Trenholm 1

The Impact of Gunpowder on Medieval Warfare

David Wm. Trenholm

December 4th, 2006
HIST 2723 X1
Dr. 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 could travel

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

costly to supply and more dependable—after extended campaigns and hard living,

bowmen tended to lose their physical strength which negatively impacted their

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

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

artillery bombardment, and with refinements to the technology, such tactics would

prove to be incredibly successful in conquering even the most fortified of

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

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.

Bibliography

30
Bernard and Fawn M. Brodie, From Crossbow to H-Bomb. (Bloomington and London: Indiana
University Press, 1973) 48.
 Trenholm 10

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.