Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Medieval Adventures => Topic started by: happyhiker on July 13, 2020, 09:30:54 AM
-
Got a question about wotr hand gunners. They are often depicted or modeled as skirmishing, but I assume that 15th Century guns were not as good as 19th century guns, yet in the 19th Century the musket was mainly used in formed ranks due to its inaccuracy, the 400 muskets is bound to hit something theory. I know there were 19th Century skirmishes, but really would 15th Century hand guns really work for skirmishing, wouldn't a formed rank(or mass at least) be more likely? Is there any actual evidence that they were used as skirmishes during wotr ? Maybe the noise and smoke were more important that actually hitting anything ?
-
They were most likely to be used in a skirmish role as they were few and far between in the Wars of the Roses.
It's later on, roughly 1500 onward that they begin to be slowly used en masse but even in the 'early modern' period nothing like the massed ranks of muskets/rifles you see in the nineteenth century.
-
In my early years of wargaming (1960s) WRG, the short lived
Medieval add on to their Ancient rules, allowed for (in certain
armies) a unit of hand gunners. They had a range of only 6"
& were slow moving, but were quite effective against knights.
As I recall they hardly ever lived long enough to fire, as longbows
had a 24" range.
-
So sounds like they would be skirmishes, they would be rubbish, and their main job would be to stand in front of someone more valuable as a screen(human shield) until they were dead. And people did that as Mercenaries ? Not a great job was it? - rather be furloughed.
I'm guessing there is no actual historical evidence either way ?
-
I did find this
"McLaughlan notes how the Battle of Barnet saw an increase in the number of handguns being used. Edward had five
hundred Flemish gunners for Barnet, which comprised a sizable component of his army.68 The
number of Flemish handgunners is contentious, with Strickland noting that Edward IV, when
returning from exile in 1471, brought around three hundred ‘black and smoky Flemish gunners’ with
him, which is still a large number of handgunners."
From a Master Degree by Flint, Joshua Huddersfield Uni. Hope he doesnt mind me quoting it but he did stick it on the internet.
-
The reality is we don't know how they were deployed.
Though in response to your argument against them skirmishing.... They don't have to be particularly accurate when you are shooting at a large body of troops, either massed ranks of infantry or a big group of cavalry with lots of horseflesh. I can imagine them advancing up close and just unloading into the enemy without aiming 'properly', and running away if they are counter-attacked. Perhaps staying close to their own heavy infantry they run to for shelter.
As for them being out-shot by longbowmen - well yes, perhaps they were. But how often did they have 'shootouts' with longbowmen? The few times they were used in the WOTR would have been rare anomalies, and perhaps they were shot to pieces by longbowmen in these cases! On the continent, where they would been much more common, they would not be facing massed ranks of experienced English longbowmen very often, and any 'shootout' would likely be against other European crossbowmen and handgunners used in the same way as them.
Interestingly though, I have been reading lately some third-hand accounts of German handgunners fighting in in the War of Burgundian Succession in the late 1470s. Apparently, Germans were hired in quite large numbers by the garrisons of towns who were in danger of being attacked by the French. The Germans were seemingly mostly handgunners. They were keen to go out on raids and skirmish with the French.... and these expeditions pretty much always met with absolute disaster! Perhaps evidence of unsupported handgunners not being very effective?
-
Thanks, yes I suppose if your target is big enough, you'll hit something. Still 300-500 gunners is a lot of skirmishes, that’s 'almost' a 19th century battalion.(circa 800). I do wonder why they would be used instead of crossbow, armour piercing I suppose, but there’s evidence they blew up sometimes too. I suppose if you want to appear fancy and have the latest gadgets, getting some gunners and lending to the English to test them isn’t a bad idea. :D The master degree paper also mention gunners standing with the artillery, so maybe they were used for both, again like crossbows.
-
Still 300-500 gunners is a lot of skirmishes, that’s 'almost' a 19th century battalion.
But consider that medieval armies were nowhere near as well organised as those of later centuries. If several hundred handgunners are present, it could always be that they were never utilised properly. Perhaps only a few of them ever got close to the enemy and fired their weapons. Perhaps they just got in the way, or didn't get a chance to fight, or weren't deployed in any useful position by the commanders, or just stood around with the baggage? Just because 3-500 handgunners are mentioned, doesn't mean those 3-500 handgunners were any use on the battlefield! : )
-
It's worth remembering that guns continued to be used in ever-larger numbers as the technology improved, so clearly there were at least SOME soldiers or officers who managed to make decent use of them, otherwise they'd have remained more unpopular and for far longer. A lot of the history being discussed in this thread (like the eagerness of the German handgunners) can be explained by some commanders having occasional wild successes with handguns, which tends to dull the memory of a larger number of occasions where they would have failed miserably.
