In regards to powder charges, Sir Roger Williams notes in his "Brief
Discours on Warre" in the 1590's that a Musketeer would go through a pound
of powder in "8 to 10 shots", suggesting that, if it were an 8- or 10-bore
mosquet, they would be firing off charges of equal weight to the bullet.
Pretty stiff, even if it were poor quality powder.  No wonder he claimed it
would "spoil man or horse" at 200 yards.

Cheers!

Gordon

Tilbury Camp
http://tilburycamp.webs.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

About measurement confusions - I have struggled with the fact that most
artillery pieces identified as a 2pdr clearly have larger calibers - usually
easily over 2 1/4  which would be a 3pdr, in lead (2 1/8) or iron (2 3/16). (and
3pdr were over 2.5, which is more like a 4pdr) At some earlier time stone was
used as a standard for measuring wieght, but that seems to have no longer been
the practice by the early 17th C.
Then, there is the question of windage, which seemed to be a fairly generous
allowance.
-Rick
--- In zaglobastavern@yahoogroups.com, rotmistrzb <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> A whopping big charge for sure. Twice what we have been using for Blanks. OMG,
this means that Dex was right afterall.
>
> For artillery, I recall calculating that the recommended charge for a 2 pound
ball was about 6-7 oz or  a bit more than a 1/3 pound, and I usually use about
1/4 pound for blanks and 1/6 for ball.
> -Rick
>
> --- In zaglobastavern@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <mross7@> wrote:
> >
> > Found this information online, and it matches what I found in "Martin's
Hundred", specifically what John Smith recommended every colonist should bring
with him, 20 pounds of powder and 30 pounds of lead. book...
> >
> > Gunpowder
> > The quantity of powder issued was significantly larger than that used in
today's target shooting 'A musket requires the half weight of her ball in fine
powder and two thirds of common powder, that is one pound of fine powder to two
pounds of lead, and two pounds of ordinary powder for three pounds of lead' [7]
even considering the imperfection of the powder and the different proportion of
components ( 1:1:7 Sulphur, charcoal, salt peter), it is still a large charge.
> >
> > http://www.fairfax.org.uk/main/soldiers/musket.htm#ref07
> >
> > So, a .68 inch lead ball for a 75 caliber musket, weighting 1.1 ozs, needed
321 grains of powder.  That's 1.38 cubic inches.
> >
> >
http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/abstract/military/army/britain/artillery\
/c_ammo.html
> >
>

If only!

Maks
Kozaky Living History (USA)
107 Avonshire Terrace
Hot Springs AR 71913
501 655 2161

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

19.9 = .783"
18.6 = .732"
18.6 / 19.9 = .934

15.9 = .626 "
14.7 = .579"
14.7 / 15.9 = .924

So for the muskets, it was a 78 caliber, and the ball diameter of 73, 93% of the
musket bore.

The caliver was 63 caliber, the ball 58, 92% of the bore.

--- In zaglobastavern@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Jamie <niknjami@...> wrote:
>
> I've been able to track down my references, but they are in metric. It's
> been a long day, so I'm not going to do the conversions :.)
>
> According to "Dutch Firearms" by Arne Hoff, regulations of 1599 stated
> that the bore of muskets should be 10 to the pound, but the bullets
> should be 12 to the pound. The author converts this to 19.9mm & 18.6mm.
> Calivers were to have a bore of 20 to the pound, and use bullets 24 to
> the pound. Or about 15.9mm & 14.7mm.
>
> As to powder charge, he says "...the normal ratio between ball and
> powder of one to one..." but gives no source for that statement.
>
> It's been a while since I looked at this source, so it was interesting
> to note that also in 1599 the Dutch government had a gunmaker produce
> five sample arms for the regular regiments as models. The beginning of
> "pattern" arms. :.) I'd also forgotten that the Dutch regulars had
> abolished calivers by 1609.
>
> Nick W.
>
> Mark wrote:
> >
> > I remember reading somewhere that the recommended windage for a
> > military weapon was .9 of the caliber, and .9 for 75 caliber is .675.
> > I'll try to find that number again.
> >
> > I took 75 caliber as an average for late 17th/18th century. For 100
> > caliber (full musket, 16th century), the ball diameter would be .9,
> > weighing 2.6 oz, and 744 grains. Ouch.
> >
> > --- In zaglobastavern@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:zaglobastavern%40yahoogroups.com>, Nick & Jamie <niknjami@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Remember that many 17th c muskets were larger than 75 Cal. .68 sounds
> > > too undersized for 75 cal in 17th C. Might have been ok for a ball in
> > > paper cartridge. Will try to look up windage figures for 17th c. later
> > > today.
> > >
> > > Nick W.
> > >
> > > Mark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Found this information online, and it matches what I found in
> > > > "Martin's Hundred", specifically what John Smith recommended every
> > > > colonist should bring with him, 20 pounds of powder and 30 pounds of
> > > > lead. book...
> > > >
> > > > Gunpowder
> > > > The quantity of powder issued was significantly larger than that used
> > > > in today's target shooting 'A musket requires the half weight of her
> > > > ball in fine powder and two thirds of common powder, that is one
> > pound
> > > > of fine powder to two pounds of lead, and two pounds of ordinary
> > > > powder for three pounds of lead' [7] even considering the
> > imperfection
> > > > of the powder and the different proportion of components ( 1:1:7
> > > > Sulphur, charcoal, salt peter), it is still a large charge.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.fairfax.org.uk/main/soldiers/musket.htm#ref07
> > <http://www.fairfax.org.uk/main/soldiers/musket.htm#ref07>
> > > > <http://www.fairfax.org.uk/main/soldiers/musket.htm#ref07
> > <http://www.fairfax.org.uk/main/soldiers/musket.htm#ref07>>
> > > >
> > > > So, a .68 inch lead ball for a 75 caliber musket, weighting 1.1 ozs,
> > > > needed 321 grains of powder. That's 1.38 cubic inches.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/abstract/military/army/britain/artillery\
/c_ammo.html
> >
<http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/abstract/military/army/britain/artiller\
y/c_ammo.html>
> >
> > > >
> >
<http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/abstract/military/army/britain/artiller\
y/c_ammo.html
> >
<http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/abstract/military/army/britain/artiller\
y/c_ammo.html>>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

It could and should have happened 90 years ago.

