Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

Bosworth and medieval artillery

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Thursday, 17th March 2011

  Knowing how much trouble they can cause, I'm wary about starting a new thread related to Richard III but hopefully we can steer clear of the usual arguments amount the legitimacy of the Tudors and the Princes in the Tower etc etc!
  
  There was a very interesting 'Time Team' special last night about the Battle of Bosworth. There were two aspects in particular they were considering - one was the location of the battle, the other was the role of gunpowder artillery in proceedings.
  
  As I understood it, it has been widely accepted for quite some time, now, that the battlefield is not where it has traditionally been held to be, but a little way sown the road. The spread of arrowheads, roundshot and other debris at the new site certainly seems to suggest that. The programme though, implied that this was still a relatively new and controversial issue.
  
  It was the bit about guns that was particularly interesting, though. I believe I'm right in saying that Edward III of England is generally held to be the first commander (in Europe, at least) to use gunpowder artillery on the battlefield - rather than in sieges - in the mid-14th century. However, the programme asserted that Bosworth marked a fundamental shift in warfare in that for the first time artillery played a significant part in a battle. Indeed, my understanding of what they were saying was that thanks largely to his artillery, Richard came close to winning. It was only his decision to personally lead a cavalry charge against the Lancastrian commanders, and the last minute intervention by the Stanleys, that shifted the balance in Henry's favour.
  
  I must say, I'm not convinced. They suggested that Richard led his charge in order to prove he was a 'proper' medieval king who could fulfil his duties as a warrior. Personally I'm more inclined to think that the outcome of the battle was very much hanging in the balance and Richard led the charge because, with Northumberland hanging back and the Stanleys apparently still undecided, it was the only way to turn the tide. I'm also not sure about the artillery. Although field guns do seem to have been more widespread by the late 15th century its questionable as to what sort of an impact they could have had. Even during the Civil Wars it was still unusual for artillery to have a significant impact of the outcome of a battle.
  
  Still, the experiments were very interesting. The fact that being hit by a cannonball would have spoiled your day I'm sure was no surprise to anyone, but seeing a roundshot skipping across the ground was fascinating. The usual depiction in films and TV dramas is an explosion. I was aware that wasn't the reality but I've never seen the ricochet effect in action before - as Phil Harding (I think it was) pointed out, it was just like skimming a stone across water, except you got a series (6 - 10) little gouts of earth rather than splashes. The idea of a type of gun leaving a 'signature' on a roundshot was intriguing, too. For example, the tompion from the chamber of a bottle-breech gun flattens one side of the ball.

  Link to this forum: Bosworth and medieval artillery

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Friday, 18th March 2011

  The case for Bosworth being the first large scale use of cannon was largely predicated on the number of cannon balls recovered (I think they said 38), which is higher than any other battle site of the period, and the distribution, which indicated it was all fired by Richard's side. I would suggest they have a case, but that it is not conclusive.
  
  The bouncing cannon balls came as no surprise to me. This effect has been described at Napoleonic and US civil war battles. They had more powerful guns, but you could do something similar with a sling.
  
  I agree that Richard was trying to swing the battle with his charge, not demonstrate his testosterone levels.
  
  I had always assumed previously that shot with a flattened side was indicative that it had struck something flat. Apparently not.
  
  I wondered personally about what they said about lead cannon shot having a stone or heavier metal core. The thought occurred to me that the purpose might be to increase the damage on impact. The core, un-like the lead, would not crumple in the same way, so providing a jagged edge to increase damage. The outer lead shell would still expand to grip the barrel, increasing velocity compared to stone or harder metals. So you got the best of two properties of materials

  Link to this forum: Bosworth and medieval artillery

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 21st December 2011

  An interesting take Tim.
  
  The only puzzle would be the fact that a cavalry charge by Richard would possibly have been against Henry's cannon in order to ensure Richard's own superiority in artillery. With Henry's cannon taken out then have been pretty much have just then been a waiting game for Richard's forces. A charge against Henry himself (unless he was indeed directly behind his own artillery) would not make much strategic sense at all.

  Link to this forum: Bosworth and medieval artillery

  Report message3

Back to top