wotr handgunners - skirmish?

[happyhiker]

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 ?

[Atheling]

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.

[has.been]

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.

[happyhiker]

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 ?

[happyhiker]

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.

[Charlie_]

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?

[happyhiker]

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. The master degree paper also mention gunners standing with the artillery, so maybe they were used for both, again like crossbows.

[Charlie_]

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! : )

[FramFramson]

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.)

[Charlie_]

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!

[Cubs]

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).

[Atheling]

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.

[commissarmoody]

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.     

[happyhiker]

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 ?

[Atheling]

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.