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Scott Potopa <newhusaria@...> wrote:

>
>
> This should have happened 375 years ago, much grief would have been
> avoided...
>
> ________________________________
> From: "czachowski@... <czachowski%40comcast.net>" <
> czachowski@... <czachowski%40comcast.net>>
> To: mandmmalecki@... <mandmmalecki%40enter.net>;
1metoo@...<1metoo%40comcast.net>;
> 1metoo@... <1metoo%40comcast.net>;
RLGol613@...<RLGol613%40aol.com>;
> gdrukarov@... <gdrukarov%40comcast.net>;
jmdequitare@...<jmdequitare%40yahoo.com>;
> helena@... <helena%40czestochowa.us>; Banner of St Michael <
>
choragiew_swiety_michal@yahoogroups.com<choragiew_swiety_michal%40yahoogroups.co\
m>>;
> Zagloba <zaglobastavern@yahoogroups.com <zaglobastavern%40yahoogroups.com>>;
> "von Schleuter, Maxamillan" <maks_zobi@... <maks_zobi%40msn.com>>;
> Czarniecki <Czarnieckiego@yahoogroups.com<Czarnieckiego%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> Sent: Thu, November 19, 2009 8:08:50 PM
> Subject: [Zagloba's Tavern] Fwd: [polishamericanforum] Poland, Lithuania
> eye military tie-up with Ukraine
>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: "Tom" <tkchargers@aol. com>
> To: polishamericanforum @yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 7:30:47 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: [polishamericanforu m] Poland, Lithuania eye military tie-up with
> Ukraine
>
> Poland, Lithuania eye military tie-up with Ukraine
> Tue Nov 17, 2009
>
> BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Poland and Lithuania want to forge military
> cooperation with Ukraine to try to bring the former Soviet republic closer
> to NATO, Polish officials said.
>
> Under the plan, the three countries would form a brigade that could
> participate in international peacekeeping operations under the auspices of
> the United Nations, the European Union or NATO.
>
> "This reflects our support for Ukraine. We want to tie Ukraine closer to
> Western structures, including military ones," Poland's Deputy Defence
> Minister Stanislaw Komorowski told reporters in Brussels after signing a
> letter of intent.
>
> "This is also proof that Ukraine is taking seriously its desire for closer
> cooperation with members of the EU and NATO," he said.
>
> Eventual membership for Ukraine in NATO is a key issue in difficult
> relations between the Western military alliance and Russia after NATO's
> pledge to admit the former Soviet republic, as well as Georgia, greatly
> angered Moscow.
>
> The move by Poland and Lithuania, both of which are EU members, comes two
> days before an EU summit with Russia aimed at increasing cooperation with
> Moscow.
>
> It also comes ahead of a visit in December to Moscow by NATO
> Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who has made boosting ties with
> Russia a top priority since taking over the NATO helm in August.
>
> While the latest move could further anger Russia, a NATO spokesman welcomed
> the Polish-Lithuanian plan, saying cooperation could build up trust and
> capabilities.
>
> "There is absolutely no reason why cooperation between individual allies
> and Ukraine should not be stepped up. If extra capability was made available
> for NATO operations that can only be welcome by the alliance," James
> Appathurai said.
>
> NATO and Russia resumed formal cooperation on broad security threats after
> ties were frozen as a result of Russia's military intervention last August
> in Georgia, another former Soviet republic Russia sees as part of its sphere
> of influence.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This should have happened 375 years ago, much grief would have been avoided...



________________________________
From: "czachowski@..." <czachowski@...>
To: mandmmalecki@...; 1metoo@...; 1metoo@...;
RLGol613@...; gdrukarov@...; jmdequitare@...;
helena@...; Banner of St Michael
<choragiew_swiety_michal@yahoogroups.com>; Zagloba
<zaglobastavern@yahoogroups.com>; "von Schleuter, Maxamillan"
<maks_zobi@...>; Czarniecki <Czarnieckiego@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, November 19, 2009 8:08:50 PM
Subject: [Zagloba's Tavern] Fwd: [polishamericanforum] Poland, Lithuania eye
military tie-up with Ukraine



----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Tom" <tkchargers@aol. com>
To: polishamericanforum @yahoogroups. com
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 7:30:47 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [polishamericanforu m] Poland, Lithuania eye military tie-up with
Ukraine



Poland, Lithuania eye military tie-up with Ukraine
Tue Nov 17, 2009

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Poland and Lithuania want to forge military cooperation
with Ukraine to try to bring the former Soviet republic closer to NATO, Polish
officials said.

Under the plan, the three countries would form a brigade that could participate
in international peacekeeping operations under the auspices of the United
Nations, the European Union or NATO.

"This reflects our support for Ukraine. We want to tie Ukraine closer to Western
structures, including military ones," Poland's Deputy Defence Minister Stanislaw
Komorowski told reporters in Brussels after signing a letter of intent.

"This is also proof that Ukraine is taking seriously its desire for closer
cooperation with members of the EU and NATO," he said.

Eventual membership for Ukraine in NATO is a key issue in difficult relations
between the Western military alliance and Russia after NATO's pledge to admit
the former Soviet republic, as well as Georgia, greatly angered Moscow.

The move by Poland and Lithuania, both of which are EU members, comes two days
before an EU summit with Russia aimed at increasing cooperation with Moscow.

