"Medieval Battlefield Artillery ???? Effect & Rules" Topic

Hi Generals,

Pondering getting some Front Rank 28 mm Wars of the Roses artillery has got me wondering.

Any of you scholars out there know how effective bombards and canon really was against troops

Rate of fire was pretty slow, I would image them getting off one shot before being overrun.

I know the Medieval period is quite long and improvements were made, any accounts of performance other than affecting enemy moral or did they just blow themselves up.

I don't have any rules as yet but how do your chosen rules deal with the subject?

Hoping for an interesting debate.

Thanks in Advance

Sorry, but nothing I can add to the effect discussion, but I always thought of medieval battlefield artillery as more of a status symbol than a truly effective arm. Slow to load, immovable, unreliable. The only real reason for having it would seem to be the morale effect or just simply to show that you are Someone Important.

artillery was so slow to load and liable to wet weather that its surprising any medieval army used them. that they did shows how people can be seduced by new technology (oh! shiny things!) that they compromise military competence.
at grunwald 1410 i believe the Teutonic order's inital moves were designed to give their guns a clear field of fire yet they only got off 2 shots as the powder was wet.

Battlefield or siege?

The first recorded use of battlefield cannon in Europe was at Crecy. These weren't the big bombards, just basically crude small cannon; the only depictions show something shaped vaguely like a big spittoon with a big dart stuck in the muzzle (though they might have been loaded more or less like a blunderbuss, crammed with whatever crap was lying around).

Don't know if they killed anyone or not, but they were used against the mercenary crossbowmen, and the psychological effect was probably significant, given that no one in the West had been under cannon fire before.

The stone-throwing bombards were most often used as fixed-place siege weapons to batter fortifications.

How detailed a system are you envisioning?

No the artillery was pretty effective. At the battle of Brustheim the burgundian artillery made a fine old mess of the Liegois position. At Dinant it made fairly short work of the walls and defenders. At Morat the artillery did hold up the swiss for a while.
There was a lot of artillery around, it was expensive (as was the powder and professional expertise)and could not have simply been a toy.

early artillery (14th cent) pretty much just made some noise. But by the mid-15th cent they're playing an important part. Talbot ruining himself against entrenched French artillery and handgunners at Chastillion comes to mind.

You'd have to differentiate between the early pot-au-feu and small bombards and the later wheeled culverins etc. I give artillery a morale effect even if they don't inflict any casualties.

During the Reconquista the primary role of artillery was in sieges. At Velez Malaga the Moors made an unsuccessful attempt to ambush the artillery train while it was on the move(If they had known that they also caught the king on foot and unarmed they may have tried a bit harder). Once the artillery got into position the garrison surrendered.

Medieval battlefield artillery could be devastatingly effective because of the tactics used by the troops. This is not the era of the thin red line – but the mass of troops in 10 or more ranks marching shoulder to shoulder or in very close proximity for protection from the master of the battlefield – the knight on horseback. Infantry casualties from cannon could be either very heavy if the gunners were good – like the Burgundian and other battles discussed above – to minimal like the Teutonic blunder. It all depended on the conditions of the field. If it was wet or raining before or during the battle – artillery was notoriously ineffective. If the battlefield was dry and the powder was good – the small guns could wreak havoc on enemy infantry formations.

The major effect of artillery when it was working was the impact of the shot when it hit. The fact that something fired a rock, shot, or other debris into your ranks causing casualties with a thunderous roar for which there was no defense against, was a real morale factor. When first used, some groups of troops panicked and fled. Others did not, but they proceeded with caution or avoided getting into the line of sight to these new weapons.

On more than one occasion armies refused to give battle because the enemy had their artillery and they didn't have there artillery ready yet – so they waited for the artillery train to get it deployed for a proper battle.

It depends were you want to set end limit between late Med and early Renaissance, militarily speaking. For me Medieval ends when firearms beggin to be effective. This is around 1435.
The French Ordonnance armies used large numbers of fire-weapons and the fall of Constantinople in 1453 was due more to the Ottoman artillery firepower than to classical Medieval siege tactics.
In 1480 the Golden Horde was stopped in Russia by the river Ugra: on the other bank there were cannons and arquebuses.

J

Sorry, missed the question at the end there – our rules sets vary on how they deal with cannon on the battlefield. In our home-grown ruleset there is a chance that the artillery can blow itself up – and even kill troops in close proximity to the cannon when it goes up – you know how running around a cannon with a lit match can be very dangerous. The chances are small of the catastrophic explosion, but it has occurred on more than a few occasions. The chances of mis-fires and dud shots increases with poor weather (rain, mist, fog) as any moisture in the air affected the black powder of the era. The chance of a catastrophic failure decrease as the gunpowder era progresses as our rules are fairly generic and run the gamut of Greek and Roman wars pre B.C. through the end of the Franco-Prussian War. As with most generic rules – they have their faults, period specific rules which are optional, and a rather archaic command and control system typical of late 1980's rulesets.

It was really more the Medieval period rather than the early Renaissance I was curious about, are there were any historical accounts of canon etc on the battlefield rather than during sieges?

I think the Renaissance period is well documented re firearms, artillery.

How about during the Wars of the Roses?

Barnet, Tewkesbury, and Bosworth. The artillery may have provoked an attack at Tewkesbury and was non-effective at Barnet due to the fog and darkness.

The side without artillery would have to attack to avoid a slow attrition.

There is the account of Burgundian artillery firing with good effect on Swiss allied men-at-arms. Literary shooting them to pieces. This was in 1476 at the battle of Murten.

According to some sources Volquin Schenk had the dubious honour of being one of the first westerners to die in an artillery barrage at the Battle of Saule in 1236.

Hawkwood at Castagnaro in 1388 made effective use of artillery against the Paduans, who had to shake out into units from march order in front of well implaced guns on the south side of a difficult-to-cross ditch. The choice of ground was perfect, but the presence of the artillery even at this early date forced the Paduans to attack or pull back from the field. They chose to attack and it was disastrous.

Hussite, Hungarian and Ottonman use of cannon was very effective and well documented. Hussites are so well known, I won't elaborate, but for the Ottomans and Serbs/Hungarians, Second Kosovo in 1448 comes to mind. The Christians emplaced their cannon on the crest of a hill in field works that also held all their infantry. The artillery was effective in turning back sipahi cavalry attacks. Ottomans deployed their artillery in their Janissary "fort" and though they were shooting uphill, they succeeded in knocking out a few Hungarian guns. Also, Varna 1444, Belgrade 1456, Kruje 1461 – all are battles in which artillery proved their effectiveness, all in the mid 15th Century.

By the time of the Swiss-Burgundian Wars and the WOTR, fast-loading removeable breech cartridges meant field artillery could really have an effect on massed troops.

As for rules, it depends on what set you like. I like WAB's treatment of cannon as its simple and although it may not have an effect on the outcome of a battle, its very potential for causing damage means you've got to take it into account when deploying and moving.

The battle of Losecote Field in the WOTR ( 12/03/1470 ).

A rebel army of maybe 30000 was faced by Edward IV army of maybe 15000 plus a " considerable " artillery train. Edward IV deployed the artillery in advance of his frontline, and after beheading 2 captured nobles in front of the armies, launched a bombardment of the rebels. They turned and fled, quickly ripping off their livery jackets. Hence the name of the battle.

At Flodden Field 1513

A artillery duel was fought before the general engagement. The Scottish Artillery was on the high ground but was ineffective due to the English being in deadground. The English Artillery (which was also lighter) did better. The English artillery fire may have been one of the factors of the Scots giving up the high ground and charging down the hill at the English.