Upload
david-wm-trenholm
View
9.653
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
This short essay examines the impact of gunpowder on medieval warfare.This essay was written for a 2000-level European History course available at Acadia University.Copyright (C) 2006 David TrenholmAll Rights Reserved
Citation preview
Trenholm 1
The Impact of Gunpowder on Medieval Warfare
David Wm. TrenholmDecember 4th, 2006
HIST 2723 X1Dr. Gerry Gerrits
Trenholm 2
It is no mystery that the introduction of gunpowder to the medieval army changed
warfare forever—indeed, the onset of the cannon and firearm revolutionized the way
humankind warred. Gunpowder changed many facets of medieval warfare, and had
forced military commanders of the day to reform their opinion on how a war should be
fought.1 Military leaders that recognized the potential of the firearm were immensely
successful, such as the French King Charles VIII, whose siege-weapons dominated all
medieval fortifications that stood in his way. Machiavelli writes, on Charles’ campaign in
Italy, that he had, “seized Italy with chalk in hand”2, a reference to one marking a target
with chalk on a map3. Particularly successful against those who did not seize the
advantages offered by gunpowder, firearm-equipped armies instilled a great fear into the
medieval knight, bowman and lowly infantryman. The archaic stone fortifications of the
dark ages could not stand against iron and brass cast artillery cannons; lowly peasants
could gun down well-trained and disciplined knights of noble blood, and as a result the
role of the mighty medieval horseman was forever changed. The psychological impact of
the use of gunpowder alone was a mighty asset on the battlefield, making up for the
logistical challenge in employing those firearms—inaccurate shooting, misfiring, and
accidental explosions all plagued the medieval gunner. With any new technology,
however, one must accept the faults that would undoubtedly be corrected in time. One
thing is for certain, though: the impact of gunpowder on medieval warfare was profound,
and its introduction was the first great step on the evolutionary path to modern warfare.
1 Michael Jones, eds. The New Cambridge Medieval History. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 11-12.2 Bernard and Fawn M. Brodie, From Crossbow to H-Bomb. (Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1973) 51.3 Brodie, 51.
Trenholm 3
The initial impact of gunpowder in medieval warfare was the changes made to
siegecraft. Before the age of cannons and bombards, medieval fortifications were so
impregnable that the only strategy that guaranteed success was starvation, “By 1300
defense was so superior to offense that the only certain weapon in siegecraft was
famine.”4 The offensive capabilities of the medieval army were outmatched by the
mighty stone fortifications of keeps and castles. The development of the artillery cannon
was dreadfully slow, and many countries were not so quick to adopt and put them to
practical use. In the beginning they were small, ineffective and unpredictable. Early
forms of firearms were more of a nuisance, and more effective at instilling a sense of
terror than producing satisfactory results.5 These guns still saw military combat, however,
and evidence shows that they were in use during the siege of Cividale in Italy, and were
employed in the battle of Crécy by the English—early cannons were even mounted on
wheels, offering early manoeuvrability during the Hussite Wars of 1419-1424.6 With the
introduction of the bombard to the medieval battlefield, the vision of an impregnable
medieval fortress quickly vanished. Although much larger fortresses and cities remained
safe for a while, military commanders were forced to strategize differently should they
wish to counteract this new threat.7 The true test of the bombard occurred during the
siege of Constantinople in 1451, led by Mohammed II. Twelve bombards and fifty-six
lesser cannons were used, including a behemoth of a bombard, the Basilica, “[It] was
made of hooped iron and measured thirty-six inches at the bore; it was so heavy it
required two hundred men and sixty oxen to move it. Its ball weighed 1,600 pounds and
4 Bernard and Fawn M. Brodie, From Crossbow to H-Bomb. (Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1973) 31.5 Brodie, 43.6 Brodie, 45.7 Brodie, 45.
Trenholm 4
could travel for more than a mile.”8 Dubbed a “super-bombard”, the Basilica was more
apt at creating an awful din than tearing apart the fortifications of mighty Constantinople.
The smaller bombards and cannons were more effective against the city, and a final
assault and scaling of the battered walls by the Turks resulted in its capture and sacking.9
Even the Spanish campaigns of Granada were a huge success due to their extensive use
of artillery.10 It was not until the fifteenth century, however, when artillery cannons
achieved true manoeuvrability under the command of the French-King Charles VIII,
astute military commander who proved his mettle in his 1494-1495 invasion of Italy.11
Employing horse-drawn carriages for his artillery guns, Charles VIII was able to, “keep
up with infantry and to fire relatively rapidly”12. These new guns also used iron cannon
balls, instead of old brass and lead shot. The brass and lead shot fired slowly, allowing
defenders to repair damaged fortifications between volleys. With these new implements,
even the mightiest of medieval fortresses were vulnerable to Charles’ onslaught.13
Defenders had to draft up new strategies to counter the growing threat of the bombard
cannon, as the offensive capability of the medieval army had been finally met, and
indeed, had surpassed its defensive counterpart. Siegecraft was not the only facet of
medieval warfare effected, though. The introduction of smaller firearms and handguns
changed the military role of many soldiers, namely the famed and feared mounted
medieval knight.