It also comes ahead of a visit in December to Moscow by NATO Secretary-General
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who has made boosting ties with Russia a top priority
since taking over the NATO helm in August.

While the latest move could further anger Russia, a NATO spokesman welcomed the
Polish-Lithuanian plan, saying cooperation could build up trust and
capabilities.

"There is absolutely no reason why cooperation between individual allies and
Ukraine should not be stepped up. If extra capability was made available for
NATO operations that can only be welcome by the alliance," James Appathurai
said.

NATO and Russia resumed formal cooperation on broad security threats after ties
were frozen as a result of Russia's military intervention last August in
Georgia, another former Soviet republic Russia sees as part of its sphere of
influence.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I've been able to track down my references, but they are in metric. It's
been a long day, so I'm not going to do the conversions :.)

According to "Dutch Firearms" by Arne Hoff, regulations of 1599 stated
that the bore of muskets should be 10 to the pound, but the bullets
should be 12 to the pound. The author converts this to 19.9mm & 18.6mm.
Calivers were to have a bore of 20 to the pound, and use bullets 24 to
the pound. Or about 15.9mm & 14.7mm.

As to powder charge, he says "...the normal ratio between ball and
powder of one to one..." but gives no source for that statement.

It's been a while since I looked at this source, so it was interesting
to note that also in 1599 the Dutch government had a gunmaker produce
five sample arms for the regular regiments as models. The beginning of
"pattern" arms. :.) I'd also forgotten that the Dutch regulars had
abolished calivers by 1609.

Nick W.

Mark wrote:
>
> I remember reading somewhere that the recommended windage for a
> military weapon was .9 of the caliber, and .9 for 75 caliber is .675.
> I'll try to find that number again.
>
> I took 75 caliber as an average for late 17th/18th century. For 100
> caliber (full musket, 16th century), the ball diameter would be .9,
> weighing 2.6 oz, and 744 grains. Ouch.
>
> --- In zaglobastavern@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:zaglobastavern%40yahoogroups.com>, Nick & Jamie <niknjami@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Remember that many 17th c muskets were larger than 75 Cal. .68 sounds
> > too undersized for 75 cal in 17th C. Might have been ok for a ball in
> > paper cartridge. Will try to look up windage figures for 17th c. later
> > today.
> >
> > Nick W.
> >
> > Mark wrote:
> > >
> > > Found this information online, and it matches what I found in
> > > "Martin's Hundred", specifically what John Smith recommended every
> > > colonist should bring with him, 20 pounds of powder and 30 pounds of
> > > lead. book...
> > >
> > > Gunpowder
> > > The quantity of powder issued was significantly larger than that used
> > > in today's target shooting 'A musket requires the half weight of her
> > > ball in fine powder and two thirds of common powder, that is one
> pound
> > > of fine powder to two pounds of lead, and two pounds of ordinary
> > > powder for three pounds of lead' [7] even considering the
> imperfection
> > > of the powder and the different proportion of components ( 1:1:7
> > > Sulphur, charcoal, salt peter), it is still a large charge.
> > >
> > > http://www.fairfax.org.uk/main/soldiers/musket.htm#ref07
> <http://www.fairfax.org.uk/main/soldiers/musket.htm#ref07>
> > > <http://www.fairfax.org.uk/main/soldiers/musket.htm#ref07
> <http://www.fairfax.org.uk/main/soldiers/musket.htm#ref07>>
> > >
> > > So, a .68 inch lead ball for a 75 caliber musket, weighting 1.1 ozs,
> > > needed 321 grains of powder. That's 1.38 cubic inches.
> > >
> > >
>
http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/abstract/military/army/britain/artillery\
/c_ammo.html
>
<http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/abstract/military/army/britain/artiller\
y/c_ammo.html>
>
> > >
>
<http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/abstract/military/army/britain/artiller\
y/c_ammo.html
>
<http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/abstract/military/army/britain/artiller\
y/c_ammo.html>>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Tom" <tkchargers@...>
To: polishamericanforum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 7:30:47 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [polishamericanforum] Poland, Lithuania eye military tie-up with
Ukraine

 




Poland, Lithuania eye military tie-up with Ukraine
Tue Nov 17, 2009

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Poland and Lithuania want to forge military cooperation
with Ukraine to try to bring the former Soviet republic closer to NATO, Polish
officials said.

Under the plan, the three countries would form a brigade that could participate
in international peacekeeping operations under the auspices of the United
Nations, the European Union or NATO.

"This reflects our support for Ukraine. We want to tie Ukraine closer to Western
structures, including military ones," Poland's Deputy Defence Minister Stanislaw
Komorowski told reporters in Brussels after signing a letter of intent.

"This is also proof that Ukraine is taking seriously its desire for closer
cooperation with members of the EU and NATO," he said.

Eventual membership for Ukraine in NATO is a key issue in difficult relations
between the Western military alliance and Russia after NATO's pledge to admit
the former Soviet republic, as well as Georgia, greatly angered Moscow.

The move by Poland and Lithuania, both of which are EU members, comes two days
before an EU summit with Russia aimed at increasing cooperation with Moscow.

It also comes ahead of a visit in December to Moscow by NATO Secretary-General
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who has made boosting ties with Russia a top priority
since taking over the NATO helm in August.

While the latest move could further anger Russia, a NATO spokesman welcomed the
Polish-Lithuanian plan, saying cooperation could build up trust and
capabilities.

"There is absolutely no reason why cooperation between individual allies and
Ukraine should not be stepped up. If extra capability was made available for
NATO operations that can only be welcome by the alliance," James Appathurai
said.

