wotr handgunners - skirmish?

[Captain Blood]

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.

[v_lazy_dragon]

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...

[Atheling]

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.....

[HappyChappy439]

My understanding is handguns were generally a bit hit-and-miss (pun maybe intended!  ) 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!

[Atheling]

My understanding is handguns were generally a bit hit-and-miss (pun maybe intended!  ) 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 

[Mammoth miniatures]

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.

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

[Atheling]

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.

[FramFramson]

Don't forget that there's ALWAYS military commanders keen to play with new toys, no matter their actual effectiveness in combat.

[Mammoth miniatures]

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!

[Griefbringer]

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...).

[Mammoth miniatures]

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.

[Atheling]

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.

[Griefbringer]

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.

[Atheling]

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?


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).

[Griefbringer]

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.