"Were crossbows used during wars of roses" Topic

Having recently took part in a topic here at TMP regarding Richard IIIs discovery and how an arrow pierced his back armour (supposing it is him of course)i made a suggestion it may possably have been a crossbow reportedly being more powerful than a longbow by this time and seing as Henry VII was supposed to have had many french mercenaries with him at bosworth.Someone said their is no evidence at all to say crossbows were used during the wars of roses.
This has got me doing some serious thinking,we all know longbows were used en mass here in England and crossbows were not as popular in England as in Europe but were crossbows used here in the wars of the roses.
Sorry if i took my time to get to the point but i think this is a very interesting point that needs your expert opinions.
Whiterose

I would warrant a guess that crossbows may had been used by the German mercenaries at Stoke Field. But I am no expert.

Crossbows were certainly a known technology in the latter half of the fifteenth century. However there is (at least as far as I am aware) no historical or archaeological evidence for the use of crossbows on the battlefield in the WOTR. The English "weapon of choice" was of course the longbow (more accurately, the "warbow"). It is of course possible that crossbows could have been used by foreign mercenaries although the historical records seem to indicate that mercenaries were more likely to use handguns. The other possibility is the use of crossbows by castle garrisons, but the WOTR is noted for its lack of sieges.

Bearing in mind that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the short answer is (as ever) – we don't know.

Possibly, since they were used on the continent until the early 1500's.

The head of a crossbow bolt and an arrow from a long/war-bow are very different. I doubt any competent archaeologist would make such an elementary error.

not sure how "historically" accurate this is but the Kingmaker game( a WotR game) had crossbowmen as mercenary cards to add to your forces

There is evidence from both the 100YW and the WoR for individual "archers" to actually have a crossbow instead (though few and far between). Ships crews also used them.

Tom..

There is evidence from the WoR for individual "archers" to actually have a crossbow instead

What evidence? Pray tell us more!

Thanks for your input into this question gents.K Travlos makes a good point about the German mercenaries at battle of stoke, surely these would have brought crossbows with them.Contempary accounts suggest they were very well armed and armoured. From what i can tell from the composition of European armies at this time the crossbow was still a major missile weopon and had not been totally superceded by hand guns.
So back track 2 years to Bosworth,would not some of the french mercenaries that Henry VII brought to England when he invaded have been armed with them too !!!

So back track 2 years to Bosworth,would not some of the french mercenaries that Henry VII brought to England when he invaded have been armed with them too !!!

Most historians, where they even mention it, suggest that the French mercenaries at Bosworth were mostly armed with pikes.

Yes but werent pikemen in Europe accompanied with skirmish troops like crossbowmen and hand gunners

Yes but weren't pikemen in Europe accompanied with skirmish troops like crossbowmen and hand gunners?

They may well have been. Is there any evidence to support this?

I guess it comes down to your original comment, No evidence to say yes or no.
I watched an experiment on TV some years ago conducted by the medieval arms expert mike loads( i dont remember what it was called).He and an armourer wanted to test how a breast plate of medieval armour stood up to a direct hit from a longbow and crossbow,the arrow and bolt fired on an indoor range through some kind of machine which could be set to fire the projectile at power levels befitting the weopon that would fire it but i dont remember the range they took into account !.The longbow arrow dented and cracked the armour at the point of strike before bouncing off but the crossbow bolt punched clean through and travelled deep into the hard jelly substance behind it which i think was supposed to represent human flesh.Of course it was just an experiment but one by mike loads who clearly nows his stuff.
So this was one of the reasons i thought of crossbows when they claimed to have found Richard III with an arrow head in his back(I would assume he was in full armour)

Ingram does think some of the mercenaries at Bosworth would have carried crossbows but does not go on to accord them any role in the battle (nor specific deployment anywhere) …

There is no _archaeological evidence for them at Bosworth (then again there's no archaeolgical evidence for longbows either although the texts do have the soldiers assault 'the enemy first with arrowes' … so we can be happy they were used even if the material has not survived, which is a lot more than can be said for the possible crossbows)

Maybe that helps

Phil

Thanks Phil,interesting comments.
I guess the lack of evidence is due to the arrows being collected by the users,even broken ones after the battle seing as they were hand made.
I suppose we will have to wait for some metal detectorist to uncover one, i know one found a round lead bullet with a metal dice in its centre from an early handgun at Towton, even though there had never been mention of them being used there before, so anything is possible.

