Archers v. artillery

[Duncan Head]

Smith & De Vries' Artillery of the Dukes of Burgundy has an interesting account of Montlhery 1465. Some sources - de Haynin, Olivier de la Marche  - have Burgundian gunfire apparently provoking the French charge, French capturing Burgo guns, Charles trying to retake them, and eventually gunfire driving the French back and making them flee. Such success, plus their role at Brusten against the Liegeois, helps to explain why Charles may have expected too much of his guns against the Swiss.

But despite the French presumably having lots of archers, both Ordonnance and francs-, they seem to have chosen to attack rather than try to shoot down gun-crews.

[Duncan Head]

When do we first hear of guns being spiked to render recapture irrelevant?

Translations of Balbi refer to spiking guns at Malta 1565 - though this is spiking your own guns when abandoning an outwork.

[Erpingham]

To add a couple of elements to Duncan's report of Montlhery, The Burgundians had most of their guns "dug in", with a few in advance of the main line.  Also, the French not only overan the guns but dragged some off and the Burgundians counter attacked to get them back, so Formingny isn't an isolated instance.

[Andreas Johansson]

When do we first hear of guns being spiked to render recapture irrelevant?

Translations of Balbi refer to spiking guns at Malta 1565 - though this is spiking your own guns when abandoning an outwork.

Thanks. Inching closer to our period.

I've read the Smith & De Vries book, but I'd forgotten the account of Montlhery (based mostly on Haynin - Commines from memory pays rather less attention to gunnery in his account). It's not clear to me from the account tho if the serpentines in front of the main line were protected or exposed. Overall, tho, the battle is clearly another example of artillery being used from field fortifications.

[Erpingham]

I've read the Smith & De Vries book, but I'd forgotten the account of Montlhery (based mostly on Haynin - Commines from memory pays rather less attention to gunnery in his account). It's not clear to me from the account tho if the serpentines in front of the main line were protected or exposed. Overall, tho, the battle is clearly another example of artillery being used from field fortifications.

Agree on the serpentines.  S & DV do place more emphasis on those accounts that pay a lot of attention to the guns, for obvious reasons.  The French guns are brought into action from the march and so had no time to emplace but the Burgundians had plenty of prep time.

For those who haven't read it and are interested in battlefield use of artillery in this period should note the Burgundians had a lot of it - 700-800 wagons were in the artillery train - and they opened fire at range to provoke the French to attack in an unco-ordinated manner.  The French obliged but the Burgundian plan seems to have gone wrong because instead of being cut down as they attack the gun position, they overran it.  S & DV claim that the artillery was very effective but this is hard to prove as it is unclear what the casualties were, let alone what caused them.  The Burgundian despatch claimed, however, that in the initial phase, involving the guns, 1200-1400 French and a large number of horses were killed.  It is hard to see how this could be determined other than guesswork, though.   

[Patrick Waterson]

S & DV claim that the artillery was very effective but this is hard to prove as it is unclear what the casualties were, let alone what caused them.  The Burgundian despatch claimed, however, that in the initial phase, involving the guns, 1200-1400 French and a large number of horses were killed.  It is hard to see how this could be determined other than guesswork, though.

When the heralds and priests were counting the slain as the locals separated them out for burial, it would have been possible, assuming some sufficiently diligent heralds and/or scribes, to count the number of bodies with missing heads, torsos, limbs, cannonball-sized holes and similar indicators that the simple arrow or arme blanche had not been the cause of death.

These casualties would also presumably be laid out on the field in a location distinct from the bodies of both sides piled on the actual gun positions, which might anyway allow a guesstimate-by-eye of how many bodies were in that particular part of the field, at least in time for a despatch.  Such a coup d'oeil estimate would obviously have a certain plus or minus factor; might this tie in with the indefiniteness of the actual figures given?  ("Sire, it looks like more than a thousand but less than 1,500; the horses are many, but whether three hundred or seven hundred I could not say.")

[Erpingham]

When the heralds and priests were counting the slain as the locals separated them out for burial, it would have been possible, assuming some sufficiently diligent heralds and/or scribes, to count the number of bodies with missing heads, torsos, limbs, cannonball-sized holes and similar indicators that the simple arrow or arme blanche had not been the cause of death.