(it's also worth noting that earlier improvements were not nearly so much about accuracy as they were about the guns actually firing reliably - matchlock to wheelock to flintlock, etc.)
-
A lot of the history being discussed in this thread (like the eagerness of the German handgunners) can be explained by some commanders having occasional wild successes with handguns, which tends to dull the memory of a larger number of occasions where they would have failed miserably.
Agreed - I imagine my Germans would have fared just as badly if they'd all been armed with crossbows!
-
I guess it makes sense to start with - "Why hand guns?", when both longbows and crossbows were more reliable, cheaper, had a superior range, were more accurate and (even crossbows) had a faster rate of fire. So we're left with armour penetration and sheer noisy scariness.
In my own imagination (a wonderful and occasionally disturbing locale, devoid of all but the thinnest veneer of learning) the hand gunner was an armoured infantryman who skulked away from the front rank until the heavy infantry or cavalry advanced to range. Then he scuttled out in front of his friendly front rank, discharged (hopefully) his 'gonne' in the general direction of the advancing enemy at the shortest possible range, then scuttled back again. Horses would be going bananas, iron-clad men-at-arms would be getting the unpleasant sensation of missile weapons ripping through their armour with a terrifying noise and the assault would be entirely disrupted, passing the initiative to the defender. Or perhaps the attacker had their own gunners who inflicted the same indignity on the defenders. Once fired, the gunner would have a heavy lump of metal that could, at a pinch, be used to defend himself, but he would doubtless prefer to retreat back to the rear ranks to begin the laborious process of reloading.
Like I say, just how I see it, and probably an ideal scenario for gunners rather than the regular reality. But when a weapon's primary advantage is effectiveness against heavy armour, I see the canny commander trying to maximise this whilst keeping his expensive mercenaries alive as long as possible (if they were paid in advance).
-
So we're left with armour penetration and sheer noisy scariness.
Agreed.
In my own imagination (a wonderful and occasionally disturbing locale, devoid of all but the thinnest veneer of learning) the hand gunner was an armoured infantryman who skulked away from the front rank until the heavy infantry or cavalry advanced to range. Then he scuttled out in front of his friendly front rank, discharged (hopefully) his 'gonne' in the general direction of the advancing enemy at the shortest possible range, then scuttled back again. Horses would be going bananas, iron-clad men-at-arms would be getting the unpleasant sensation of missile weapons ripping through their armour with a terrifying noise and the assault would be entirely disrupted, passing the initiative to the defender. Or perhaps the attacker had their own gunners who inflicted the same indignity on the defenders. Once fired, the gunner would have a heavy lump of metal that could, at a pinch, be used to defend himself, but he would doubtless prefer to retreat back to the rear ranks to begin the laborious process of reloading.
This sounds tom me very much like the likely role of handgunners in the Wars of the Roses. Guns were likely to have been used in larger quantities as time went on. There are some 32 years between First Battle of St Albans and Battle of Stoke Field. Military technology and tactics were advancing all through this time to some degree. A great example of this would be the unexpected number of artillery used at Bosworth as discussed a great length in Bosworth 1485, A Battlefield Rediscovered, Glenn Foard and Anne Curry, granted the book does not concentrate on hand 'gonnes' as such, but a decent indicator of the relevance of gunpowder weapons on the battlefield all the same.
-
If memory Serves the Hessites and Hungarian Black army used cannons and handguns to better effect. But usually in a defensive way or from a wall or ship.
At the battle of Castillon the English where crushed by the French using defensive works and massed missile fire, Crossbows, longbows, handguns and cannons.
As for offensive action, I see skirmishers hugging the battle line until the enemy advances into range or is advanced apoun. Then before action is joined of while it is happening, they will rush out to the flanks or fore. Blast away and then slink back into the line to reload, or runaway. lol
-
Ok, so that makes sense to me, shoot runaway. I wonder if I am confusing skirmishes with skirmish screens. In Napoleonics, youd use a skirmish screen, to draw fire from your massed ranks with light infantry ducking and diving, and filling the air with smoke. Ancients would do the same with slingers and bows. I assume in medieval period longbows and crossbows would do the same, it’s this role that seems ill suited to hand gonnes(sic). Were skirmish screens even a thing in wotr ?