NATO and Russia resumed formal cooperation on broad security threats after ties
were frozen as a result of Russia's military intervention last August in
Georgia, another former Soviet republic Russia sees as part of its sphere of
influence.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

With the non-uniformity of manufacture, I think it was better to err on
undersize ball than oversize.  Underdize allows quicker loading, allows for
fouling, and does not need to be chewed to fit.  There are references in the
training manuals to not being too high above your opponent since there was a
good chance that the ball would roll out of the barrel, making the shot
ineffective.  This large windage could also be a part of the need for a large
powder charge.

There were foresters and hunters that did do longer range accurate shooting, and
they were reported to use carefully sized shot.

Kent

--- In zaglobastavern@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <mross7@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, I meant that to allow for adequate windage, the ball diameter was
supposed to be .9 of the caliber.
>
> And just in case anyone missed it earlier (it was some time ago), we are
talking about historical powder loads, not modern practice.
>
> --- In zaglobastavern@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <mross7@> wrote:
> >
> > I remember reading somewhere that the recommended windage for a military
weapon was .9 of the caliber, and .9 for 75 caliber is .675.  I'll try to find
that number again.
> >
> > I took 75 caliber as an average for late 17th/18th century.  For 100 caliber
(full musket, 16th century), the ball diameter would be .9, weighing 2.6 oz, and
744 grains.  Ouch.
> >
> > --- In zaglobastavern@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Jamie <niknjami@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Remember that many 17th c muskets were larger than 75 Cal. .68 sounds
> > > too undersized for 75 cal in 17th C. Might have been ok for a ball in
> > > paper cartridge. Will try to look up windage figures for 17th c. later
> > > today.
> > >
> > > Nick W.
> > >
> > > Mark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Found this information online, and it matches what I found in
> > > > "Martin's Hundred", specifically what John Smith recommended every
> > > > colonist should bring with him, 20 pounds of powder and 30 pounds of
> > > > lead. book...
> > > >
> > > > Gunpowder
> > > > The quantity of powder issued was significantly larger than that used
> > > > in today's target shooting 'A musket requires the half weight of her
> > > > ball in fine powder and two thirds of common powder, that is one pound
> > > > of fine powder to two pounds of lead, and two pounds of ordinary
> > > > powder for three pounds of lead' [7] even considering the imperfection
> > > > of the powder and the different proportion of components ( 1:1:7
> > > > Sulphur, charcoal, salt peter), it is still a large charge.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.fairfax.org.uk/main/soldiers/musket.htm#ref07
> > > > <http://www.fairfax.org.uk/main/soldiers/musket.htm#ref07>
> > > >
> > > > So, a .68 inch lead ball for a 75 caliber musket, weighting 1.1 ozs,
> > > > needed 321 grains of powder. That's 1.38 cubic inches.
> > > >
> > > >
http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/abstract/military/army/britain/artillery\
/c_ammo.html
> > > >
<http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/abstract/military/army/britain/artiller\
y/c_ammo.html>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Sorry, I meant that to allow for adequate windage, the ball diameter was
supposed to be .9 of the caliber.

And just in case anyone missed it earlier (it was some time ago), we are talking
about historical powder loads, not modern practice.

--- In zaglobastavern@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <mross7@...> wrote:
>
> I remember reading somewhere that the recommended windage for a military
weapon was .9 of the caliber, and .9 for 75 caliber is .675.  I'll try to find
that number again.
>
> I took 75 caliber as an average for late 17th/18th century.  For 100 caliber
(full musket, 16th century), the ball diameter would be .9, weighing 2.6 oz, and
744 grains.  Ouch.
>
> --- In zaglobastavern@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Jamie <niknjami@> wrote:
> >
> > Remember that many 17th c muskets were larger than 75 Cal. .68 sounds
> > too undersized for 75 cal in 17th C. Might have been ok for a ball in
> > paper cartridge. Will try to look up windage figures for 17th c. later
> > today.
> >
> > Nick W.
> >
> > Mark wrote:
> > >
> > > Found this information online, and it matches what I found in
> > > "Martin's Hundred", specifically what John Smith recommended every
> > > colonist should bring with him, 20 pounds of powder and 30 pounds of
> > > lead. book...
> > >
> > > Gunpowder
> > > The quantity of powder issued was significantly larger than that used
> > > in today's target shooting 'A musket requires the half weight of her
> > > ball in fine powder and two thirds of common powder, that is one pound
> > > of fine powder to two pounds of lead, and two pounds of ordinary
> > > powder for three pounds of lead' [7] even considering the imperfection
> > > of the powder and the different proportion of components ( 1:1:7
> > > Sulphur, charcoal, salt peter), it is still a large charge.
> > >
> > > http://www.fairfax.org.uk/main/soldiers/musket.htm#ref07
> > > <http://www.fairfax.org.uk/main/soldiers/musket.htm#ref07>
> > >
> > > So, a .68 inch lead ball for a 75 caliber musket, weighting 1.1 ozs,
> > > needed 321 grains of powder. That's 1.38 cubic inches.
> > >
> > >
http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/abstract/military/army/britain/artillery\
/c_ammo.html
> > >
<http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/abstract/military/army/britain/artiller\
y/c_ammo.html>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

I remember reading somewhere that the recommended windage for a military weapon
was .9 of the caliber, and .9 for 75 caliber is .675.  I'll try to find that
number again.

I took 75 caliber as an average for late 17th/18th century.  For 100 caliber
(full musket, 16th century), the ball diameter would be .9, weighing 2.6 oz, and
744 grains.  Ouch.