Magard

Correct me if I read wrong but are you saying if the mercenaries at Stoke Field and Bosworth had crossbows and handguns accompanying pike blocks, or if in general European pike blocks in the continent were accompanied by crossbows and handguns?

Sorry I was away for a while…

The hard evidence is muster rolls that identify individuals with equipment, there are quite a few with crossbow and bolts rather than bow and arrows. A small proportion overall and not separate units, but interesting. There are also equipment lists from castles that include them.

Every reason to have the odd figure is some 'archer' units (not retinue troops though).

Tom..

Hi, I have an OB for mortimers cross 1461 . There were crossbow troops in the earl of wiltshires ward along with Irish kern and galloglaichs . Sorry no numbers . The information was from the perfect captain yahoo group files . Hopethishelps
Phil

The muster rolls for the cinque ports town milita show crossbows and pavise issue during this time.

So it is entirely possible for crossbows to appear as part of a COA.

And the argumnet could go the other way prove they were not used.

The information was from the perfect captain yahoo group files

that depends where they got their informatioon from. Or was it just guess work?

The muster rolls for the cinque ports town milita show crossbows and pavise issue during this time.

So it is entirely possible for crossbows to appear as part of a COA.

Yes, but you have to remember that these muster rolls were for troops specifically mustered for the defence of a location. Crossbows would be effective weapons for defending a walled town as much as a castle.

However, troops raised by Commission of Array did not very often fight in pitched battles. Most of the fighting on the battlefield was done by the retinue men.

Latest research suggests that the French mercs at Bosworth were not pikemen but instead Franc Archers who used halbred as often as the warbow. Hence they would have been mixed "longbow" & halbred quite similar to the English troops (who they had copied). This explains why they are mentioned only in general and not noted as tactically different from English troops (they were more experienced).

Mercs at Stoke were probably pike.

TomT

Is there any source that dwells on the German mercenaries at the campaign that culminated in Stoke Fields?

These would probably be mainly German mercenaries from Maximilians Burgundian army of the succession wars, hired by Margarete for her relative. This would probably mean a core of pikes with handguns, though hard data in the form of contemporary sources eludes me. It is also coincidence that the first "true" Landsknecht units were raised the same year, which mainly means that there was a ordered way for the internal self-structure of these companies.

Thread necromancy.

The Paston family letters from the period: Margaret Paston wrote in 1448: "Right worshipful husband, I commend myself to you and ask you to get some crossbows, and windlasses to wind them with, and crossbow bolts, for your houses here are so low that no one can shoot out of them with a longbow, however much we need to". It is untrue to say that crossbows were not used in England during the 15th century….

What an old chestnut, there was a paper on the De Re Militari page that mentioned that some of the correspondence and records used the word archer to include crossbows as well as longbows during the hundred years war. It is possible men at arms from the continent would have had crossbowmen or two in their retinue or lance. What would have been done with these guys is anybody guess, they might have been assign to a group of longbows or they might have just used their melee weapons in the back rank of their men-at-arms leaving their crossbow incamp. The foreign contingents were probably a mix of crossbows and handguns as Delbrück points out that the Germans used their word for shooters or sharpshooters for Bows, Crossbow and handguns.

It is untrue to say that crossbows were not used in England during the 15th century….

Indeed it is. But there is little if any evidence for their use on the battlefield.

It is possible men at arms from the continent would have had crossbowmen or two in their retinue or lance.

Quite right. But is there any evidence for the presence of men-at-arms in the Burgundian or French mercenary forces in the WOTR?

At Warwick castle they have depictions of several retained men in Warwickshire service. One of them is a crossbowman.

At Warwick castle they have depictions of several retained men in Warwickshire service. One of them is a crossbowman.

