[Lafayette C Curtis]

Are there any accounts of medieval personal firearms (handgonnes, coulevrins, hook guns, and whatever) being loaded with a large number of small shot rather than a single large ball--in other words, a predecessor of later blunderbusses and shotguns? I'm already aware that alternative loads like "buck and ball" were not uncommon for matchlock arquebuses and later firearms, but I'm curious about just how far back this practice goes in history.

[Merv Cannon]

Hi Lafayette.......
I am familiar with "Hailshot Pieces" but these are usually a medium sized gun that was mounted either on a stand or on a ship's rail. They fired prepared Hailshot "canisters" which were sometimes flat and triangular ( or square ) as some barrels were rectangular ! They sometimes fired square metal cubes...like large dice and worked with devestating effect as anti-personal devices...almost like a Claymore mine which spread out in a fan shape discharge.
I am not sure just how small hailshot pieces were made but I have a feeling I have a photo of a small one somewhere and I will try to find it. The only photo I have attached at the moment shows some hailshot pre-packaged shot "canisters".
Meanwhile theres a review of them at the Royal Armouries here >
http://www.royalarmouries.org/extsite/view.jsp?sectionId=3008

[Luka Borscak]

Ivan (John) Talovac, prior of Hospitallers in Croatia and Hungary and captain of Belgrade at the siege of Belgrade in 1440 used guns that could fire ten small lead balls against Murad II. He also used guns that fired one ball at longer range.

[Robin Palmer]

As somebody who does medieval gunnery I have done some research on shot fired from muzzle loading guns. From what I have read I suspect that multiple shot are as old as guns the first probably pebbles proof is hard to find but I quote. 'Absence of written proof is not proof of absence'. In this case I believe we have to go with common sense.

[Jared Smith]

At least by the 16th century you can find some stubby kettle shaped cannons that look best suited for firing grapeshot in my opinion. 14th century cannons all seem to look like they were intended for solid cannon balls.

[Randall Moffett]

From written records there are a few instances so seems to be rare. I would suspect though that it had to take place and more and more over the 15th as by the 16th century it is a known and used tactic in warfare, especially naval. So just as many aspects of medieval guns this probably was something that was experiemented somewhere and slowly was realized to have great use in war.

Something also to keep in mind is that they used 'organ' guns' as well, which were multi barreled guns that seem to have been fired at the same time or close to it. This would give you a fair number of shot at one time with their own barrels. In Southampton they have an 'organ' gun on a cart I assume to be a ribald like devise as it's repairs to the barrels and chambers require a great deal of money and materials, much more than for a small one.

RPM

[Robin Palmer]

Hi jarrard.

To a point I agree, the first illustration of a gun in England dates to the 1360s and shows a vase gun firing an arrow. Recently a reproduction was built with a bore of 1.5 inches and fired an arrow over three hundred yards on a two ounce charge. In guns with a bore below 3 inch there is little point in loading anything other than ball the shot would be to small to be effective except at extremely short ranges a 1.5 inch ball weighs a quater of a pound. Plus 14th- 15th century gunners were firing at armoured opponents which would have reduced the effect considerably. Used at short range in a gate or passage it would have been somewhat more effective. I suspect that once guns got big enough to to fire a decent weight of shot hail shot became common. That is not to say that even relatively small bore guns would not have used hail shot if circumstances called for it if shot ran out anything would be used and a hand full of gravel while possibly not particulaly damaging to armoured men at range would serve to make them reluctant to close in.

[Jared Smith]

I won't question your ballistics! Many current day articles on early Chinese hand held cannons don't say a lot about the weight of the earliest projectile. Cannons just prior to European medieval cannon are being described as firing arrow like projectiles by many modern authors. They could be mistaken, I don't know.

The first English Officer of Ordinance was appointed some time around 1321 (forgot exact year.) The cannon ordinance division (typically 10,000 or more for management of supplies, teams of horses, and wagons, etc.) was utilized against the Scottish and the French (Calais, 1325 I think, but am not checking any references.) The balls were several hundred pounds each. Somewhere in 14th century era, the "burning cannon balls" was also mentioned, which suggests the possibility of trying or stumbling upon the exploding cannon ball design.