--- In zaglobastavern@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Jamie <niknjami@...> wrote:
>
> Remember that many 17th c muskets were larger than 75 Cal. .68 sounds
> too undersized for 75 cal in 17th C. Might have been ok for a ball in
> paper cartridge. Will try to look up windage figures for 17th c. later
> today.
>
> Nick W.
>
> Mark wrote:
> >
> > Found this information online, and it matches what I found in
> > "Martin's Hundred", specifically what John Smith recommended every
> > colonist should bring with him, 20 pounds of powder and 30 pounds of
> > lead. book...
> >
> > Gunpowder
> > The quantity of powder issued was significantly larger than that used
> > in today's target shooting 'A musket requires the half weight of her
> > ball in fine powder and two thirds of common powder, that is one pound
> > of fine powder to two pounds of lead, and two pounds of ordinary
> > powder for three pounds of lead' [7] even considering the imperfection
> > of the powder and the different proportion of components ( 1:1:7
> > Sulphur, charcoal, salt peter), it is still a large charge.
> >
> > http://www.fairfax.org.uk/main/soldiers/musket.htm#ref07
> > <http://www.fairfax.org.uk/main/soldiers/musket.htm#ref07>
> >
> > So, a .68 inch lead ball for a 75 caliber musket, weighting 1.1 ozs,
> > needed 321 grains of powder. That's 1.38 cubic inches.
> >
> >
http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/abstract/military/army/britain/artillery\
/c_ammo.html
> >
<http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/abstract/military/army/britain/artiller\
y/c_ammo.html>
> >
> >
>

Remember that many 17th c muskets were larger than 75 Cal. .68 sounds
too undersized for 75 cal in 17th C. Might have been ok for a ball in
paper cartridge. Will try to look up windage figures for 17th c. later
today.

Nick W.

Mark wrote:
>
> Found this information online, and it matches what I found in
> "Martin's Hundred", specifically what John Smith recommended every
> colonist should bring with him, 20 pounds of powder and 30 pounds of
> lead. book...
>
> Gunpowder
> The quantity of powder issued was significantly larger than that used
> in today's target shooting 'A musket requires the half weight of her
> ball in fine powder and two thirds of common powder, that is one pound
> of fine powder to two pounds of lead, and two pounds of ordinary
> powder for three pounds of lead' [7] even considering the imperfection
> of the powder and the different proportion of components ( 1:1:7
> Sulphur, charcoal, salt peter), it is still a large charge.
>
> http://www.fairfax.org.uk/main/soldiers/musket.htm#ref07
> <http://www.fairfax.org.uk/main/soldiers/musket.htm#ref07>
>
> So, a .68 inch lead ball for a 75 caliber musket, weighting 1.1 ozs,
> needed 321 grains of powder. That's 1.38 cubic inches.
>
>
http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/abstract/military/army/britain/artillery\
/c_ammo.html
>
<http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/abstract/military/army/britain/artiller\
y/c_ammo.html>
>
>

A whopping big charge for sure. Twice what we have been using for Blanks. OMG,
this means that Dex was right afterall.

For artillery, I recall calculating that the recommended charge for a 2 pound
ball was about 6-7 oz or  a bit more than a 1/3 pound, and I usually use about
1/4 pound for blanks and 1/6 for ball.
-Rick

--- In zaglobastavern@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <mross7@...> wrote:
>
> Found this information online, and it matches what I found in "Martin's
Hundred", specifically what John Smith recommended every colonist should bring
with him, 20 pounds of powder and 30 pounds of lead. book...
>
> Gunpowder
> The quantity of powder issued was significantly larger than that used in
today's target shooting 'A musket requires the half weight of her ball in fine
powder and two thirds of common powder, that is one pound of fine powder to two
pounds of lead, and two pounds of ordinary powder for three pounds of lead' [7]
even considering the imperfection of the powder and the different proportion of
components ( 1:1:7 Sulphur, charcoal, salt peter), it is still a large charge.
>
> http://www.fairfax.org.uk/main/soldiers/musket.htm#ref07
>
> So, a .68 inch lead ball for a 75 caliber musket, weighting 1.1 ozs, needed
321 grains of powder.  That's 1.38 cubic inches.
>
>
http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/abstract/military/army/britain/artillery\
/c_ammo.html
>

Found this information online, and it matches what I found in "Martin's
Hundred", specifically what John Smith recommended every colonist should bring
with him, 20 pounds of powder and 30 pounds of lead. book...

Gunpowder
The quantity of powder issued was significantly larger than that used in today's
target shooting 'A musket requires the half weight of her ball in fine powder
and two thirds of common powder, that is one pound of fine powder to two pounds
of lead, and two pounds of ordinary powder for three pounds of lead' [7] even
considering the imperfection of the powder and the different proportion of
components ( 1:1:7 Sulphur, charcoal, salt peter), it is still a large charge.

http://www.fairfax.org.uk/main/soldiers/musket.htm#ref07

So, a .68 inch lead ball for a 75 caliber musket, weighting 1.1 ozs, needed 321
grains of powder.  That's 1.38 cubic inches.

http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/abstract/military/army/britain/artillery\
/c_ammo.html

--- In zaglobastavern@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <mross7@...> wrote:
>
> Google Earth finally got some updated maps.  Jasna Gora and Gniew are no
longer green blurs.


Dublin New Hampshire was a green blur also.  (who lives in Dublin?) LOL!

I look at the cars in my neighborhood, then i have an idea when the image was
taken.  (now someone is going to tell me that the date of the image is posted.)

psr

Now now, its not nice to use Google earth information for Ballistic weapons
targeting purposes. :)

Seriously, I have used this type information for event planning and its very
useful to have. -Rick

--- In zaglobastavern@yahoogroups.com, Richard Brzostek <brzostek@...> wrote:
>
>
> woo-hoo, I can spot my in-laws house now :-)  Still pretty blurry but an
improvement!
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

woo-hoo, I can spot my in-laws house now :-)  Still pretty blurry but an
improvement!

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Google Earth finally got some updated maps.  Jasna Gora and Gniew are no longer
green blurs.