-
Were skirmish screens even a thing in wotr ?
We have no direct evidence but I very much doubt it given the direct nature of the warfare; including exchanges of arrows and melee.
-
I think Cubs has nailed it.
Sadly, nobody knows for sure, so it’s all just speculation. But the Cubs theorem is plausible and persuasive.
-
Not directly related, but one argument I have heard in the handgun's favour is logistics - crossbow bolts and arrows are both costly and laborious to produce, difficult to store and awkward to carry large amounts of. Balls, powder and match are all significantly easier to store in bulk and by some estimates cheaper to make too...
-
Not directly related, but one argument I have heard in the handgun's favour is logistics - crossbow bolts and arrows are both costly and laborious to produce, difficult to store and awkward to carry large amounts of. Balls, powder and match are all significantly easier to store in bulk and by some estimates cheaper to make too...
Given that there was already, in England an bustling industry in the manufacture of bows, crossbows bolts and arrows I'm not so sure. I would imagine the gunpowder industry being in it's infancy was probably just starting to "make it's way". Though this or course does not discount it being imported etc. Which raises the question, were the handguns imported or made in a newly-constituted gunpowder/handgun industry? However, I digress.....
-
My understanding is handguns were generally a bit hit-and-miss (pun maybe intended! :D ) during the 15th century, just where people were trying to work out how exactly they would fit in tactically!
In WotR terms, I think I remember reading that they were a pretty effective shock-and-awe psychological weapon at Tewkesbury, but later at Stoke Field they ended up being outmatched by the sheer weight of fire of the Tudor longbows
I'm not sure how they were used though, Charles the Bold's Ordonnances specified an equal number of crossbowmen and handgunners (one man in every 9 for each), so it could be that they were used in similar ways, but I've not got any confirmation on that!
-
My understanding is handguns were generally a bit hit-and-miss (pun maybe intended! :D ) during the 15th century, just where people were trying to work out how exactly they would fit in tactically!
Agreed but with noticeable exceptions like Castillon 1453 where the English faced 'cannon', handgunners and crossbows/bows behind a defensive position that proved to be the doom of Talbot's Anglo Gascon army.
So, sticking to the Wars of the Roses, and with the experience of Castillon in mind, I can't help but think that the use of cannon, bows, crossbows and handguns were part of the Lancastrian plan at Northampton 1460 during the Wars of the Roses.
Evidence wise, who knows? Perhaps I should start reading Mike Ingram's Battle of Northampton 1460 which I've had for a good while but not had the time to read as of yet :)
-
Thanks, yes I suppose if your target is big enough, you'll hit something. Still 300-500 gunners is a lot of skirmishes, that’s 'almost' a 19th century battalion.(circa 800). I do wonder why they would be used instead of crossbow, armour piercing I suppose, but there’s evidence they blew up sometimes too. I suppose if you want to appear fancy and have the latest gadgets, getting some gunners and lending to the English to test them isn’t a bad idea. :D The master degree paper also mention gunners standing with the artillery, so maybe they were used for both, again like crossbows.
Never underestimate the impact of something really loud and dramatic for breaking your opponents will to fight.
Sure, hand gunners probably didn't hit their targets alot of the time, But you only need to hear about a rank of blokes shooting miniature cannons and ripping knights apart like soft bread once for it to stick in your head that charging a rank of hand gunners might not be a smart idea.
Add to that that very often the hiring of mercenaries was done by kings or lords who used them not just as actual fighting units, but as a sign of prestige and wealth ("oh you've got 200 crossbowmen? Well I've just hired 300 handgunners - much more expensive..." ) so there was always an impetus on the part of the wealthy to have the latest gadgets on the battlefield.
as to the actual aiming, It seems an experienced hangunner could put a shot roughly where they wanted it to go at close range - which would support them working as a loose skirmish force who could sally forth from behind the lines when enemy cavalry or armored warriors were closing in, Fire off a round, then duck back in behind their mates after the fact.
theres a good video here of some handgunners aiming up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEPG98tTIlU
-
Add to that that very often the hiring of mercenaries was done by kings or lords who used them not just as actual fighting units, but as a sign of prestige and wealth ("oh you've got 200 crossbowmen? Well I've just hired 300 handgunners - much more expensive..." ) so there was always an impetus on the part of the wealthy to have the latest gadgets on the battlefield.
The prestige of which you mention is really an expression of what the nobility in the Late Medieval period would have described as their rights. The notion of rights is fundamental to any understanding of any of the dynastic struggles of this time duration.
