[Jessen Klaus]

I am seeking information on the use of multi barrel handgonnes in Europe 1350-1550.

My inerrest was started when I was reading in
Medieval costume armour and weapons by Eduard Wagner,Zoroslava Drobna & Jan Durdik
Plate 6 part VII

Heres a scan from Handgonnes.com
http://www.handgonnes.com/lenny/239f7900.jpg

The missing text are:
A four-barel gun dating from the end of the 14th or early 15th century; about 24 cm long.
After firing it was uses as a cudgel

So if anyone knows of more eksamples please let med know.

Best wishes Klaus

[Chad Arnow]

I have moved this topic to the Historic Arms Talk forum.

Please note the description for this forum:

"Discussions of reproduction and authentic historical arms and armour from various cultures and time periods"

Thank you.

[Randall Moffett]

Klaus,

Unfortunately finding information for that will be pretty hard. Early firearms were still in their infancy and development, at the first half of the 15th a crude pipe on a stick (albeit with improvemetns decade to decade) and in the second half this weapon continued likely as the more common firearm used but the early arquebus was evolving as well. Before the second quarter of the 15th few handgonnes were used outside sieges and even then it was mostly the bigger guns being used. Since sieges are fairly common in war you could look into town assualts and defence. More likely to find them around 1450 and after I would guess. I know of no early firearms in existance from this era like that (multibarreled), but to be fair the number of guns dated to the era pre1500 is very small. I can only imagine it was used (mostly likely in sieges) as a way to overcome some of the disadvantages of early guns with 4 times the probability to hit someone or blow holes in a crowd. Similar idea ot ribalds, except the ribald is much bigger, a cart with some nice spikes at the front and then many barrels, likely a shield.

In Southampton where I am doing my studies I have found a number of references to organ guns and think it likely to be either the gun you are looking at or a ribald. I tend to think the first as it does not mention a cart and they are kept in a upper story. They had at least two in teh second half of the 15th. These ones had breaches so I assume them to be a bit larger but they are listed without trestles, cart or any support while others (a large gun called THomas with the Beard for example has a carraige)

Two places to look. The second in my opinion one of the best books out on the topic.

The first is a good general history, much better than the Medieval Warfare by Koch, although his books does have some good sections it lacks some. This one is too general in some aspects to be helpful to get a good understanding of a theme but for an overview was good.

Bennett, M., J. Bradbury, K. DeVries, I. Dickie, and P. Jestice. Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World, A.D. 500-150. Staplehurst, 2005.

Bradbury, J. The Medieval Siege. Woodbridge, 1994.

RPM

[Gordon Frye]

Klaus;

Actually, there are several extant examples of such multi-shot "Hande-gonnes". One precisely as you have linked to is shown in the book "Guns" by Dudley Pope (Hamlyn Publishing, London, 1969) pg 41. I am positive that it was the source for the illustration that Dr. Wagner drew for his book. There is also a similar beast called a "Holy Water Sprinkler", consisting of a pole with three short barrels mounted to it, and spikes surrounding the barrel cluster. The description of the photograph says" Known as a 'Holy Water Sprinkler', it was described in a Tower of London inventory of 1547 as 'Holly Water Sprinckes wt the gonnes in the topp'" Kind of an interesting weapon, I must admit...

Randall is absolutely correct in his statement that they were usually employed in seiges, both in the attack and defense. It seems as though the earliest use of Hand-gonnes was by City Militia's, as they were certainly best used behind cover. The primary reason for the early name for such weapons, "Hackenbüchse" was due to the hook which protruded from the bottom of most of these firearms, used for hooking it over the defensive wall to absorb recoil. The very term "Arquebus" is a French attempt to get their tongues around the German word. "Harquebuse" is the English attempt to get their tongues around the French word.

It seems as though the earliest examples of FIELD use of Hande-gonnes was with the Hussites, but they brought along their own field fortifications in the form of wagons to provide the necessary protection during the slow reloading process. The mass employment of hand-held firearms by Infantry doesn't seem to have gotten really going until the Spaniards discoverd that you could use a solid bloc of pikes to provide youself with very mobile field fortifications in the early 16th Century.

Cheers!

Gordon

[Randall Moffett]

Gordon,

Do you know where the artifact the illustration is based on resides? I have looked all over and come up with nothing. It would be a big help to me if someone knows of one (or more) in existance. One website I found had listed two similar hand guns. So I started looking and it seems to be the same one. Funny it was dated 50 years difference. In the end it could have been in use in both dates so it is not an issue I suppose. I usually look for artifacts or artwork that is contemporary, some of the recreations is taking more liberties than I am comfortable with.