--- In zaglobastavern@yahoogroups.com, rotmistrzb <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> The jamestown piece was definitly longer... but it was still pretty short and
I don't think it was more than 6 inches longer.  Nevertheless I agree this would
probabally be seen as an antique if encountered in the late 16th C.
> Funny that field cannon were long in the 16th C and became much shorter in the
mid 17th, but muskets started short and became long during more or less the same
period.
> -Rick

I am gonna 'throw this out'. (my opins, etc.  no facts. no historical back up.) 
In 15th and 16th? C. cannon were used more as siege weapons (against castles,
fortifications.)

Maybe by mid 17th, cannons (shorter) were used as field weapons.

I have heard that by Napoleanic (sp?) era, muskets were expected to fire 1000
yds. (yes,  three zeros, no i have no proof.)

By 1960's 300 meters was considerd 'max' for U.S. Army.

No documentiation included.

psr



> --- In zaglobastavern@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Jamie <niknjami@> wrote:
> >
> > As I recall, the Historic Enterprises piece is pretty short - too short
> > for post 1540-ish.  The ones we use for 1570's to 1605-ish are at least
> > half as long again.  As for how early, Embelton & How's "The Medieval
> > Soldier" dates a gun like this to the "1480s-90s".
> >
> > Nick W.
> >
> > Bruno Willinski wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Rick and Mark,
> > >
> > > You guys have just peaked my interest.  You said it could be used up
> > > to 1607.  I am not so sure I want to sell it if it can be used for the
> > > later period.  I originally going to use it for a pre-1540 impression
> > > but that never fell through.  I could certainly see something like
> > > this being used in the Commonwealth up until the early 1600s.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the input and feedback.
> > >
> > > Bruce
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Mark Hanna <markhhanna@
> > > <mailto:markhhanna%40comcast.net>>
> > > To: zaglobastavern@yahoogroups.com
> > > <mailto:zaglobastavern%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Mon, November 16, 2009 8:47:21 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [Zagloba's Tavern] Re: Items For Sale
> > >
> > >
> > > I had one of these. Nicely made except the coiled spring used to work
> > > the lock. I got it to use as late war of the roses musket. but
> > > couldn't find anything like it until the 1520's. There is a drawing of
> > > a matchlock lock from the 1480's but it is entirely diffrent than this
> > > one. Forward faceing cock, diamond shaped lock and side mounted. It's
> > > still a nice gun for landsknecht or conquistadors.
> > >
> > > Mark
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: rotmistrzb
> > > To: zaglobastavern@ yahoogroups. com
> > > Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 8:15 AM
> > > Subject: [Zagloba's Tavern] Re: Items For Sale
> > >
> > > Pretty gun. The 1520 end of the date range could extend to 1607... it
> > > looks much like the small calivers /arqubuses light infantry were
> > > using up to that time, including one somewhat longer piece but
> > > otherwise with the same sort of lock and searbar 'trigger' found in
> > > Jamestown VA. (however, historical records explicitly state that
> > > Jamestown was shipped some obsolete military gear.) The 1465 date - I
> > > suppose they are basing that on some actual piece so I won't dispute
> > > it, but I can't recall seeing anything so 'modern' looking dated
> > > before about the Chris Columbus era.
> > > -Rick
> > > > Historic Enterprises Handgonne (new) $850
> > > > http://historicente rprises.biz/ handgonne- matchlock- late-15th-
> > > century-circa- 14651520- p-683.html? cPath=101_ 207
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> >
>

The jamestown piece was definitly longer... but it was still pretty short and I
don't think it was more than 6 inches longer.  Nevertheless I agree this would
probabally be seen as an antique if encountered in the late 16th C.
Funny that field cannon were long in the 16th C and became much shorter in the
mid 17th, but muskets started short and became long during more or less the same
period.
-Rick
--- In zaglobastavern@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Jamie <niknjami@...> wrote:
>
> As I recall, the Historic Enterprises piece is pretty short - too short
> for post 1540-ish.  The ones we use for 1570's to 1605-ish are at least
> half as long again.  As for how early, Embelton & How's "The Medieval
> Soldier" dates a gun like this to the "1480s-90s".
>
> Nick W.
>
> Bruno Willinski wrote:
> >
> >
> > Rick and Mark,
> >
> > You guys have just peaked my interest.  You said it could be used up
> > to 1607.  I am not so sure I want to sell it if it can be used for the
> > later period.  I originally going to use it for a pre-1540 impression
> > but that never fell through.  I could certainly see something like
> > this being used in the Commonwealth up until the early 1600s.
> >
> > Thanks for the input and feedback.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Mark Hanna <markhhanna@...
> > <mailto:markhhanna%40comcast.net>>
> > To: zaglobastavern@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:zaglobastavern%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Mon, November 16, 2009 8:47:21 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Zagloba's Tavern] Re: Items For Sale
> >
> >
> > I had one of these. Nicely made except the coiled spring used to work
> > the lock. I got it to use as late war of the roses musket. but
> > couldn't find anything like it until the 1520's. There is a drawing of
> > a matchlock lock from the 1480's but it is entirely diffrent than this
> > one. Forward faceing cock, diamond shaped lock and side mounted. It's
> > still a nice gun for landsknecht or conquistadors.
> >
> > Mark
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: rotmistrzb
> > To: zaglobastavern@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 8:15 AM
> > Subject: [Zagloba's Tavern] Re: Items For Sale
> >
> > Pretty gun. The 1520 end of the date range could extend to 1607... it
> > looks much like the small calivers /arqubuses light infantry were
> > using up to that time, including one somewhat longer piece but
> > otherwise with the same sort of lock and searbar 'trigger' found in
> > Jamestown VA. (however, historical records explicitly state that
> > Jamestown was shipped some obsolete military gear.) The 1465 date - I
> > suppose they are basing that on some actual piece so I won't dispute
> > it, but I can't recall seeing anything so 'modern' looking dated
> > before about the Chris Columbus era.
> > -Rick
> > > Historic Enterprises Handgonne (new) $850
> > > http://historicente rprises.biz/ handgonne- matchlock- late-15th-
> > century-circa- 14651520- p-683.html? cPath=101_ 207
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>

This is a very well known maker for over 20 years - he makes good stuff but
sometimes made wall-art for tourists.  We have tried to buy from him before but
he was not exporting.  I think a couple of his swords were obtained in person. I
hope he will take orders!
I tried to visit his shop last time I was in poland but that did not work out. 
He does not usually keep an inventory of his hand made stuff.

