"Crossbow and Arquebuses in Italy - 1494+?" Topic

I've read a bit on early renaissance battles in Italy, from 1494 – 1525/1530, or so, but would like to know more about the rise of arquebuses and the decline of the use of the crossbow during the period, in various armies.

I'm especially interested in the period from 1494 – 1515, and understand that over time, the guns eventually replaced most of the crossbow units.

I seem to recall some forces continuing to use the crossbow in large numbers though, up until 1515, or so, while others seem to have preferred to switch over much more to the arquebus earlier, and in greater proportion (seems to me the more wealthy nations/regions switched to guns, earlier).

Recently, in some reading, going back as far as 1450, or so, it appears that some nationalities, and/or forces may have used mixed units of both arquebuses and crossbows (Burgundian units, and others, perhaps). That was a bit surprising to me, since I'd assumed such weapons would have been kept in separate units, even if fielded by the same army.

Obviously, their use would also vary by nationality, and/or region, but I'd like to know if there are any good sources on the subject that I can do a bit of further research or reading on, for the following: French, Swiss, Italians, HRE, and I guess, while I'm at it, perhaps should add in the Burgundians and French Ordonnance (1450 – 1500) armies too?

While I'm asking about this, might want to include those forces using longbows still too (either mounted, or dismounted), e.g. which continued to use them, until when, and in what ratios relative to the other projectile weapons, and/or to pike, foot troops with polearms, etc.?

Generally, I believe that the most progressive troops in using firearms were the Italians and the Spanish. Soldiers from the Holy Roman Empire also used them, I think, but in lesser numbers. The Swiss used them, but quite conservatively, with 1 man out of every ten using an arquebus. Mind you, Swiss skirmishers probably used arquebus and crossbow together as skirmishing weapons for quite a while.

As for the crossbow, The Italian Wars seems to me to have been the last great conflict where it was used in any great numbers. Everyone used crossbows in the early wars, but the biggest users seems to have the French, who hung onto it for their native infantry until quite late.

For the longbow, I think it's reasonably safe to say that the only major power that used the "long" (Welsh) bow was Tudor England. They have found Welsh bows in the wreck of the Mary Rose. She sank in 1545, so the English clearly used this bow for at least that long. Mind you, I pretty sure they used arquebuses as well, but the Welsh bow was pretty well ingrained in English culture at this time, so it wouldn't just go away.

I get the feeling that mounted crossbowmen, were more popular than mounted arquebusiers for a period. So even, when "normal" crossbowmen had become rare, mounted crossbowmen were still common. However, that's just an impression I have -- I could easily be wrong.

For the longbow, I think it's reasonably safe to say that the only major power that used the "long" (Welsh) bow was Tudor England. They have found Welsh bows in the wreck of the Mary Rose.

They are not "Welsh" bows. The longbow (or more accurately, the warbow) did not originate in Wales.

Wasn't the longbow historically referred to as the "Welsh" or "English" bow? I was under the impression that the English got their distinctive bows from the Welsh, who the English conquered under Edward I in the later 1200s.

I was under the impression that the English got their distinctive bows from the Welsh, who the English conquered under Edward I in the later 1200s.

That idea seems to have originated with Oman in his "History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages". However, "the argument for continuity in the basic form of the longbow is powerfully borne out by a combination of archaeological, written and iconographic evidence. Archaeology demonstrates beyond doubt the existence of longbows of well over 5ft from the early Middle Ages, and indeed, from prehistoric times." (Hardy & Strickland, "The Great Warbow", Sutton Publishing 2005).

There is a whole section in that book on the subject of "The bow in Anglo-Saxon and Viking Warfare" that demonstrates the existence of what we would describe as longbows pre-Conquest.

At the beginning of this period, Burgundians used longbow and in combination of pike. As well as a mtd inf with longbow- French used it to in their TOE- Ordonnance and prescribed certain amount to be armed with longbow. Ordonnance and Francs Archers. Somwhat like the US sorta copying the mg42 (m60). Venetians and Florence (I think) also had a company of English archers in this period.
It is astonishing how quickly the firearm overtook the crossbow though.
The English used the longbow well into the Tudor wars in Ireland, Scots into the 18th Century, and anecdotally use during the early ECW. Rambo used the bow well into the 80s and the Duke brothers of Hazzard County used a combination of bow and artillery.