It's actually a different way of thinking about wealth and prestige than we do nowadays.
-
Don't forget that there's ALWAYS military commanders keen to play with new toys, no matter their actual effectiveness in combat.
-
Don't forget that there's ALWAYS military commanders keen to play with new toys, no matter their actual effectiveness in combat.
That's games workshops entire business model summed up! :D
-
Given that there was already, in England an bustling industry in the manufacture of bows, crossbows bolts and arrows I'm not so sure. I would imagine the gunpowder industry being in it's infancy was probably just starting to "make it's way". Though this or course does not discount it being imported etc. Which raises the question, were the handguns imported or made in a newly-constituted gunpowder/handgun industry?
Curiously enough, the preferred raw material for this domestic bow industry was imported yew, especially from northern Italy, which was considered superior to local timber. However, the arrows and bowstrings by my understanding were manufactured of local materials.
As for the English production of handgonnes in 15th century, I must admit that I am not familiar, but by my understanding larger artillery pieces were produced in England during the later half of the century, which would certainly provide a boost for the demand of gunpowder. Keep in mind that the big guns consume quite significant loads of powder per shot compared to the small handguns. From the logistics point of view, once you have a major artillery train as part of the field army, it may at some point start to seem logical to also change from bows and crossbows into gunpowder weapons.
As regards manufacture of the gunpowder, it is essentially a bulk procedure, where the ingredients (charcoal, sulphur, saltpetre) are ground and mixed together. Originally they were mixed in the dry state, but by the 15th century wet mixing followed by subsequent drying and grinding had become regular process, providing a stabler mixture that would not separate into components during transport. The major challenge seems to have been the large scale production of saltpetre, which was the main ingredient of gunpowder.
Casting of lead shot was also quite straightforward, and could possibly be even conducted by a handgunner himself on the campaign, presuming that he would be equipped with a small iron ladle for melting lead (which has relatively low melting point) and a mould for the gun. Early handgonnes may have been of varying calibers, which complicates logistics as multiple moulds are required - things got easier once standardised calibers were adopted. However, the round shape of the shot made for quite simple mould and casting process, medieval artisans being able to mould and cast more complex shapes, such as badges (makes me wonder if they also tried to cast toy soldiers...).
-
With regards to casting and equipment, I wonder to what degree the individual gunner was their own Armourer? certainly early on when handgunners were rare and expensive, a mercenary company might have carried their own gear with them and acted very much as their own production system - each gunner might have cast his own shot for his own gun.
It'd make sense if a company of gunners, when hired into the service of a new noble, brought the gear and expertise of manufacture with them which would then allow less skilled regiments of levy handgunners to be raised based on the information gleaned from the more elite chaps.
-
Curiously enough, the preferred raw material for this domestic bow industry was imported yew, especially from northern Italy, which was considered superior to local timber. However, the arrows and bowstrings by my understanding were manufactured of local materials.
My point is that the industry was well established and had been for several hundred years. except in exceptional circumstances Military organisations around the world tend towards conservatism and are more often then not slow to change. This doesn't discount the change taking place,. I think it obviously did. But it would have been slow. :)
-
With regards to casting and equipment, I wonder to what degree the individual gunner was their own Armourer? certainly early on when handgunners were rare and expensive, a mercenary company might have carried their own gear with them and acted very much as their own production system - each gunner might have cast his own shot for his own gun.
Before the introduction of standard calibers, having your own mould with you would be the only way to guarantee that you would be able to easily obtain lead shot of correct dimensions. In this sense bows and crossbows are more forgiving, in that arrows and quarrels tend to be easily compatible between weapons, while trying to fit in too large lead shot into a handgonne barrel will not work.
Making moulds for the casting may have required some skill (not sure what material was used), but once you have the moulds the casting procedure is pretty straightforward - people who have used Prince August moulds should know. I think I have seen somewhere an illustration of early 16th century mould that could make three lead shot at once (you would of course need to remove the connecting "flash"), so with one of those you could probably cast a decent number of shot over an evening spent by a camp fire. Also larger artillery pieces could use lead shot, and an artillery train would carry moulds and lead blocks to cast additional ammo for them as necessary - this would also require sturdier equipment than for casting handgonne shot.
As for preparing your own match (which needed to be treated with saltpetre) and gunpowder on campaign, that would be much more complicated.