Depicted as a crossbowman. Doesn't though mean that either he always used the crossbow (rather than any other weapons) or that he ever used a crossbow on the battlefield. Most of the time retinue troops would be involved in garrisoning castles or other fortified locations, for which a crossbow was a good weapon.

Remember that the actual field campaigns leading to battles only lasted a few weeks in the whole period of 32 years.

Given that we have evidence of continental mercenaries (who routinely used crossbows, such as the German contingent at Stoke) in battle, contemporary images of English crossbowmen, and a request for crossbows in the Paston Letters, it seems reasonable to deduce that they were part of parcel of the military culture.

Whilst I accept that they were nowhere near as prevalent as warbows, were, arguably, better suited to battles for fixed strongpoints, such as for castles, and that we as yet lack firm data for their battlefield use, I would tend towards supporting their presence on the battlefield.

Given that we have evidence of continental mercenaries (who routinely used crossbows, such as the German contingent at Stoke) in battle,

It is certainly possible that some of the German mercenaries at Stoke used the crossbow. The chronicles only mention them being armed with pikes.

Some would consider Stoke to be outside the normal confines of the WotR.

A corpse with a bolt stuck in him might look like, a corpse with an arrow shaft, particularly if the shaft of the bolt was broken before the fletching.

A corpse with a bolt stuck in him might look like, a corpse with an arrow shaft, particularly if the shaft of the bolt was broken before the fletching.

Indeed it might. Have any such corpses been found?

How many corpses with arrows still in them have been uncovered? I am genuinely curious….

Does a bolt injury look any different from an arrow 500 years later?

"How many corpses with arrows still in them have been uncovered? I am genuinely curious"

Apparently the Swedes found evidence of crossbows at Visby. But I'll beat MajorB to the punch and add that Visby was not even during the WORs

We do lack a great deal of evidence, which requires the gaps to be bridged with careful speculation.

It's one of the reasons I love the period, there's sufficient data for solid research, but plenty of opportunities for interpretation :-)

More thread necromancy, but I've just been reading up a bit on some of the battles.

In reading "The Military Campaigns of the Wars of the Roses" (at least I think that's the title), I came across a noted event of someone important (can't recall the name right now), removing his helmet for a bit to rest, during the Battle of Towton, I think. Apparently, when he did that he was shot through the neck and killed by a crossbow bolt. Supposedly the shooter recognized him as the person that had killed a relative (but many are dubious about his ability to do that).

Regardless though, the book does mention Burgundian men at arms, pike, and hand-gunners being sent to aid the Yorkist side, so I suspect it is possible that foreign crossbowmen were present, and/or even English crossbowmen, if you believe the account above.

If there is documented presence of hand gunners in England during the WotR, then positively there would also be crossbows. If neither appeared on a known battlefield that does not mean that they never did, or could not have.

But an "army list" probably shouldn't include either weapon as a significant portion in the troops mix. Maybe a "special" unit. Or limit them to a special scenario where they are written in….

Seems there were crossbows used at the siege of Caister Castle in 1469. Apparently one Jekson's crossbow was broken, and the comment 'should it be sent to London to be mended' is mentioned. Also one of John Paston's men died from a wound caused by one of the Duke of Norfolk's men using a crossbow. Seems both sides used them.

I'd also be surprised if Warwick's Burgundian mercenaries didn't have any at St. Alban's II, though they are not mentioned (I think the handgunners are written about due to their novelty).

Seems there were crossbows used at the siege of Caister Castle in 1469. … Seems both sides used them.

I don't think anyone is saying they were not avaibale or used in the WOTR, just that there is no evidence for their use on the battlefield.

I'd also be surprised if Warwick's Burgundian mercenaries didn't have any at St. Alban's II, though they are not mentioned (I think the handgunners are written about due to their novelty).

There is no evidence in the primary sources for St Albans II for the presence of crossbow armed troops. And yes, I have read them all. However absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

n reading "The Military Campaigns of the Wars of the Roses" (at least I think that's the title), I came across a noted event of someone important (can't recall the name right now), removing his helmet for a bit to rest, during the Battle of Towton, I think.

If that's the Haigh book, then I would take anything he wrote with the proverbial condiment. He can't even get some of his maps right, so I somehow doubt his text as well.