Klaus,

If you look into Hussites try getting some translated primary sources. Some of the secondary work done on them is just flat out regurgitation of Omans work (a long, long, long time ago) with some slight variance . The Hussites were a very impressive force I hope to look into more someday. M. Bennet estimates of 6000 men army likely about a max of 366 handgunners, the Hodetin Ordinance of 30 men units each should have two gunners (14 flailmen, 4 halbardiers, 6 crossbowmen, 2 shieldmen, 2 drivers) which would make them probably the first large scale employment of guns (large and small) in the medieval period. It would seem they had a cavalry arm and infantry force with some archers as well waiting to attack as well. Rarely is it clear what types of guns being used. Like gordon said they basically brought their own fortress with them so somewhat abnormal. The osprey book is actually better than I thought it would be (I even bought it) so worth a read if you are interested.

RPM

[Jessen Klaus]

I have found another drawing og this type of handgonne.
in the book : Le costume L'armure et les armes aus temps de la chevalerie
written by Liliane & Fred Funcken with art by Eduard Wagner

I find this weapon so facinating that I am planning to have a working replica made.
A "rapid" fire weapon so early came as a real surpise to me.

[Randall Moffett]

I have seen that one as well. If I were to do it for living history stuff I likely would use mid 15th as it has a much more solid basis from documents etc. Hopefully the information helped. One weakness that you likely realized is basically it is a one fire deal. It would take quiet a long time to clean and reload that thing. I also often wonder if the barrels were set off one by one or all at once for this reason. I cannot imagine it being used as a club after as it would seem very likely to damage the barrels as well.

If you do get one made please post pictures.

RPM

[Michael Mercier]

I don't know anything about them, but I found one that came up for auction here in the states a few years back in an auction catalog a friend gave me. When I get over this nasty flu and ear infection I will scan it so you can check it out.

Mike

[Gordon Frye]

Randall;

The photo acknowledgements in the back of the book for that photo are for the Bernisches Histiorisches Museum, so I assume that the four-barreled piece resides there. They also have a single-barreled piece with it's original haft pictured as well, which I assume is in the same collection. That's about all I can offer, unfortunately. The "Holy Water Sprinkler" though was supposed to still be in The Tower as of the books printing, so I would assume that it is still within the Royal Armouries collection somewhere.

I hope that this helps somewhat in your research.

Cheers!

Gordon

[Randall Moffett]

Gordon,

Thanks for the info. I did some searches and emailed the museum (at least I think it was them) and recieved a nice email that they did not know what I was talking about (worded much more nicely of course). Perhaps someone has seen it in person? I have seen a picture of the tudor one but I thought it was dates 1557 so did not bring it up.

Jim Bradbury brings up the novelty factor as well for ealry firearms (14th century-early 15th), which if you follow some scholars opinion of urban location as being they play acted soldier more or less (which I do not agree much with, but earlier on it is clear- in london for example- they buy guns fairly early {mid 14th} but only have enough powder to fire it once or twice I'd think so clearly not intended to defend the city alone, or at all perhaps but it had to be experimented with to develop into the powerful weapon it is now).

RPM

[Gordon Frye]

Randall;

Good luck in your search. I seem to remember it being Swiss from some other publication too, so hopefully it's "somewhere" in the bowels of that museum, or some other one nearby. We can hope! (I'll try to get a scan of the photo later too, and post it for you. That might help remind them what it is you're talking about.)

I think that there really is something to the "Novelty Factor Theory" as it were. But I agree, it wasn't "playing soldier" for most Urban Militias of the day. It was very real, and a new and useful technology was being embraced as perhaps something to help them get the edge over the very real threats of capricious rulers and/or enemies. A little fire and brimstone, along with a high-velocity pellet of lead which would easily pierce maille (I know there have been long, long discussions as to the maille-piercing ability of bows here... ) wasn't something to be discounted when defending hearth and home.

Anyway, Good Luck in your search! I'll see what other sources for such beasts are in my library.

Cheers!

Gordon

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Mmm. The Hussites are also the earliest example I know of battlefield use of the handgonnes, but after them there were plenty of references of skirmishers equipped with handgonnes in European armies, particularly in Italy. They were considered quite effective--but less because of their guns than their relatively heavy armor, which made them stronger than most other skirmishers in close combat. Obviously they carried hand-to-hand weapons that would have been quite effective in this context.

It doesn't seem likely that they would have used the multibarreled weapons, though. The thing looks a bit too unwieldy for skirmishers meant to move around in loose array.

[Randall Moffett]

I would not see handguns good at all skirmishing somewhat better for the battlefields but not by much until the next century or at least the very end of the 15th. The slow seige definitly. Even with a slow match instead of the need of a heat source for keeping wires or whatever else was possibly used it took a fair amount of time for the powder to go off, it took a fair amount of time to reload. From what I can tell the reload time is comparible to a heavy draw crossbow but the crossbow does not have to wait for the powder to fire (which could be significant, sometimes not at all) inferior in this one aspect to the crossbow until the 16th century. The handgun seems to initially be used by militias or perhaps small groups of professional mercinaries- often with cannons the same people who made them. In italy they continued to use the crossbow and bow in war and for navy and skirmishers into the 16th century as well,eventhough the handgun was making marked improvements. It was not until the italian-french wars where in full swing they turn from the crossbow (possibly due to spanish involvement who at the end of the reconquista used numbers of gunners inside their crossbow ranks) If you have some sources on the use of guns for skirmishers that would be useful because it goes against most of the sources, primary and secondary I have seen and would be interesting. The big beneifts of early guns, ease of use, cheapness and penetration, perhaps novelty, noise, smoke etc. being what in the end makes them win over traditional missle weapons still had major weaknesses in the late medieval period that took deaces (centuries) to overcome.