My point is that the industry was well established and had been for several hundred years. except in exceptional circumstances Military organisations around the world tend towards conservatism and are more often then not slow to change. This doesn't discount the change taking place,. I think it obviously did. But it would have been slow. :)
Certainly the development of gunpowder technology and transition to it took a lot of time. Considering that the first known documentation of gunpowder weapons in Europe is from circa 1326, it took pretty close to 200 years until arquebuss became the dominant infantry missile weapon in western Europe, and the transition from matchlock to flintlock took place over the subsequent 100-150 years. And when it comes to England or the early colonial warfare, bows and crossbows remained in use into the later half of the 16th century.
I would suggest that a major drive behind the development of gunpowder weapons and production was artillery, especially heavier siege artillery which largely replaced catapults and trebutchets by the end of the 14th century. The resulting high demand for gunpowder resulted in search for more efficient production methods, which drove down the price and improved availability of gunpowder itself, which would result in increased interest in the gunpowder weapons itself. Eventually also the new branch of field artillery would start to emerge, with light guns on mobile carriages, providing something that could not be easily done previously (ballistas and such rarely appearing in field battles). Handguns were for quite a while a curiosity and side product of the main artillery development.
Another aspect in development is the status of semi-autonomous walled towns in continental Europe. These had skilled artisans, wealth and materials brought by trade, sizeable urban militias and motivation to maintain their independence. Thus, many would obtain arsenals of lighter artillery pieces that could be mounted on towers and walls to be used against potential besiegers. Handgonnes were also quite handy in the defense of such locations, with the ease of use meaning that large numbers of militia could be armed with them, and they can be fired through quite small loopholes.
-
Agreed. I think we're both thinking along the same basic lines.
Talking of urban centres of commerce, have you read The Artillery of the Dukes of Burgundy, 1363-1477, Robert Douglas Smith and Kelly DeVries?
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51TBA7X73HL.jpg)
The book goes into a great deal of depth and is worth every penny. It's cheap too now so if you haven't got a copy I would snap one up. (I think I payed well over £40 as it must have been out of print at the time).
-
That is certainly a fine book. I think I picked my copy for less than £30 from a discount a number of winters ago, but I would still consider it value for money, being hardcover and with 377 pages of well researched material going all the way to the primary sources, and well organised. Besides the guns themselves, also materials, ammunition, gunpowder, manufacturing techniques and costs are discussed.
That said, as the title indicates, the book is primarily focused on the field and siege artillery, though handgonnes (coulovrine a main) are also mentioned occasionally. Curiously enough, the Burgundian records make difference between two different grades of gunpowder (cannon powder and coulovrine powder), though it is not known what was the technical difference between these two. My uneducated guess would be that coulovrine powder might be ground into finer grains, but it might also be something completely different.
-
Curiously enough, the Burgundian records make difference between two different grades of gunpowder (cannon powder and coulovrine powder), though it is not known what was the technical difference between these two. My uneducated guess would be that coulovrine powder might be ground into finer grains, but it might also be something completely different.
It would be interesting to find out what the late 15th Century reenactment community think ???
They might have a vision as to why but I suppose if you're not shooting live ammunition regularly then it might be difficult to know as the difference might feel subtle but end result could be a biggie.
-
This is a really interesting discussion, and not my personal gaming or professional area of expertise, so any opinions offered can be taken with a healthy does of salt(petre). But it certainly looks to me like Cubs's contentions are basically right.
It seems the morale effect of gonnes may have been an important reason to use them, especially defensively (I'm assuming you're not thinking of staging a major siege with gonne-armed defenders on a city wall here). A charge of Knights being met with catastrophic bangs, clouds of smoke and flying lead would surely have spooked both horses and riders even before the effects of injuries are considered. In game terms this might be a significant morale effect.
Gonners would be vulnerable but also mobile (compared to cannon). The obvious way to use them defensively is as a short-ranged defence against charging Knights. This may come down to the rules you are using but a unit of say 40 footmen (halberdiers or pikemen or something?), including 10 Gonners, or two units of 30 footmen and 10 Gonners, utilising a tactic of blasting charging cavalry at close range and scuttling round the back to reload, seems reasonable (if the 40 men next door include 10 bowmen instead of Gonners, this starts to resemble Charles the Bold's Ord(i)nances, with ratios of 60:10:10 as opposed to 70:10:10 of general infantry, bowmen and gunners).