The Turkish powder being distributed into Europe was actually superior to Chinese powder at this point. Not all of the guns were cast either. I read an article on a single piece forged cannon of the era (possibly Bohemian in origin or made somewhere closer to Turkey) that was a 28' long, single piece forged/ forge welded cannon. The author did metallurgical examination and stated that it was equal in terms of internal pressure strength capability to modern quality big guns, and the alloy was remarkably corrosion resistant and well suited to the powder of that era. That one was estimated to have fired 1200 pound balls. Its balls would have most likely gone farther than archer range, and punched right through piled stone walls of older era fortifications in my opinion.

I figure the really big guns were siege machines. After the first experience with such a gun, one would not arbitrarily tote around something that required 10,000 horses and many more men just for open field battle.

As a possible interesting side note, Saddam Hussein had actually employed scientists to engineer a 200 foot long cannon for the purpose of firing orbital projectiles that could strike countries on the other side of the globe. Don't scoff too hard, it is actually possible and even NASA contemplated a similar device for delivery of bulk materials into space. I am glad to say, neither project progressed very far due to various draw backs (vulnerability of such a large cannon, and launch severity effects on payloads).

[Randall Moffett]

Jared,

From what I have seen in the 1320's there are few to no guns used in England. In fact even outside of England the use of firearms in the 1320's seems to eb very limited, Froissart in the 1380's indicating it is used mostly to light buildings on fire over shooting at stonework. The king of england does not have more than a dozen guns (including possible hand guns) until right before the crecy campaign which as far as I know was the first possible use by a monarch in england in warfare. As far as I can tell there is no new positions made up in the kings household for gunpowder weapons until much later, they (firearms) being included in the earlier positions dealing with traditional artillery. At no time in the medieval period did the king of england own over 1000 guns so 10k seems .... incredible. The duke of burgundy and the king of france repudidly had the most guns of any king in christendom and they number somewhere around 150-250 in total, excluding handguns possibly. If you can point me to any primary sources that show this position existed in england that early or that firearms were used in or before the Weardale campaigns I am all ears. London has 4 guns in the 1340's in their town inventory and they are stored in the town hall, seperate from the other weapons and arms I am assuming for a reason.

A good article to read on this is in David Nicolle's 'A Companion to Medieval Arms and Armour' the section of gunpowder weapons is very good, though a few of David's own comments added into the section seem somewhat questionable.

http://www.amazon.com/Companion-Medieval-Arms...0851158722

Robin,

That test was done with some questionable type of powder for the type of gun according some of the more thoughtful reviews on it. Not saying that they could not have a range but testing that does not put the correct powder in to the equation so it may be of doubious use. The second point that Bert Hall brings up in his already mentioned book is that we have no idea how much powder would be added to most types of medieval firearms and he suspects it would be less than more for fear of bursting the guns which happens in the period lit as well as a few extant medieval guns have been found in this state.

Just to share some of the fun documents I have been reading that are related. In Southampton in the 1470's the town gunner is paid twice for a job as the gun appears to have failed and lit his clothing on fire! Appears nothing more serious but this man had worked on guns adn gunpowder for decades so was a pro as they get. Gives us a small glipse perhaps into the many dangers facing the rising science of firearms.

RPM

[Robin Palmer]

Hi Randle

No argument on the variable quality of medieval meal powder on the matter of the test from the illustration I have seen the arrow used in the test seems pretty close to the one shown as to the powder used i cannot comment. On the whole I personally felt it was a fairly good test as it stood and certainly proved the illustrations both fairly practical and showed the arrow effective as weapon. The method of mounting or lack of aside.

On the matter of incendiary gunners. Documents indicate that it was far from uncommom for gunners and especially powder monkeys to go up in flames due to their clothes being covered in meal powder. After a day mixing powder sitting down by a open fire to eat a meal could well prove a little more lively than they expected.

[Jared Smith]

[Randall Moffett]

What are his sources? A secondary source is only as good as the primary one. I actually just took a look at his book a week or so ago as it was for sale in the University book sale between two meetings I had that day. Very general on Medieval history but as it is on modern warfare to be fair. Better secondary sources on medieval firearms exist. As I said above Nicolle's Book has a much more detailed section and complete section on firearms and anyone wishing to really get into firearms need look at Bert Hall's 'Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology, and Tactics'- the title is a bit deceiving as he has a huge part of his book devoted to medieval firearms technology as well as the tactics employed with them.

