THE MUSÉE D’ARTILLERIE.
The Museum of Artillery--Its Origin and History--The Growth of its
Collection of Armour and Weapons of all Kinds.
The Museum of Artillery, with its varied and admirably classified
collection of arms, takes us back to prehistoric times, and after
exhibiting rude martial implements of dim antiquity, brings us forward
through successive ages of arms until it at length produces the very
piece which is to-day in the hands of the French soldier.
The origin of the Musée d’Artillerie may be traced to the reign of Louis
XIV. The Duc d’Humières, Grand Master of Artillery, obtained of the
great monarch permission to place, in one of the halls of the royal
magazine at the Bastille, a collection of small models of artillery then
in use. This collection, intended to serve for the instruction of young
artillery officers, was exhibited in glass cases.
The Duc de Maine and the Comte d’Eu, who succeeded d’Humières, did
nothing towards the development of this happy idea, which was only
resumed on the abolition of the post of Grand Master in 1755 by
Lieutenant-General de Vallières, who succeeded the count as First
Inspector-General. A certain number of ancient arms and of new models
were transported to the Academy, and an inventory of the collections,
which is still extant, was prepared. In 1788 the celebrated General de
Gribeauval, regarded by French writers as the creator of modern
artillery, succeeded de Vallières as Inspector-General. It was by means
of little models constructed beneath his eyes that Gribeauval had
prosecuted his studies, and it was his familiarity with models which
enabled him to determine the precise form of the arms to be employed in
his new system.
The idea of these little models extended itself to all the machines used
in the artillery, as likewise to those ancient arms of which specimens
had been preserved. Generalising his idea, Gribeauval determined to
apply it to the creation of a complete establishment, and his project
was in due time realised. The Minister of War, Comte de Brienne, at the
reiterated recommendation of the general, granted to Rolland, Commissary
of War and chief in the office of General Inspection of Artillery, a
commission which named him director of the new museum. The programme
proposed by Gribeauval embraced every description of war implements,
whether past or present; nor did it exclude a collection of all the
projects which had hitherto been proposed to the State by inventors.
This comprehensive scheme, executed with intelligence and activity,
almost immediately gave the happy results which had been anticipated.
Objects of all kinds, manufactured with great care in provincial
establishments of artillery, arrived in shoals at Paris, and were united
with the assemblage of ancient arms and armour which already existed in
the royal magazine. This was a moment of growth and prosperity for the
new institution. Very soon, however, its progress was to be checked, and
its existence threatened by the grave events of 1789. On the 14th of
July the arsenal of the artillery was devastated, and its collections
almost entirely destroyed. Gribeauval was spared the pain of witnessing
the destruction of the work to which he had wished to attach his name.
He died on the 7th of May, 1789, two months before the taking of the
Bastille.
Curiously enough, however, that same revolution which seemed to have
finally wrecked the new museum gave it suddenly a second life, and
afforded it an opportunity of wide and rapid development.
From 1791 to 1794 the national factories were inadequate to supply the
wants of the army. The system of requisitions which was vigorously
enforced brought into the arsenals considerable quantities of arms of
all kinds, as well as armour. A commission named by the Ministry had to
select therefrom what was serviceable, and to reject what was useless.
Regnier, attached to the commission as “Controller of Arms,” conceived
the happy notion of putting aside every object which seemed to him to
possess particular interest, and which at the same time was of no
practical use. The assortment he thus made was placed temporarily in the
Convent of the Feuillants. Here it was inspected by Pétier, Minister of
War, who, perceiving the future utility of such a collection, caused it
to be transferred to the Convent of the Dominicans of Saint Thomas
Aquinas. Here it was enhanced by the addition of those models which the
before-mentioned Rolland had managed to save from the destruction of
the Bastille. The whole was placed under the charge of the newly-formed
“Committee of Artillery”; and thus in 1796 the museum obtained its
re-organisation.
[Illustration: GROUP OF SHAFTED WEAPONS IN THE ARTILLERY MUSEUM.]
The Committee at once applied its energies to the development of the
enterprise. They obtained from the Ministry permission to inspect those
collections of arms which were contained in ancient royal residences, or
in the mansions of great families who had become dispersed or had taken
to flight. From these collections they were empowered to select whatever
objects seemed eligible for exhibition in their museum. Such, however,
was the resistance offered in many instances to this system of
scientific plunder, that the booty carried off was not so extensive as
had been anticipated.
In a more direct manner, however, the Ministry enlarged the treasures of
the museum. For this purpose the First Consul, passing through Sedan in
1804, ordered that the arms he saw at the Town Hall should be
transported to Paris; and this time it was necessary to obey, though the
carriage of the trophies was entrusted, unfortunately, to rascals, who
filched and sold part of them.