The other option is fielding massed units of Gonners, which the 300-500 Flemish handgunners might suggest. Perhaps in this case the number should be capped at something like 'no more than 1/6 of infantry may be Gonners' or something. Again their primary use is likely to be against charges. As discrete units however they're likely to be massively vulnerable, unless you have well-disciplined troops that can provide some sort of rolling volley fire: again in a 40-man unit, maybe 10 fire each turn to give the others time to reload. Depends on the relationship between your turn-system and reload rate I guess. There's also a relationship between range of gonnes and the charge-rate of Knights: all these need to be balanced I'd suggest, because there's a relationship between distance that can be charged, the distance a gonne was effective, and the time it takes to reload. That will give you the proportion of a unit of massed Gonners that can fire each turn, I'd suggest.
How visible were gonnes likely to be? Would a unit of Knights charging a foot formation know whether there were gonnes? Does that change if it's all gonnes, or only 1/4 gonnes? I can see a situation where charging Knights would be utterly surprised to find that the enemy facing them was armed with tiny cannons (even if it's only some of them). Again this looks likely to have significant morale effects, and it may be possible to have 'secret' Gonners. Knights charging suddenly find a unit is swapped out and reveals itself to be Gonners rather than some other sorts of troops. Again the effect might primarily be morale-based, but also it might mitigate against the enemy specifically targeting units of Gonners with archers/artillery even if they wouldn't 'actually' know which units had gonnes.
-
Once you get into modelling for rules it does seem odd. I'm writing some rules for home use( see a thread about counting arrows). I've made hand gonnes a shorter range, no penalty against plate mail, but hit on the same score as cross bows, with the logic that the noise and smoke make up for a loss of accuracy.(a hit being a kill or damage to morale) But apart from the aesthetics, it does raise the question of why use gonnes instead of crossbows. Shorter distance but better against plate mail, no real burning need to swap out all the crossbows there. But if you bring economics into it, if hand gonnes minis were much cheaper than cross bow minis, then maybe I might field more gonnes...
-
Regarding the logistics side, one aspect of handgonne usage is that loading it does not require much physical strenght, though some manual dexterity is involved. You just need to be strong enough to hold the gun steady when firing it. In comparison, with crossbow and especially bow you need to do mechanical work to pull the string, which then imparts energy to the projected missile. In case of crossbow, various loading mechanisms exist, but you still need to physically apply the energy, just the period of time is affected.
So the physical strenght of the handgunners is not an important issue. While the physical nature of most work would result in relatively strong bodies, urban centres still featured scribes, merchants and various craftsmen, who might lead less physically demanding lives. Furthermore, during times of malnutrion or disease (common in sieges and longer field campaigns) normally strong persons are not at their peak performance.
Still, the recoil of the handgonne gives quite an unpleasant kick. Some of the bigger handgonnes intended for use in fortified situations had for this purpose hooks under the barrel that could be placed over the edge of the wall, thus absorbing the recoil.
-
the Burgundian records make difference between two different grades of gunpowder (cannon powder and coulovrine powder), though it is not known what was the technical difference between these two. My uneducated guess would be that coulovrine powder might be ground into finer grains, but it might also be something completely different.
It would be interesting to find out what the late 15th Century reenactment community think ???
They might have a vision as to why but I suppose if you're not shooting live ammunition regularly then it might be difficult to know as the difference might feel subtle but end result could be a biggie.
There certainly was a difference in the 17th century between thin "pulvérin" (pulver?) that was put on the vent of muskets and cannons (to ignite the charge easily) and the coarse powder in bigger grains which was the main charge. Even with modern renactment black powder you can feel a difference between thin and big powder. I suppose it's probably what that means.
-
There certainly was a difference in the 17th century between thin "pulvérin" (pulver?) that was put on the vent of muskets and cannons (to ignite the charge easily) and the coarse powder in bigger grains which was the main charge. Even with modern renactment black powder you can feel a difference between thin and big powder. I suppose it's probably what that means.
Thanks Patrice, that makes much more sense to me now 8)
-
So my assumption about the different grinding levels might actually be correct? Need to check later on about what examples the book had about these different powder types in accounting.
As regards the urban militias, it came to my mind that these tended to be drawn mainly from the urban middle classes, who due to their wealth would have vested investments in ensuring the status of the town, and who would be also able to afford to purchase the required armament and armour. These included many artisans, whose work might be less physically strenuous than that of unskilled labourers, but who would be expected to have good manual coordination. Since they would have only limited time available for practice with weapons, ease of use would be beneficial.
Besides the weapons of the individual militia members, also the town council would directly purchase military equipment for the town, especially artillery pieces. Dedicated master gunners might be furthermore hired to look after the big guns,