8 Brodie, 46.9 Bernard and Fawn M. Brodie, From Crossbow to H-Bomb. (Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1973) 47.10 Weston F. Cook, “The Cannon Conquest of Nasrid Spain and the End of Reconquista. The Journal of Military History 57, no. 1 (1993): 46.11 Brodie, 51.12 Brodie, 51.13 Brodie, 51.
Trenholm 5
Before firearms graced the battlefields of Europe, the most coveted soldier on the
field was the mounted horseman—the noble knight, armed head to foot with plate and
mail. Any successful Lord employed a host of knights to do battle with; they were the
most prized and effective of soldiers, worth far more to generals and commanders than
the despised infantry of the day.14 The infantry of an army would sooner be cut to pieces
than spared—the knight, however, was often captured and ransomed.15 Although a
growing respect and appreciation grew for a mixed and balanced army of infantry and
cavalry, the supreme unit on the field was the mounted horseman. This was to change
drastically with the introduction of gunpowder. Early versions of the handgun were
ineffective, clumsy and hard to aim with. Like the early cannons, they were more
psychologically effective. Only when the Spanish developed the matchlock was the
handgun selectively adopted across Europe.16 Although still inaccurate and slow when
compared to the bow, the “arquebus” was a frightening addition to the medieval army
and far deadlier against the mounted knight.17 Gian Paolo Vitelli, an Italian military
commander of the fifteen-century was, “… so incensed that lowborn arquebusiers had
killed some of his nobles that he gave an order that all captured gunners should have their
hands cut off and eyes plucked out.” A good combination of pikemen and arquebusiers or
muskets could wreak havoc on cavalry, “Musket balls maimed and killed horses,
penetrated the best armor, and often removed the advantage of shock traditionally
enjoyed by mounted troops.”18 These simple firearms had changed the face of the
14 Bernard and Fawn M. Brodie, From Crossbow to H-Bomb. (Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1973) 30.15 Bernard, 30.16 Bernard, 55.17 Bernard, 56.18 Christon I. A., John R. F., Holger H.H. and Timothy H.E.T., World History of Warfare. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002) 245.
Trenholm 6
battlefield, and the supremacy of the mounted knight had been grossly threatened. The
use of firearms, namely handguns, was forcing the role of cavalry to change, and when
the Germans invented the wheel lock mechanism in 151519, cavalry had regained some of
its offensive power it had enjoyed in the past. Mounted horseman adopted the wheel lock
pistol and began using a new strategy in warfare—something called the caracole, wherein
cavalry in formation, during a charge, would fire and wheel about to the rear to reload.20
This offered a new kind of flexibility for the mounted soldier. The introduction of
firearms into the medieval army proved to be a difficult adjustment for many, and some
soldiers, such as cavalry, had to adjust their tactics if they wished to remain useful. In
some respects this meant adopting the new technology to their own uses. Another fact of
medieval warfare changed by gunpowder was the role of the infantry, and the inclusion
of new soldiers, the independent and the mysterious gunner.
As firearms swept into the military world of the middle ages, many clung
tenaciously to the traditions and strategies of the past—the tried, tested and true bow,
sword, lance and pike.21 Unlike artillery, the handgun was not adopted as quickly or as
fervently, and it was not until the late fifteenth century, after many years of development
and refinement, that satisfactory handguns were spotted on the battlefield.22 Gun
manufacturers and the gunners themselves tended to be a secretive lot, and in many cases
acted and served independently, providing their expertise and services to the highest
bidder.23 Forming “tight-knit brotherhoods”, gunners protected their more specialized
19 Bernard, 58.20 Christon I. A., John R. F., Holger H.H. and Timothy H.E.T., World History of Warfare. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002) 245.21 Bernard and Fawn M. Brodie, From Crossbow to H-Bomb. (Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1973) 41.22 Bernard, 54.23 Christon I. A., 226.
Trenholm 7
technology, and their formulas and recipes were a well-guarded and well-kept secret.