The peace of 1814 brought back to Paris the generals of artillery. The
Central Committee resumed its sittings, and one of the first of these
was devoted to the reorganisation of the museum, the importance of whose
contents had just been revealed by a hastily-prepared inventory. The
Committee appointed a commission, composed of three colonels, three
chiefs of squadrons, and three captains, presided over by a general.
This body had to draw up an inventory descriptive of each object,
classifying the whole collection and reducing it to chronological order.
The peace of 1814, however, was broken by Napoleon’s return from Elba,
and the members of the commission were called away to active duty.
In 1815 the Museum of Artillery suffered nothing from the invasion: in
consequence, it may be, of special measures taken beforehand for its
protection. Between 1815 and 1830 the building was enlarged and a new
classification was introduced. All was going well when the Artillery
Museum was threatened with complete ruin. On the 28th of July, 1830, the
insurgents came to the museum in search of arms; after a short but
violent struggle, the doors were broken in and the place sacked. For one
entire day, July 29th, the museum was almost empty, but on the morrow
many of the arms seized the day before were given back, and little by
little the contents of the museum, to the honour of the Parisian
population, were restored. A certain number of the arms, about a hundred
in all, had disappeared for ever; the loss was soon afterwards made good
through the purchase of the Duke of Reggio’s collection. During the
Revolution of February 7, 1848, the museum suffered no injury; a few
insurgents approached the place, but were easily induced to retire.
The museum, as now constituted, fulfils the condition of its original
programme, as laid down by General de Gribeauval. It contains specimens
of every arm known, from the primitive flint hatchet to the weapons
actually in use. It offers many gaps, entire centuries are
unrepresented; but these gaps are unavoidable: they exist everywhere;
and the historical character of the collection is as complete as the
present condition of archaeological research permits.
[Illustration: DECORATED SPANISH CANNON IN THE ARTILLERY MUSEUM.]
[Illustration: DECORATED MUSKETS IN THE ARTILLERY MUSEUM.]
The most distant period to which the history of arms can be traced is
the one described by modern archæology as the Age of Stone. The use of
metals was at that time unknown to man, who constructed his arms and
implements out of the hardest stones he could find, the bones of animals
in this primitive industry being also employed.
The researches made in different parts of France have yielded a good
supply of hatchets, arrow and javelin points, made generally of flint.
In the earliest period of the Stone Age the flints of the weapons were
rough splints, in the second period they were polished. Among the
earliest specimens of metal-work, the helmets of the ancient Etruscans
may be cited, and afterwards those of the Greeks for infantry and for
cavalry. In the satirical comedies of Aristophanes the price is
mentioned (in the one entitled “Peace”) of the cuirasses and helmets of
his time. Thus a cuirass cost ten minæ (about £35), a helmet one mina
(£3 10s.). This series is continued by two Roman helmets in bronze,
found at Lyons on the site of the ancient city. Among the Roman swords,
some bear the mark of the place of manufacture--“Sabini.” In one of the
principal cases may be seen the bronze portion of an ancient Roman
standard found in Asia Minor, and given to the museum by the Emperor
Napoleon III. The object is probably unique, and possesses in any case
much archæological value; it is adorned with the medallions of the two
emperors reigning at the time to which it belongs, and the effigies of
the greater gods.
After Cæsar’s conquest, the Gauls adopted rapidly enough the manners and
the arms of the Romans. At length, however, towards the end of the fifth
century, the Franks appeared, and the Frankish invader brought with him
his own sword and his own shield. The soldier among the Franks was
buried sometimes in a sitting posture, more often stretched on his back.
On the right of the sleeping warrior was his lance, with the point
turned towards his head, and measuring about his own height; turned
towards his feet was his battle-axe; on the left his sword--but this by
exception, and only in the case of a chief. The Franks also carried
small daggers with a single edge, knives, and scissors in their
waist-bands. The smaller objects of equipment have been found in the
graves of Frankish warriors. The Frank was armed chiefly for attack; his
weapons of offence were numerous and formidable, while for the defensive
he had nothing but his little shield, so small in comparison with the
huge target-like arm of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The
chiefs alone among the Franks wore helmets.
The period of Charlemagne has been much studied, but it is difficult
even now to form any idea as to the arms the emperor and his soldiers
carried. The sword of Charlemagne in the Museum of Sovereigns and his
spear are all, in the way of armoury, that has been preserved. If,
however, we compare the sword with that of Childeric, we see many points
of difference; the sword of Childeric, almost without a guard, and with
a pommel of small dimensions, is very like a Roman sword. The large
hemispheric pommel and the broad blade of the Emperor take us back to
the mediæval types of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. As regards the
successors of Charlemagne, the guards of Charles the Bald wore a uniform
which closely resembled that of the Romans, with helmets of barbaric
form, of which the base was very nearly square.