Caution: Some of his medieval swords appear to be standard made-in-india items. 
I wonder if he has farmed out all production... or if he is just fleshing out
his inventory with some imports.
-Rick
--- In zaglobastavern@yahoogroups.com, damien fegan <grendalpup@...> wrote:
>
> Has anyone on the list dealt with this supplier before, or own one of these
sabres?
> http://www.miecze.pl/index.php5?page=Product&grupapr_id=44&lang=en
> http://www.miecze.pl/index.php5?page=Product&grupapr_id=44&lang=pl_PL
>  cheers
> Florian
>  
>
>
>      
________________________________________________________________________________\
__
> Win 1 of 4 Sony home entertainment packs thanks to Yahoo!7.
> Enter now: http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Has anyone on the list dealt with this supplier before, or own one of these
sabres?
http://www.miecze.pl/index.php5?page=Product&grupapr_id=44&lang=en
http://www.miecze.pl/index.php5?page=Product&grupapr_id=44&lang=pl_PL
 cheers
Florian
 


      
________________________________________________________________________________\
__
Win 1 of 4 Sony home entertainment packs thanks to Yahoo!7.
Enter now: http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

As I recall, the Historic Enterprises piece is pretty short - too short
for post 1540-ish.  The ones we use for 1570's to 1605-ish are at least
half as long again.  As for how early, Embelton & How's "The Medieval
Soldier" dates a gun like this to the "1480s-90s".

Nick W.

Bruno Willinski wrote:
>
>
> Rick and Mark,
>
> You guys have just peaked my interest.  You said it could be used up
> to 1607.  I am not so sure I want to sell it if it can be used for the
> later period.  I originally going to use it for a pre-1540 impression
> but that never fell through.  I could certainly see something like
> this being used in the Commonwealth up until the early 1600s.
>
> Thanks for the input and feedback.
>
> Bruce
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mark Hanna <markhhanna@...
> <mailto:markhhanna%40comcast.net>>
> To: zaglobastavern@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:zaglobastavern%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Mon, November 16, 2009 8:47:21 AM
> Subject: Re: [Zagloba's Tavern] Re: Items For Sale
>
>
> I had one of these. Nicely made except the coiled spring used to work
> the lock. I got it to use as late war of the roses musket. but
> couldn't find anything like it until the 1520's. There is a drawing of
> a matchlock lock from the 1480's but it is entirely diffrent than this
> one. Forward faceing cock, diamond shaped lock and side mounted. It's
> still a nice gun for landsknecht or conquistadors.
>
> Mark
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: rotmistrzb
> To: zaglobastavern@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 8:15 AM
> Subject: [Zagloba's Tavern] Re: Items For Sale
>
> Pretty gun. The 1520 end of the date range could extend to 1607... it
> looks much like the small calivers /arqubuses light infantry were
> using up to that time, including one somewhat longer piece but
> otherwise with the same sort of lock and searbar 'trigger' found in
> Jamestown VA. (however, historical records explicitly state that
> Jamestown was shipped some obsolete military gear.) The 1465 date - I
> suppose they are basing that on some actual piece so I won't dispute
> it, but I can't recall seeing anything so 'modern' looking dated
> before about the Chris Columbus era.
> -Rick
> > Historic Enterprises Handgonne (new) $850
> > http://historicente rprises.biz/ handgonne- matchlock- late-15th-
> century-circa- 14651520- p-683.html? cPath=101_ 207
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Rick and Mark,

You guys have just peaked my interest.  You said it could be used up to 1607. 
I am not so sure I want to sell it if it can be used for the later period.  I
originally going to use it for a pre-1540 impression but that never fell
through.  I could certainly see something like this being used in the
Commonwealth up until the early 1600s. 

Thanks for the input and feedback.

Bruce




________________________________
From: Mark Hanna <markhhanna@...>
To: zaglobastavern@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, November 16, 2009 8:47:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Zagloba's Tavern] Re: Items For Sale

 
I had one of these. Nicely made except the coiled spring used to work the lock.
I got it to use as late war of the roses musket. but couldn't find anything like
it until the 1520's. There is a drawing of a matchlock lock from the 1480's but
it is entirely diffrent than this one. Forward faceing cock, diamond shaped lock
and side mounted. It's still a nice gun for landsknecht or conquistadors.

Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: rotmistrzb
To: zaglobastavern@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 8:15 AM
Subject: [Zagloba's Tavern] Re: Items For Sale

Pretty gun. The 1520 end of the date range could extend to 1607... it looks much
like the small calivers /arqubuses light infantry were using up to that time,
including one somewhat longer piece but otherwise with the same sort of lock and
searbar 'trigger' found in Jamestown VA. (however, historical records explicitly
state that Jamestown was shipped some obsolete military gear.) The 1465 date - I
suppose they are basing that on some actual piece so I won't dispute it, but I
can't recall seeing anything so 'modern' looking dated before about the Chris
Columbus era.
-Rick
> Historic Enterprises Handgonne (new) $850
> http://historicente rprises.biz/ handgonne- matchlock- late-15th-
century-circa- 14651520- p-683.html? cPath=101_ 207
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I don't know if this will help, but for Lithuanian Historical and Folk costumes,
books are available at www.balticshop.com




________________________________
From: lori/ raven <lhb17201@...>
To: zaglobastavern@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, November 14, 2009 8:51:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Zagloba's Tavern] Lithuanian gown

 
It's a woman's gown, but no I can't remember the book. She had a lot of them but
I evidently wrote down the wrong one. Sorry I'm not much help.

raven

After the game, the king and the pawn go into the same box.