There is a massive leap between 1314 and 1414 in firearms technology so a comparison like that is not solid. The leap from 1414-1514 is just as massive as well. Before the 1350's-1360's handguns would have been extremely limited in distribution as were cannons-which at this time were little more than large handguns or vase looking devises. In the time of Richard II many of his cannons were in the 200-500 pounds range with a few larger ones. At the end 14th cannons are becoming massive beast of iron that continue in size through the mid 15th making monsters like Mons Meg, huge cannon of 10's of thousands of pounds.

We know what Edward III and Richard II had in their inventories for a great deal of their reigns as their wardrobe rolls include them and still exist. We even have a fair number of details about them, like shot used, number of the weapons. I have not ever seen any contemporary evidence (written close to the time of the Weardale campaigns) that states firearms were used against the scots and the lack of any primary sources on that website does not exactly help change that. The problem is even the primary account need be examined and dissected as if it is written 30 plus years later then one needs ask are they describing war then or now? Though it is possible it would not fit in well with much of the weardale campaign to be lugging a huge number of cannon or whatnot about. It is possible he is using the 'cracks of war' that scared the scots as evidence for gun use from the Brus but three things should be looked at then, one it does not say they killed a soul or used them even at or on the scots, two is that it was written long after the weardale campaign at its earliest being started in the 1360's and last is it may be a form of rocket or greek fire over guns/cannons. 1346 at Crecy is the first date which most medieval military historians date the first english cannon use to- but since only Villani says this and only one of Froissarts last drafts of his Chronicle there is some question if this is accurate even. For argument sake I think it possible, but seemingly had little effect on the battle. On the continent I think 1326 in Mainz, written down some time after the event, but used by most writers as either a very early use of them or the earliest. Going back to what I said above, a secondary source is only as good as the primary one, without it.....

They do state the first ordinance master in England as 1415-1420, which is in the Patent Rolls, so I can agree with that, though whoever put up the sit seems to have felt adding footnotes or information as to where they got this unneeded. They state that by the 1370's there was need to establish ways to manage x, y and z but this is incorrect. The system was easily in place at an earlier time as much of the tower records still exist and the close and patent rolls attest to with the moving of huge numbers of items in and out of it as well as new men called to work there in select offices. Before cannons and guns were of any great use in warfare other weapons were in their place and the tower of london seems to have been a storage admin site for this well before 1370's and firearms. Now I am sure they would need men who knew cannons, firearms and gunpowder well enough to do this but they would just have been implemented into the old system at this time. The fact it took till 1410's to get a master of ordinance should be telling of this as before that date it appears to have not been seen essential to split the general arms and armour from them. Henry V is the first english monarch to really get firearms moving. His sieges in France employ firearms to great extent along side traditional siege weapons and mining.

In the 14th century firearms are very limited in number and use, especially the earlier you get, But Devries thinks Bevenshout was an example of firearms taking center stage, though I do not agree with him, it is a good article on this subject. In fact most of the monarchs of the time have some type of inventories about to explain this. There is one account that states Charles the Bold of Burgundy's Father had some 5000 guns but strangely in the reign of his son he only has several hundreds? Very unlikely to get rid of several thousands of firearms so perhaps literary exaggeration? Not sure.

The thousands of men needed seems somewhat high but likely is from a primary source of Christine de Pisan. It took some 200 men just to move mons meg in the late 15th if I remember right so 1,000 of men needed for cannons and such is possible. Here is her book online for your viewing satisfaction, the Book of Deeds of Arms and Chivalry.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&id=...iY#PPP1,M1

What she states of military matters is likely pretty solid advice but it likely is what an ideal army or general would have or employ in this situations. Seems very unlikely it was actually 100% rule in the time but gives an idea of how much things might have been without a number of constraints.

Enjoy the reading it is very interesting both for tactics and equipment to me. Sorry for the long winded response but this is what I do all day so I love to talk about it.

When I have a second I will post some info about an inventory from Southampton with firearms but more importantly their organ gun whihc may or may not be a medieval shot gun.