Their guns were of such import that some gunners would tend to flee a battle should the
tide be swept in an unfavourable direction; in response, many armies posted a small
group of men-at-arms to ensure their gunners maintained their fidelity.24 Earlier
arquebuses were difficult and encumbering to use, though—the arquebusier carried an
incredible array of equipment, and the reloading and firing process was complicated and
messy,
Powder was measured and poured down the muzzle; next the lead ball was dropped in which a wad of rag on top. Then the priming pan was uncovered and fine-grained priming powder poured in and the cover closed. The match was adjusted in the serpentine, the pan cover was opened, and the trigger squeezed. Sometimes nothing came of it but the “flash in the pan.” The gun had to be cleaned between shots, and was obviously useless in wet weather.25
In addition to his weapons, the arquebusier carried, “a big flask of regular
gunpowder, a smaller one of priming powder, a ramrod, scrapers, bullet
extractors, cleaning rags, bullet lead and a brass mold for casting it, and flint and
steel for relighting matches.”26 The arquebusier often had the assistance of a
helper who carried some of the equipment and saw to a small fire.27 The strategic
advantage to a well-organized and disciplined line of arquebusiers could easily
make up for the complicated and at times, faulty firing process. Instilling fear into
the enemy and, when the aim was true, dealing fatal blows to a line of charging
knights resulted in gunners becoming a popular soldier to employ in the medieval
army. In comparison to the bowman of the day, arquebusiers tended to be less
24 Christon I. A., 226.25 Bernard and Fawn M. Brodie, From Crossbow to H-Bomb. (Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1973) 55.26 Bernard, 55.27 Bernard, 55.
Trenholm 8
costly to supply and more dependable—after extended campaigns and hard living,
bowmen tended to lose their physical strength which negatively impacted their
shooting, while arquebusiers, despite any kind of wounds or suffering, were still
able to fire their weapons and deal consistent damage.28 Gunpowder and bullets
were supplied, “much more easily than well-crafted arrows suitable for military
uses”.29 The role of the gunner on the battlefield was in its infancy, and only over
the course of several hundred years were the strategies and technologies refined to
more of an art. Still, the introduction of the firearm into medieval combat was a
shock, and it forced the hand of every country to adapt to this new breed of
weapon.
The terrible and mortifying din of a bombard cannon, mixed with a cloud of gun
smoke from a well-trained line of arquebusiers was the way of the future for
medieval warfare. These new weapons stormed Europe over the course of a few
centuries, and those who did not adopt such weapons could expect to be
conquered by those with more ambition and initiative. The once proud and
successful mounted knights, armed in plate and mail, proved to have met their
first true match with the introduction of firearms onto the battlefield. The
production of large artillery cannons changed the art of siegecraft, transforming
the once impregnable and imposing fortresses and isolated castles of the medieval
world into vulnerable, sitting targets to be pounded mercilessly from afar. The
balance of power had shifted; no longer did the defensive capabilities of war
outmatch its offensive counterpart. Siege by famine was to be replaced with
28 Christon I. A., John R. F., Holger H.H. and Timothy H.E.T., World History of Warfare. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002) 234.29 Christon I. A., 234.
Trenholm 9
artillery bombardment, and with refinements to the technology, such tactics would
prove to be incredibly successful in conquering even the most fortified of
medieval strongholds. The imposing and immortal mounted medieval knights
now had something to fear—the iron and lead shot of an arquebusier, something
far deadlier than a crossbow bolt or well-crafted arrowhead. Artillery cannons and
handguns were not without fault, however. Clumsy and complicated reloading,
cleaning and firing of the early arquebus meant the longbowman and
crossbowman were still in wide use, albeit less frightening and less deadly than a
volley of lead. Even after the introduction of the first effective bombards, the
French-made trebuchet was still in use for over two hundred years—it was easy
and cheap to manufacture, and far more mobile than the earlier bronze and iron
cannons.30 Regardless, the impact of gunpowder on medieval warfare was quite
profound, and although its acceptance was relatively slow, the advantages it
offered could not be long ignored. The manner in which European armies made
war had been changed forever, and the utility of the firearm was about to begin a
long evolutionary process that would result with many different types of weapons.
The firearm, simply put, was here to stay.
30 Bernard and Fawn M. Brodie, From Crossbow to H-Bomb. (Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1973) 48.
Trenholm 10
Bibliography
Archer I., Christon; Ferris R., John; Herwig H., Holger; Travers H.E., Timothy. World History of Warfare. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002.
Brodie, Bernard and Fawn M. From Crossbow to H-Bomb. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1973.
Cook F., Weston. “The Cannon Conquest of Nasrid Spain and the End of Reconquista. The Journal of Military History 57, no. 1 (1993): 43-70.
Jones, Michael., eds. The New Cambridge Medieval History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.