The Hussites were unique with guns in most of the 15th as far as gun use goes. They also basically used movable fortresses changing it from a battlefield to a siege scenario almost. When the hussites did skirmishing it was crossbowmen and bowmen (slingers perhaps as well) not handgunners from what I can tell and in their rides into outside countries it was mounted crossbows and bowmen as well from teh primary info I have seen.

Again if you know of them used so let me know, I always am up for a good read,

RPM

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Well, the handgonne was not the most prevalent weapon among skirmishers back then--that much is obvious. But some primary sources on late 15th-century battles and skirmishes in Italy do mention the use of handgunners in roles other than as the defenders of fortified strongpoints, usually (and naturally) brigaded together with crossbowmen in skirmishing formations. I'll go and look through my bookshelf and link collections for quotations (or at least a book title or two).

[Randall Moffett]

That would be great. I have only seen them on battlefields mixed ranks amoung pther troops- crossbows and pikes, Burgundian had a much larger mix of troops with them as well. Thanks again.

RPM

[Daniel Staberg]

Infact handgunners began to replace crossbownmen and archers on a large scale in Italy already during the later half of the 15th Century. They were especially numerous in the Venetian and Milanese armies, Milan fielded 2000 handgunner out of a total of 10.000 infantry in 1476, the Milanese troops sent to the War of Ferrara included 1250 handgunners, 352 arquebusiers and only 233 crossbowmen.

The Swiss made frequent use of the handgun in skirmishes during the Burgundian war were it was used together with the crossbow, it's quite clear that larg part of the missile troops carried handsguns, indeed at the battle of Nancy all Swiss misslie troops were handgunners.

[Richard Fay]

Hello all!

I thought this excerpt from Ewart Oakeshott's A Knight and his Weapons may be of interest in regard to the discussion of the use of handgonnes:

[Randall Moffett]

Daniel,

I have seen alot of those figues in secondary work but looking in arrays the scene looks much different. I have seen contemporay sources that indicate a fair number of crossbowmen were in the swiss force at Nancy. In the swiss cantons they still appear in the minority in the few I have seen after 1480. That is not to say that that region is per se is a good example of the entire country but it works both ways. I feel often people look for specific examples and use what suits them without making a decent survey of the big picture. What needs to be done is look at numbers. Some I looked at showed no missle weapons at all. If you like I can point you to an excellent PhD on the Swiss that has a bibliography that contains many of the sources I have looked at. (A.L. Winkler, The Swiss and War:The Impact of Society on the Swiss Military in the 14th and 15th Centuries, Brigham Young University, PhD 1982).

In italy There are still large numbers of crossbowmen from the inventories I have come across as well, Milan not issuingg them for use in the Militia by one of their their ordinances till 1490, from which point it seems they make drastic use of them. I think secondary ( especially modern) sources have blow their use way out of proportion. That is not to say they were not employing companies of handgunners though. I just think iif the examples of handgunner outnumbering crossbows are so prevalent why is the same examples used so often? (here is a great starting point on Italian information; http://vlib.iue.it/hist-italy/medieval.html#src, I have not looked through them all- slow going in italian- but perhaps something to give a broader perspective)

In germany which seemed to be a leader in their use The crossbow companies did not become very numerous until the second quarter of the 15th. They coninue to grow in numbers into the 16th were they turn to shooting clubs for fun. I have not spent the time needed to make a good assesment in any finality but the original sources I have seen do not seem to indicate generally that the handgun had replaced the crossbow until the next century. I do not think they likely were surpassed numerically either.

I have not seen any primary sources regarding the Ferrara and the milanese men sent yet to understand its context.

Until about 1470 The numers of handgunners appear to have been far fewer than crossbowmen. There after there are examples where this changes where more hand gunners are fielded but I have not seen anything to make me think it had completely changed yet.

I tend to look at it as a bell curve with weapon use. It starts small, reaches a zenith then slowly fades till it is hung over some farmers chimeny place.

If you have some good contemporary sources do let me know. always up for a good read.

RPM

[Gordon Frye]

Certainly in France proper (rather than Burgundian lands) the crossbow outnumbered the various firearms until well into the 16th Century. Montluc's discussion of his disappointment in having most of his own Gascon arquebusiers (who he had carefully raised rather than the more numberous Crossbowmen) taken from him to help outfit another company is a case in point, and is, I believe, after Pavia, even. But that's just France, and obviously the rest of Europe had a much different attitude towards the Hande-gonne up to that point.

Cheers!

Gordon