RPM

[Randall Moffett]

Something else that was an interesting read as well.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GmQVan-M3y...en#PPP1,M1

RPM

[Robin Palmer]

Randle On the matter of the size of Charles the Bolds artillery park I have read acounts which state he had up to a thousand war carts many with multiple small barrels. Even if only half had multiple barrels that is between 1000- 2500 barrels five barrels being a reasonable fit for a war cart. I own a reproduction with five 1.5'' breech loaders on it so I know it is practical add organ guns with up to ten smaller barrels or more and the figure becomes understandable and realistic.

[Peter Lewis]

I have never heard of a medievel blunderbuss or volley gun, but there must have been one.?

[Randall Moffett]

Robin,

Once more it is not a question of any complicated math or guess work. We know how many cannons/guns/etc. Charles the Bold had in his artillery Park as it is in his records. Never exceeds several hundreds. Hey I am suprised this was online! Some good info on Charles from Murten with sources to back check if you like. Another good one would be the Artillery of the Dukes of Burgundy-

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nEQ7FUAdmc...&hl=en

The problem you are looking at is comparing the chroniclers with the little nerdy guys who sit in the castle keeping inventory. The Chroniclers are able to exaggerate without issue but clerks and other bean counter types might offer less emotion but often have more accurate details especially numbers. Charles the Bold seems to have had about 250-300 in his camp total but usually would not bring all of them to once place. Of course after a great loss he might have to buy more but this would not increase them. Problem is burgundy has a great number of archives from this period but much has remained unread for more interesting writing I suppose, rightly I do not know. Exaggeration aside if you have a few barrels and powder, gear and other needed items in a wagon the account still is true so likely not stating the wagons are brim full of them but they are divided into varied wagons. Of course if they are speaking of barrels in the account and refering to organ guns you could easily have some scores of organ guns with hundreds if not more barrels but still only 1 gun per barrel.

Charles at several points seems to have a hard time recruiting handgunners so hardly something out of the ordinary as they seem to have been the early adaptor of it. Usually he would just recruit extra crossbowmen and archers to fill them out. I think this takes place between his first and second ordinances but I am sure someone that is more familiar with the original sources from burgundy could help you more.

A decent sized artillery park into the 16th is around a hundred. Of course the more the merrier but they had real constraints like transport, cost to manufacture and transport etc. that always limited the numbers.


Peter,

The organ gun pops up in textual evidence fairly often. There are few pictures but in Southampton where I am doing my research right now they have one organ gun on a cart, seemingly one at least is a ribald or gun cart. They have many chambers for each barrel as well indicating a multi barreled weapons with 2-3 chambers each, likely to speed up reload time. Though as Hall suggests allowing the barrels to cool after each fire would have to be allowed to cool it with the type of metal and technology available to make them at the time. I think there are a few existant as well but I cannot find any pictures.

Attached is a picture of a replica (firing) handgun from late 14th into the 15th. Not a organ type but still a nice repo.

RPM

[Jared Smith]

At least as I read that reference (really thank you...interesting) Charles the Bold utilized 6220 people for 200 weapons, only 60 to 80 of which were heavy artillery. This does not count guards. For sieges, a figure for the number of balls (I agree they might have been arrows or non-conventional projectiles earlier), a number I have seen quoted as shipped with the gun is around 1200 projectiles. The projectiles and powder significantly outweigh the gun and its bulk if you start to think about having enough materials to fire the gun a few times per day for a siege that might last a couple of years. It is small wonder that the wagoners made up the bulk of the entourage!

[Shahril Dzulkifli]

There's no denying that shotguns, although not created during the Middle Ages, were developed from medieval weapons like blunderbusses, muskets and arquebuses.

[Randall Moffett]

Jared,

I tried finding a funny account from the 1460s or 1480s where King James of Scotland is trying to move Mons Meg from the Castle of Edinburgh and the weight causes it to slip off into a ditch or something and it takes several hundred people to remove it.

In the mid 15th the king of France basically arrests huge numbers of wagons, even from church leaders to move his armies gear, especially artillery and their stuff. It would have been a logistical nightmare I am guessing.

Glad you liked the articles. I am impressed daily by the fact more and more good sources are becoming widely available online.

RPM

[Lafayette C Curtis]