Now for a century and a half there is a break in the history of French
weapons until we come to the Bayeux Tapestry, some time after the
conquest of England by William the Norman. This celebrated piece of
embroidery enlightens us as to the arms, the costume, and the equipment
of armies towards the end of the eleventh century: so different from
everything of the kind under Charles the Bald. In the space of about two
hundred years the arms and the equipment of the soldier had undergone a
complete change. A single sword is the only weapon of this epoch that
the museum can offer; it is exactly like those of the Bayeux Tapestry,
the point being formed not by the gradual tapering of the blade, but
suddenly, by a sharpened end.
The twelfth century is represented by two helmets placed beneath glass
at the end of one of the galleries; they were both found in the Somme.
In the thirteenth century the man of war was usually armed with a coat
of mail, but he wore a sort of hood in mail which he could throw back on
his shoulders, of which an interesting specimen is to be seen at the
museum.
The fourteenth century saw a transformation of the coat of mail into a
suit of armour of polished steel, which, with some variations, caused by
the introduction of portable fire-arms, remained the ordinary armour of
the man of war until the time of its final disappearance. Towards 1325
the transformation was complete, as is proved by a great number of
monuments of the time, including sculptured figures on tombs, paintings,
manuscripts, sepulchral figures engraved on plates of copper, &c. These
monuments and documents show that the military costume and equipment of
the fourteenth century varied more than is generally imagined. Every man
of war armed himself as he thought fit; but there are enough records to
give an idea of the type that prevailed and even to guide the
archæologist as to the dates of particular changes. What caused the
ancient coat of mail to be given up was its weight, and at the same time
its incompleteness for defensive purposes. It could stop the thrust of a
sword and even of a lance, but in collision the effect of the shock was
felt; and in adopting leather jerkins, and afterwards steel plates, the
object was to spread the effect of the shock over a greater surface.
The coat of mail was not abandoned, but it was worn shorter and of
lighter make, without its former accessories, and thus greater lightness
and greater facilities of movement were gained.
The warrior towards the end of the thirteenth century was oppressed by
his equipment, and did not get off his horse. After the transformation
he was able to fight on foot, as he did in all the celebrated battles of
the fourteenth century, beginning from Crécy (1346).
After the adoption of steel armour the coat of mail was still for a time
worn underneath; but as the steel armour became more solid the coat of
mail was gradually abandoned. The museum contains the complete armour of
a man and horse, which dates from the middle of the fifteenth century.
Towards the end of that century the armour of the man of war had
reached perfection. Every kind of shield had now been given up as
useless; plate armour furnished every necessary defence, for it was only
when the armour was weak that any additional protection was necessary.
Thus the Norman coat of mail, as worn by William’s invading army,
presented in its species of trellis-work enormous gaps, and for his
complete defence the horseman protected himself with a long shield in
the form of a heart, which in action covered the whole of his left
side--the side he presented to the foe. As the armour becomes more
effective the necessity for a shield diminishes, and, after getting
smaller and smaller, it at last disappears. The Artillery Museum
contains a suit of armour by Turenne, which shows what plate armour had
become at the end of the seventeenth century. It was abandoned
altogether at the beginning of Louis XIV.’s reign; the last helmets worn
in France and England belonging to the time when this head-gear formed
part of the armour of Cromwell’s Ironsides.
Among the innumerable specimens of arms preserved in the Museum of
Artillery, portable arms are classed apart from those which strike at a
distance, the latter including spears, javelins, bows and arrows,
cannon, and every kind of fire-arm. The bow was the arm of the English,
the crossbow that of the French. With the former the archer could fire
more quickly, and it was easier to preserve the string from getting wet;
of which the advantage was experienced on the English side during the
battle of Crécy.
The English retained the use of the bow long after the French had
abandoned that of the crossbow; and, according to the director of the
Musée d’Artillerie, English bowmen were seen in action as late as 1627,
at the siege of Rochelle. Companies of archers disappeared from the
French army under Louis XII., about the year 1514. The last time,
however, that bows and arrows were seen in European warfare was at the
battles of Eylau and Friedland, in 1806, when, according to M. Thiers
(“History of the Consulate and Empire”), some of the Tartar troops in
the Russian army appeared armed with these antique, and for the most
part obsolete, engines of war.
