, until punitive measures, justified only by what happened in Transylvania (where the incited Romanian population joined in large numbers the counter-revolutionary camp) made some local insurgencies to happen. But the main issue is that there was no effort to find a solution in the interest of both nations by the Romanian-origin intellectuals from Transylvania (only Romanians from Valachia and Moldova and the ones from Banat, Crisana and Maramures) so I ask why cant we find a balanced approach in the Romanian historiography (I found a more balanced approach in an article from magazine Historia some years ago) on this issue and we (the fellow coforumists) insist on the battles, massacres and devastations and not on the responsibility of the leaders of that time (started with Avram Iancu and his lieutenants and continuing with some Transylvanian Hungarian nobles who were interested to defend their possessions)?

aidan zea, I'd be curious to know who wrote the book and how is called, and if the balanced and unbiased approach included criticizing the Hungarian Revolution leaders too! I can say from my readings (equally Romanian, Hungarian and German authors) that "the sword was raised" by the Hungarian Revolution leaders and their followers by voting for the union of Transylvania to Hungary without consulting the majority of the population from Romanian and German origin, through the recruitment by force of Romanians for the Hungarian "Nemzetorseg" or "Honvedseg" troops or, more tragic, by arresting, beating and hanging of some Romanian leaders and followers of the Revolution. But this is not the subject of this topic so I say better to focus on what happened then and not on who is guilty of the events! I think 21inf who wrote an excellent book on this thema can give you more details if you want, but please do not turn on spirits on this sensitive issue!

This post has been edited by ANDREAS on January 04, 2013 02:15 pm