I'm not sure I'd call 75 – 100 years that quick, for conversion from crossbows to guns, but perhaps you are looking at things different than I am.

Yup. Since the bow was around since pre-historic times and, ignoring Chinese use, the handgun, in Europe, since the early 14th Century I'd say pretty rapid. I've also shot a crossbow and heck of a lot more accurate than even a Brown Bess let alone a metal tube with handle and small hole that you touch a match to. So not for accuracy's sake. Not rocket science to learn either weapon. Cost of manufacture?

Reasons of cost were probably the biggest reason why. English Bows and Crossbows both require a fair amount of time, labor and technical expertise to manufacture. An arquebus is simply an iron tube stuffed in a wooden stock; comparatively, it is much simpler and quicker to make than a bow or crossbow, and requires less training. Gunpowder was expensive initially, but by the mid 15th century, the creation of synthetic saltpeter made gunpowder much cheaper (saltpeter used to have to be imported from the Far East).

I was always under the impression that arquebuses cost a lot more to make than bows, or crossbows, hence the reason why only rich nations/city states could afford to field them in large quantities.

Perhaps, also tied in with that is the expense of gunpowder and shot, as well as the concerns of what a sudden rainstorm or shower could do to their ability to fire.

Though, for the latter, it seems crossbowmen also had to worry about the weather as well, given how that affected them adversely in at least one of the early HYW battles.

I'm not so sure it was the weather. Rain can ruin bowstrings as well as gunpowder. I've heard part of the reason why crossbows hung about was because light cavalry could use it much more handily than a matchlock arquebus. The English bow probably stuck around more because it was traditional for it's home nation and because a lot of men were still trained in its use.

Yes, though at least a bow/crossbow will still fire, though granted with less force and range, while a gun will not, when wet.

I've read it was because horses don't, or didn't like the sound of gunfire, so bows or crossbows for the mounted troops seemed a safer bet.

Then again, a lot of mounted bows dismounted, before going into combat, so I guess it depends upon the circumstances, and tactics used.

"the creation of synthetic saltpeter made gunpowder much cheaper (saltpeter used to have to be imported from the Far East)."

I thought salt peter was 'mined' from dung heaps, and that religious houses were favored because the vast quantities of wine consumed there was beneficial to the formation of the proper chemicals.

>Generally, I believe that the most progressive troops in using firearms were the Italians and the Spanish.

I would not use any crossbows for Imperial armies of the Italian war era. The Spanish learned how to use the arquebus from Landsknecht contingents around 1500, send by Maximilian in support to Naples, after their first engagements against the French went awry. At Cerignola the Landsknechts still formed the core of the battleline.
Usage of the crossbow for Germany in that time is limited to cavalry and contingents from smaller territories. All major principalities had swapped. The Italians, however, where ahead in the usage of the arquebus, many cities using it from the middle of the 15th century. Here again sometimes old weapon arsenals were used up and poorer territories used crossbows.

That said, the French were a bit late in adopting the arquebus, and bows were used in quanitities by several armies.

The ORB for the Swiss in Fornovo and Pavia (1495 & 1525 respectively), show almost 100% crossbows during the first conflict, to nearly 100% conversion to the arquebus by Pavia. And these are the Swiss, who really clung to their original national weapon, so for them to switch, things must have changed. Here are some reason why.

1). The crossbow is very expensive to make, cheap to fire, but fairly easy to use.

2) The arquebus is relatively cheap to make, expensive to fire, and still easy to use.

3). What happened, is the corning process of black powder became more refined, less prone to separate, in addition to the arquebus being made a bit more differently. The barrel was no longer made like a barrel (long strips of metal held in place by bands, where gas could escape and made firing it very difficult…thus the genesis of the term barrel for firearms.)

4) As a result, the arquebus retained all the advantages of the crossbow, with fewer of the disadvantages.

5). It is worth mentioning, arquebuses often times did fire "musket arrows" during this time. Essentially a very short arrow fitting like a sabot down the barrel. The penetration of this projectile (I have made and fired a few myself) is devastating…going through 2mm of hardened steel, then the wooden shaft splintering behind it.