Musketry of every kind is represented in the Museum of Artillery, from
the earliest to the latest patterns, including, in particular, the flint
locks used in the wars of the Empire, percussion locks, by which they
were replaced, the rifles adopted just before the Crimean war, and the
quick-firing muskets of the most recent models, including the chassepot,
associated with the war of 1870 and 1871, and the “fusil Gras,” which
replaced it. The word artillery was formerly applied to every implement
of war, though since the introduction of musketry it has been used only
to designate guns of large calibre drawn by horses, as distinguished
from portable fire-arms. Nevertheless, the first specimens of artillery,
in something like the modern sense of the word, were of small bore, and
the projectiles were the balls used in connection with the crossbow. The
French employed artillery of this kind as far back as the battle of
Crécy (1346). Gradually the bolts of the crossbow were replaced, for
artillery fire, by leaden balls, called plummets (“plommées”), of about
three pounds’ weight; these were used in cannons of modern shape, and by
degrees the size of the balls was increased until soon the artillery of
an army was divided into light and heavy.
The discoveries of the monk Berthold Schwartz belong to the middle of
the fourteenth century; and though this learned, but not perhaps
beneficent, inventor revolutionised the art of war, he cannot be
accused, in pursuing his studies, of having had any deadly purpose in
view.
The earliest fire-arms were loaded at the breech by means of a box which
was received in a strong stirrup and fastened with a key; and with the
use of breech-loading pieces the history of artillery begins, and up to
the present time ends. Soon after the introduction of artillery a rapid
augmentation took place in the size of the guns employed, and
cannon-balls of stone were used. These were replaced by smaller balls
made of cast iron, but even to the present day the weight-carrying power
of a gun is estimated on the supposition that the ball is of stone.
Stone cannon-balls were used by the Turks long after they had been
abandoned in European armies; so also were pieces of immense calibre. In
Western Europe cast-iron balls were found to be more effective than the
larger balls of stone.
The Artillery Museum contains specimens of every kind of cannon used,
from the original breech-loader to the breech-loader of the present day.
No. 1 of the catalogue is a small cannon of the earliest period, made of
forged iron and furnished with a breech-loading apparatus; 14 and the
numbers following are siege-pieces of various kinds abandoned by the
English at Meaux, after the bombardment of 1422. The projectiles for
these pieces were of stone. No. 7 comes from the ancient residence, near
Verdun, of the Knights of Malta; and next to it is a fine cannon in
bronze given to the Knights of Rhodes by the Emperor Sigismund in 1434.
No. 19, also in bronze, belongs to the reign of Louis XI.; and, like No.
18, comes from Rhodes. It bears this inscription:--“At the command of
Loys [Louis], by the grace of God King of France, eleventh of this name,
I was cast at Chartres by Jean Chollet, knight, artillery master to this
sovereign.” Next but one in the series is a large mortar of bronze, cast
at the command of the Grand Master of the Order of the Hospitallers of
Jerusalem, Pierre d’Aubusson, 1480.
The construction of the various pieces, as we follow them in
chronological order, becomes simplified, then complicated, then
simplified again. Gun-carriages and ammunition-chests vary in form,
until we find at last the field artillery, under Napoleon III., of one
pattern; though two kinds of guns, light and heavy, are still used in
the reserve artillery. The rifled cannon introduced by the Emperor
Napoleon, which did such effective service during the Italian war of
1859, was looked upon by the French as the best possible field-gun; and,
possibly from exaggerated loyalty taking the form of servility, the
commission of officers to whom the breech loading rifled guns of Krupp
were submitted a few years before the war of 1870 rejected them as in no
way superior to the gun of Napoleonic invention actually in use. Since
the last war the French have adopted breech-loading rifled pieces more
or less on the model of the Krupp guns, treated with such disdain by the
military advisers of Napoleon III.
Next to the pieces arranged in chronological order have been placed a
number of foreign guns taken at various epochs from the enemy,
including, among the latest acquisitions of this kind, a number of
curious highly ornamented Chinese guns. Apart from the interesting
exhibition of musketry and artillery in the military museum, a few words
may here be said on the history of fire-arms generally. The use of
fire-arms preceded by some centuries the famous invention of the German
monk, Berthold Schwartz; which, in Europe, is known to have been
anticipated a century earlier by the English monk, Roger Bacon. The art
of making gunpowder was known in the second half of the thirteenth
century to the Arabs of the north of Africa and the Moors of Spain.
The Italians, too, are said to have employed artillery in the thirteenth
century, but there is no positive proof of its having been used until
the middle of the fourteenth, when, so far as Europe is concerned, Roger
Bacon’s invention, and all previous inventions of the same kind, had
borne no fruit, whereas the discovery made by Berthold Schwartz received
instant application.