Apologies, I haven't given you all the information in our source.  We know this is a guesstimate not a count because , although written four days after the battle, it states

Concerning the number of French dead, the truth has not yet been ascertained, but there are said to be many and inummerable wounded.

This may in part be because the situation after the battle was chaotic and all sorts of pursuits and skirmishes took place, so the Burgundians hadn't collated the reports.  The number given may be the number of bodies collected in that area of the field - it was July, so I doubt there was much CSI type inspection of cause of death.

Incidentally, Richard Vaughan : Philip the Good quotes both the first French and Burgundian reports.  Both eye witness, the French written the day after the battle.

The Burgundians reckon they killed "many" French, but at least 1200-1400 on the field.  They say they lost 300-400 men killed.
The French report ( by Louis XI himself) reckons they killed 1400-1500 Burgundians on the field, captured 2-300 and killed or captured 2000 in pursuit.  French killed were said to be a tenth of the Burgundian, so 140-150 men.

One or both parties isn't telling the truth.  I'm very dubious about the French figures because the letter proclaims a French victory when they had been beaten and were in retreat.  But it does show the risk of accepting medieval figures, even from well-connected eye witnesses, at face value.

One final fact is that Vaughan says in a footnote that the ammunition expenditure of the Burgundian archers and artillery at the battle is in the archives.  Alas, he doesn't quote it.

[Mark G]

Good stuff chaps,

But I am seeing lots of examples of guns against a fixed target (in a static defensive position, even if without wood or stone), which is countered not by archery, but by a charge (provoked or not).

Take formigny .  Were there any archers near to use against those provoking guns?

That might tell us whether the arrows were better kept for something else.  Or not, if they were elsewhere.

[Patrick Waterson]

Incidentally, Richard Vaughan : Philip the Good quotes both the first French and Burgundian reports.  Both eye witness, the French written the day after the battle.

The Burgundians reckon they killed "many" French, but at least 1200-1400 on the field.  They say they lost 300-400 men killed.
The French report ( by Louis XI himself) reckons they killed 1400-1500 Burgundians on the field, captured 2-300 and killed or captured 2000 in pursuit.  French killed were said to be a tenth of the Burgundian, so 140-150 men.

One or both parties isn't telling the truth.  I'm very dubious about the French figures because the letter proclaims a French victory when they had been beaten and were in retreat.  But it does show the risk of accepting medieval figures, even from well-connected eye witnesses, at face value.

That it does; something of a hazard with this period, it appears, although I would be more inclined to doubt specifically those which contradict each other and, as you have done, look to context for clues as to who might have been more economical with the truth rather than assuming that everyone habitually got it wrong.  Classical figures seem by contrast to have been firmer because of traditions like giving back the dead, counting bodies to qualify for a (Roman) triumph, the Persian habit of 'resuming arrows' after a campaign, etc.

One might expect Roman generals to inflate figures of enemy dead in order to get a triumph, but they did not: I think it was Cato who stood accused of killing a few hundred local villagers to make up the requisite number, which indicates the count was real even if there was a temptation to make up any shortfall in nefarious ways.

One final fact is that Vaughan says in a footnote that the ammunition expenditure of the Burgundian archers and artillery at the battle is in the archives.  Alas, he doesn't quote it.

A pity, as this sort of thing is useful to wargamers and even more so to rules writers.

Take formigny .  Were there any archers near to use against those provoking guns?

Lt-Col Burne (The Agincourt War) specifically states that it was archers who charged and took the French guns.

[Erpingham]

That it does; something of a hazard with this period, it appears, although I would be more inclined to doubt specifically those which contradict each other and, as you have done, look to context for clues as to who might have been more economical with the truth rather than assuming that everyone habitually got it wrong.

I admit to having the advantage of having Vaughan's book in front of me and having been reading the accounts, secondary and contemporary (if you haven't read Commines wonderful participant's account, please do.  It was written a long time later but it is vivid, engaging, poignant and humourous in places and gives a marvelously chaotic view of a medieval battle from the inside).

Looking at context, Loius XI is withdrawing with quite a small remnant of his army.  It is the day after the battle and he is probably just receiving first reports, which he is spinning to best effect (Louis XI wasn't the universal spider for nothing).  His low casualty estimate is probably based on assuming most of his missing army just being scattered and not lost.

The Burgundian despatch is four days after the battle.  They have probably arranged the disposal of the dead and have a count.  They've retrieved their strays, the pursuers have come back, may have received back some of their prisoners which their captors have released on licence and have probably sent heralds to enquire after others.