6). The bow, or self bow, lost to all of these, except it had a faster rate of fire. Remember, we are looking at the zenith of full plated armour for both rider and horse, and horses are larger targets.

Below is an excellent book, if you do not already own it:

link

I have commented numerous times on the whole crossbow vs. whatever controversy. I just hope a search does not invoke a contradiction on my part:-)

Ilodic.

Ilodic,
Which source says that the Swiss were "almost 100% crossbows" at Fornovo? I'm curious as the Swiss had been using firearms since the 14th Century increasing numbers and there is evidence both written and pictorial of significant use in both the Burgundian and Swabian wars. From the Italian Wars of the 1490's we have an eyewitness drawing of the Swiss entering Naples that show them armed with both crossbow and arquebus.

Daniel

Indeed and the Fornovo drawing shows the advanced guard pike flanked by arquebus and archers (dismounted from the Garde IIRC).

However this image seems to be dated to a few years after the battle, around 1500 seems to be a common estimate. It is a very interesting image but needs to be used carefully as it is likely that the artists simplified things to make a good image.

Ilodic,
Which source says that the Swiss were "almost 100% crossbows" at Fornovo?….

Daniel, I am embarrassed to say, but I have no idea. Apparently I have said this before:

TMP link

I think at one time I had honestly found somewhere, an OOB, but cannot for the life of me find the allocation of missile weapons among the Swiss at Fornovo.

I do think, I was trying to make a distinction between the handgonne/handcannon and the arquebus.

I think one also needs to keep in mind images such as the first one you posted, are not necessarily to provide a proportionate number, or microcosm of troops present. The fact two arquebusiers were are shown, does not mean they were in large numbers, simply to convey to an audience they were present. The second image, does not show ANY crossbows though, and dated only a few years later.

If you find out anything, please let me know.

Thanks,

William/ilodic

The Spanish did not learned how to use arquebuses from the Landsquenets send by Emperor Maximilian. They were used to carry arquebuses (or the early form "escopetas") from many years ago in the Peninsula and you can even see representations of soldiers firing arquebuses in the carved wooden panels of the Chorus in the Cathedral of Toledo depicting the different campaings that culminated in the conquest of Granada. In the first contingents send to Italy for the war of Naples there are listed "escopeteros" from the beginning, along with pikes, rodeleros and crossbowmen.
The arquebus begun to replace the croosbow as the main missile weapon in the Spanish armies, from the first years of the war in Italy, and the Spanish success in some battles of the Italian Wars was based in their fire power. But the crossbow was still used by Spanish soldiers many years after the Italian Wars. Its use by the Conquistadors it is well known but even in a very late date, crossbows are mentioned in the North African garrisons, in the Siege of Malta and in the preparations for the Lepanto campaing.

representations of soldiers firing arquebuses in the carved wooden panels of the Chorus in the Cathedral of Toledo depicting the different campaings that culminated in the conquest of Granada.

Here are some images:
Wood carvings of scenes of the Conquest of Granada on the Choir Stalls in Toledo Cathedral

I would like some better images, if anyone knows of some.

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

As I have researched, the presence of "espingarderos" (handgunners) in the Spanish armies is mentioned at least from the battle of Olmedo in 1445, althoug the Chronicle that mentions these weapons was written in 1460. In the Catalan Civil War there are many references to espingarderos and in the documents from 1489 and 1491 that list the contingents that every town and village of Castile must contribute to the militia, the number of espingarderos counts in hundreds for towns of size as Madrid. Of course, in the list of troops embarked to Italy in 1495 the number of espingarderos is high although inferior to crossbomen. And even in a document from 1494 that list troops needed to explore Cuba, espingarderos are mentioned.

@Feldgrau
I certainly do not claim that the Spanish got the arquebus from the Landsknechts – just how to use them vs the French/Swiss on a battlefield. The Spanish were masters of the guerilla, the small war, and despite being ousted at Seminola managed to win by cutting the support lines and avoiding battle.