--- On Sat, 11/14/09, Scott Potopa <newhusaria@yahoo. com> wrote:

From: Scott Potopa <newhusaria@yahoo. com>
Subject: Re: [Zagloba's Tavern] Lithuanian gown
To: zaglobastavern@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, November 14, 2009, 4:19 PM

 

Do you remember anything about the book? Title, author, anything?  Is this a
man's gown or a woman's that you are looking for?  If i know more I can try to
help, I have a small library of books.

Scott

____________ _________ _________ __

From: lhb17201 <lhb17201@yahoo. com>

To: zaglobastavern@ yahoogroups. com

Sent: Fri, November 13, 2009 9:13:13 AM

Subject: [Zagloba's Tavern] Lithuanian gown

 

I'm trying to find a picture of a Lithuanian gown that I saw in a book last
summer. It looked like a cross between Landsknect & Venetian. It would be
15-1650 or so. Any help would be appreciated. My persona currently is Italian
Ren because I like the style and hate having to cover the neckline area in heavy
fabrics.

raven

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I had one of these. Nicely made except the coiled spring used to work the lock.
I got it to use as late war of the roses musket. but couldn't find anything like
it until the 1520's. There is a drawing of a matchlock lock from the 1480's but
it is entirely diffrent than this one. Forward faceing cock, diamond shaped lock
and side mounted. It's still a nice gun for landsknecht or conquistadors.

Mark
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: rotmistrzb
   To: zaglobastavern@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 8:15 AM
   Subject: [Zagloba's Tavern] Re: Items For Sale



   Pretty gun. The 1520 end of the date range could extend to 1607... it looks
much like the small calivers /arqubuses light infantry were using up to that
time, including one somewhat longer piece but otherwise with the same sort of
lock and searbar 'trigger' found in Jamestown VA. (however, historical records
explicitly state that Jamestown was shipped some obsolete military gear.) The
1465 date - I suppose they are basing that on some actual piece so I won't
dispute it, but I can't recall seeing anything so 'modern' looking dated before
about the Chris Columbus era.
   -Rick
   > Historic Enterprises Handgonne  (new) $850
   >
http://historicenterprises.biz/handgonne-matchlock-late-15th-century-circa-14651\
520-p-683.html?cPath=101_207
   >





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Pretty gun. The 1520 end of the date range could extend to 1607... it looks much
like the small calivers /arqubuses light infantry were using up to that time,
including one somewhat longer piece but otherwise with the same sort of lock and
searbar 'trigger' found in Jamestown VA. (however, historical records explicitly
state that Jamestown was shipped some obsolete military gear.) The  1465 date -
I suppose they are basing that on some actual piece so I won't dispute it, but I
can't recall seeing anything so 'modern' looking dated before about the Chris
Columbus era.
-Rick
> Historic Enterprises Handgonne  (new) $850
>
http://historicenterprises.biz/handgonne-matchlock-late-15th-century-circa-14651\
520-p-683.html?cPath=101_207
>

Handmade and mounted on an ash pole.  Battle ready and tested.
$150

Conical morion $60

Historic Enterprises Handgonne  (new) $850
http://historicenterprises.biz/handgonne-matchlock-late-15th-century-circa-14651\
520-p-683.html?cPath=101_207

Size 11 Medieval-style shoes, all leather, no farby rubber soles (new)
$40

Silk 15th Century cap   $40 (Historic Enterprises)

ECW Book $5

Elizabethan Militia $5

Osprey Elite Landskenect Soldiers $5

Clog overshoes $20 Size 11

Bodhran $20

Royal Flash DVD $10

Terry Jones Medieval Times DVD  $10



Thank you




BW




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It's a woman's gown, but no I can't remember the book. She had a lot of them but
I evidently wrote down the wrong one. Sorry I'm not much help.

raven

After the game, the king and the pawn go into the same box.

--- On Sat, 11/14/09, Scott Potopa <newhusaria@...> wrote:

From: Scott Potopa <newhusaria@...>
Subject: Re: [Zagloba's Tavern] Lithuanian gown
To: zaglobastavern@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, November 14, 2009, 4:19 PM







 









       Do you remember anything about the book? Title, author, anything?  Is
this a man's gown or a woman's that you are looking for?  If i know more I can
try to help, I have a small library of books.



Scott



____________ _________ _________ __

From: lhb17201 <lhb17201@yahoo. com>

To: zaglobastavern@ yahoogroups. com

Sent: Fri, November 13, 2009 9:13:13 AM

Subject: [Zagloba's Tavern] Lithuanian gown



 

I'm trying to find a picture of a Lithuanian gown that I saw in a book last
summer. It looked like a cross between Landsknect & Venetian. It would be
15-1650 or so. Any help would be appreciated. My persona currently is Italian
Ren because I like the style and hate having to cover the neckline area in heavy
fabrics.



raven



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Do you remember anything about the book? Title, author, anything?  Is this a
man's gown or a woman's that you are looking for?  If i know more I can try to
help, I have a small library of books.

Scott




________________________________
From: lhb17201 <lhb17201@...>
To: zaglobastavern@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, November 13, 2009 9:13:13 AM
Subject: [Zagloba's Tavern] Lithuanian gown

 
I'm trying to find a picture of a Lithuanian gown that I saw in a book last
summer. It looked like a cross between Landsknect & Venetian. It would be
15-1650 or so. Any help would be appreciated. My persona currently is Italian
Ren because I like the style and hate having to cover the neckline area in heavy
fabrics.

raven







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]