Context wise, we can see what the levels of reliability are.

[Mark G]

The archers charged the guns, rather than volleyed at the gunners.

Now that must surely tell us something.

[Erpingham]

Lt-Col Burne (The Agincourt War) specifically states that it was archers who charged and took the French guns.

Which fact he takes from Robert Blondel's account.  The action starts with the English deployed in three lines behind a ditch and emplacement of stakes.  The archers are at the front in three bodies, one beside the other. The French archers make an attack on the position and are beaten off.  The French gunner Master Girault brings up two guns to provide more firepower, which are covered by the archers.  The English archers attack their French opposite numbers, drive them off and try to drag off the guns.  Pierre de Breze, commanding the French van, launches a counter attack and drives off the English retaking the guns.  Thus ends phase 1 of the action.

For those who like co-incidences, the seizure of the serpentines at Montlhery was done by men under Pierre de Breze's command.  Among the Burgundian gunners was one Master Girault (though we can't be sure it was the same man).

So, the archers attack because they are the men in front.  They are not just dealing with two guns in isolation but guns supporting archers.  To pick up Mark's point, the arrows may have primarily been expended at them as the primary threat.

There doesn't seem to be an English translation of Blondel.  There's an English edition of the original Latin (which I can't find the bit about guns is on p.172) but there is a French translation of Blondel's works on Gallica (you need vol 2, starts p.355)

[Patrick Waterson]

Goodness, Anthony, you have been busy!

Reading between the lines (as the lines themselves are not entirely explicit about the answers we seek) it looks as if the French gunners shot their pieces, then while they were reloading the English, who had been exchanging arrows with the French missilemen generally, charged, defeated the French archers and took the guns.  What we do not appear to have is an explicit statement that either the gunners perished under the clothyard shafts or that they betook themselves out of harm's way.

The guns were brought up during the action, the question being whether they brought anti-missile protection with them.  They presumably went into action while the English were still shooting, and perhaps from the same distance as the French archers (unless the latter opened a gap in the centre for them to shoot through).  If alongside the French archers, they would have needed protection.  If they were further back, they would not.  Best guess?  They were further back, the French archers having divided to let them shoot, and lacked protection.  Being vulnerable would not have mattered while they remained out of bowshot.  It would mean that if anything happened to their covering archers the crews would have to run for their lives faster than one can say "civilian artillery driver".

Andreas' original question presupposed the longbowmen being in range and free to shoot (i.e. not dealing with more pressing matters, e.g. French archers).  So far we have mainly been skirting around that issue by looking at other considerations.  I think we owe Andreas our best attempt at an answer, which as far as I can see is that unprotected gun crews in range would have been slaughtered in short order, while protected gun crews (those with mantlets or pavises or equivalent structures attached to the gun frames) would have been able to operate almost without risk of casualties.  I shall qualify that last statement by saying this would be true of breechloaders; muzzle-loaders (the Formigny 'culverins' would have been such) would be able to benefit from screening provided the guns recoiled upon firing and the screens did not so that reloading could be carried out without half the crew needing to be exposed, but having to reposition the guns exactly at the screens would have noticeably slowed the rate of fire.  The process of reloading and moving such a muzzle-loader back into position would render the crew somewhat vulnerable to indirect shooting while performing these activities if the enemy could see them (the guns' smoke would help to inhibit this), indicating that the higher the mantlets (if any), the better.

[Dangun]

One or both parties isn't telling the truth... But it does show the risk of accepting medieval figures, even from well-connected eye witnesses, at face value.

This is cool Anthony. I don't know this encounter at all, but when we get two eye-witness literary accounts that obviously conflict, it makes you wonder how often our single literary sources are (unbeknownst to us) giving us similar fiction.

[Jim Webster]

One or both parties isn't telling the truth... But it does show the risk of accepting medieval figures, even from well-connected eye witnesses, at face value.

This is cool Anthony. I don't know this encounter at all, but when we get two eye-witness literary accounts that obviously conflict, it makes you wonder how often our single literary sources are (unbeknownst to us) giving us similar fiction.

well on Ancmed we had the discussion about whether the battle of Zama actually happened.
All historians have their bias, it's probably that people who don't really care about what's going on don't bother writing history 

Jim