Yet, before 1503, they did not win a major engangement vs French forces. 1502 saw a standoff. Historian Odorico Raynaldi claims that in early 1503 some 1200 Landsknechts reached Cordoba, and from then on the Spanish gained successes. Most sources agree that two weeks before Cerignola some 2500 Landsknechts where shipped from Triest, and that they were instrumental in the following battle. Gerónimo Zurita, the Spanish historian, claims that the Germans were put on the flanks (the heavy gensdarmes where in the center) and he specifically mentions that the GERMANS "la escopeteria" was very effective (Zurita, Annales Aragon (1610), V, 279v f., 281 ff – I was working from a translation, so there may be errors).

One could also note that the Gran Ordonanza, the major reform of the Spanish infantry – creating the ordonannce infantry with the colunella (sp Coronelia), was published in September 1503, after Cerignola and under the influence of these years battles.

I was perhaps a bit over the top with claiming the Spanish learned "how" to use the arquebus from the Landsknechts, but this was in response to a posting that claimed the Spanish were on the forefront of firearms and soldiers from the HRE used arquebus in lesser numbers. Sorry. Sources seem to indicate however that the first successfull major battles (not warfare) of Cordoba vs. the French were made with substantial influence and participation of Landsknechts forces, sent in aid by Maximilian – who at that time worked to wed his two children with those of the Spanish royals, creating the Habsburg dynasty as European power in the process.

On another note, later battles were very successfull when the Spanish and Landsknecht infantry fought together at La Motta, Bicocca or Pavia, to name but the most famous (though some English historians tend to downplay or ignore the Landsknechts), while the one occasion where they fought each other at Ravenna was a bloody standoff for both.

Yes, although writing in a very late date with regard to the facts, Zurita praises the value of the German "musketry" in the battle of Ceriñola. But he do not mention that the Spaniards learnt or copied any innovation from them with regard of the arquebuses tactics. Even in other passage limits the role of the German contingent in the battle: "they did not do anything more in the battle, apart of the shoots, only keep their order". But I would not mind to recognice the foreing influence in the developmente of Spanish firepower tactics if I would have found any reference o comment in the sources in that sense, but neither in the letters of Gonzalo to the King and the Spanish ambassador in Rome, nor in the chronicles written closer to the facts than Zurita´s, as "The two conquests of the kingdom of Naples", the "Chronica Manuscrita", the Chronicles written by Hernando del Pulgar o Fernandez de Oviedo, all of them written by persons that accompanied Gonzalo himself in the campaings, in none of them I have found any reference of the Spaniards learnt any new use or tactic from the Germans with regard to arquebuses. Neither Paulo Jovio in his "Vita di Gonsalvo de Cordoba" nor Diego de Salazar in the "Tratado de Re Military" that collects the art of war in the first years of XVI century, none of them said nothing about this.
There is a very clear and specific reference in the sources of copyng foreing tactics in the use of the pike, because of the presence of a Swiss contingent in the war of Granada, when these weapons caused sensation. From them onwards the Spaniards begun to use pikes and even to equip some troops "a la suiza" (in the Swiss manner). But I have not found anything similar with regard to the arquebuses tactics.
I insist, if the Spaniards had been using "espingardas" from at least thirty or forty years before and pretended to recruit 1500 handgunners from the villages in 1489, it is clear that they were very concious of the value of the firepower weapons and how tu use the "espingardas" well before the beginning of the Italian campaings. Although I agree, they were not "masters" in their use: they knew how to fire behind an obstacle, as they did at Ceriñola, and continued doing in Ravenna and Bicocca. That it is the same tactic they have learnt from the campaings of the Conquest of Granada that was a war, fundamentally, of sieges.

Wow, seems that I hit a nerve.

You realize that most – if not all – of your sources are not available in any language but Spanish? If there is a source on the history of the Spanish army in the 1480-1540 range in English I would be pleased to read that and learn.

That said, I would not wonder about such stuff NOT showing up. If I read the German accounts and many later histories on the Italian wars you can get the impression that La Motta, Bicocca or Pavia were Imperial affairs without any Spanish on the scene. I would not wonder if the same would hold from the Spanish side – certainly some British historians writing in the early 20th century made that mistake by describing these as Spanish rather then allied battles – deliberate or not.

If you prefer to think that the influx of selected veterans – some of them fighting French, Swiss and eg. Hungarians for up to twenty years – had no other influence but to bolster the numbers, you are welcome to do so. Obviously there are no Spanish references but those I mention that bolster my assumption.