Looking at early modern firearms (1500-1700, muzzle loading arquebus' and matchlocks), how effective were these weapons at stopping an infantry charge/attack in the field?
Historically, was a line of matchlock troops, or several ranks using volley fire, able to break a charging/advancing group of infantry through gunfire alone?
Or were additional "melee" troops necessary for support when the enemy attack reached the line?
Or were additional "melee" troops necessary for support when the enemy attack reached the line?
When we think of Infantry in the matchlock age, we think of various formations of "Pike and Shot". The word "Infantry" itself is derived from a Spanish word for such a formation. [The wikipedia article on this subject is actually not very bad, in my opinion.] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_and_shot)
These formations were not designed to overcome enemies by firepower alone, but evolved from pike formations in late middle ages. Adding arquebuses to pike formations helped them harass enemy cavalry and opposing pikes, causing the attacks of the latter to be more costly, less well organized and much less likely to succeed.
The idea of unsupported firearms doesn't really exist until the invention of the flintlock and bayonet, which replaces the pikes in infantry formations at the very end of the 18th century.