I'll give the answer a go when I get home from work tonight.

--------------------

The records from the Tower of London show a variety of guns of varying types and sizes being held.

I can't remember the foundry details but I don't think there was any dedicated supplier, and certainly others were able to purchase/acquire guns from sources other than the King.

Like the guns, Powder was bought in and stored, but could also be bought as constituent parts and produced on site. For example in the 1457 the Stewards accounts for Southampton list the expenses for 'the gunners man' to grind powder.

As an aside, the term Cannon is not used much in the C15th, Gunne being far more common as a generic term.

There is alot more info available in published form but I haven't looked at it for some time so please excuse my poor memory

On the Continent (and in England in general, although artillery development lagged behind the continent until Henry VIII reign) the Gun founder and master gunner were often one in the same person. In large, if you can found a large bronze object like a bell, you can found a cannon. Most likely some of the first artillery founders were bell founders as well.

While the largest user of artillery on a large scale were Royalty and soveriegn princes, Any noble with some pretensions, and any city or town of any size spent a deal of effort to equip themselves with the new technology. The town of Bruge is recorded as having paid the master gunner of Baudoin de Lannoy for inspecting and suggesting the best places to emplace the towns artillery.

When the Ducal park of artillery at Dijon was in large part lost at Grandson in 1476, the Duke of Burgundy was easily able to replace his losses by drawing ordinance from his towns, and was able to again reequip his artillery train after Morat. In these last two instances, he was relying upoon the private resources of his subjects to make good his losses, and he found them in no way inadequate for the task. In other example, Sir John Fastolf had maintained ordinance in the form of guns with multiple chamres at Caister castle, according to an inventory of his goods upon his death (to give an English example).

Most artillery founding was an urban activity, and there were specialist master gunners who as I have mentioned above, both founded the pieces, and supervised their use in combat. At this time, there was no such thing as a standardized system of artillery - every cannon was a unique entity, with a name (and often baptized as well!), and a non-standard caliber, and its own unique quirks - from the smallest falconet to the largest bombard. The monopolization of the profession by the centeralized government awaited the 16th century (and was a slow process). The first country to start a rationalized process was France, under Charles VII, and Louis XI, who hired the brothers Beaureau (sp) for the task, who are credited with the initial invention of a practical field carriage, trunnions to aide in elevation and aiming, amongst others.

This is the briefest of introductions to the subject. I'd suggest reading Betram Hall's book on Rennaisance warfare, which gives an excellent overview of the development of artillery.

--------------------

It's also probably worth remembering that medieval gunpowder is NOT the same as modern black powder - a lot of books and reenactors assume that "gunpowder is gunpowder", but that's no more true than saying "a horse is a horse".

Firstly, the proportions of Sulphur, charcoal and Saltpetre vary quite considerably between batches of medieval powder - there are various recipes known to have been in circulation, and none of them used the optimum ratio that modern (well, nineteenth-century, I guess!) black powder does.

The medieval equivalent is likely to be 10-30% less powerful, depending on recipe, and make a notably different sound on detonation.

Secondly, the ingredients are combined just by stirring them together as dry powders, rather than wet-milled so that they are completely combined as grains. This means that the heavier ingedients tend to settle out to the bottom of the barrel, so that it needs to be remixed after storage or transport.

Thirdly, medieval powder is much more vulnerable to damp than modern powder - partly because powder has a larger surface area than grains to absorb moisture, and partly because the last process in making modern powder is to "polish" the grains by rolling them in a drum with a little graphite, giving them a more water-resistant surface.

Finally - and this applies to all powder, not just medieval stuff - different-calibre weapons use different powder.

Basically, the coarseness of the powder affects how fast it burns, and there is an optimal coarseness or grain size for any weapon, based on its calibre and barrel length, which will give maximum power without bursting the barrel.

As a rule of thumb, the smaller the bore, the finer the powder should be for maximum energy, so handun powder would be notably finer than that for a bombard, for example. The calculations for this didn't really get done til the "miliary mathematics" of the late c16th, but an experienced gunner would be able to judge what coarseness was "about right" by experience.

Hope that's of interest

quote:

---

Originally posted by chef de chambre:
in England in general, although artillery development lagged behind the continent until Henry VIII reign

---

Part of the problem stems from the way in which the gun is recorded. When we talk about the effectiveness of ordnance we often focus on its role in battles rather than the more passive/defensive role. In this context the slow emplaced gun has a limited role, in contrast to the more mobile field ordnance seen in the Schilling Chronicles. But this is directly equated to the impact of ordnance on the outcome in France (Castillon being the case in point ... yet here is a static assault on emplaced guns, not field-ordnance. And we know that the English had similar guns at the same time.

The problem is not necessarily the technology but he use of it, and how this has been recorded.

On reason for Henry VIII being seen as such an innovator is his purpose built gun fortifications ... low emplacements rather than high walls. Yet this is a questionable innovation. I had cause to mention this to the Editor of one of the most recent books on the defense of the south coast in the 100yrs war ... and he was surprised to say the least ...

the issue was that research has been done on the surviving fortifications, where the new key-hole gun loops are added to city walls during the C15th. Additionally Gods House Tower in Southampton is a purpose built gun fortification dating to the end of the C14th v.early C15th ... alongside the small loops designed for handgun fire!

However what is missed is that the Stewards accounts for the city list the costs of emplacing the guns prior to the defense of the city vs a French raid in 1457 ... the guns were emplaced on earth embrasures outside of the walls ... these have not (to my knowledge) ever been studied ... but they fit precisely with the descriptions of the use of ordnance at both Castillon and Northampton.

The guns were stored in the Towers ... but not necessarily used there.

However ordnance does seem to have a slightly less 'glorious' record in the Wars of the Roses ... compare the fairlure at Northampton with the success of Castillon

There are several things to consider ... how far is this recording a real failure and how far is the literary record wanting to relive the glorious and honourable traditional way of fighting?
However there may well be something in this failure ... bewary of thinking gunpowder is gunpowder is gunpowder ... and not just the % proportions that historians focus on ... Salt Petre (Potassium Nitrate) may not have been Potassium Nitrate but Calcium Nitrate in the C14th & C15th ... this works but is more susceptable to water ... and Northampton may have 'slightly' more than Bordeaux!!
Either way ... there is a clear increase in Chronicled reference to the effectiveness of Ordnance in England as the Wars progressed
(The Arrivall gives equal play to bows & guns) also Continental experience was no sure fire guarantee of success ... ask Warwick with his Flemmings at St Albnas

quote:

---

At this time, there was no such thing as a standardized system of artillery - every cannon was a unique entity, with a name (and often baptized as well!), and a non-standard caliber, and its own unique quirks - from the smallest falconet to the largest bombard.

---

Hmm ... the bit about unique names is often banded about in the books but with very little evidence to support it. Yes there were significant pieces which were named ... from the big Bombards like 'London' or 'Thomas with the Beard' (this may relate to the benefactor who supplied it ... Thomas Kyriel before his departure for a French campaign in the 1450's) in Southampton ... but the vast majority of guns were simply given loose type names (loose being very loose) e.g. culverin, serpentine etc. with a brief description and that was it.

It's alos worth noting that unlike later gunners they do not appear to have had 'female' personas.

AIR, many of the surviving Burgundian guns have names on them...... The point is that from inventories in the mid-late 15th century, the indication is that English artillery reached a certain stage by c.1450, and then stayed there (old fashioned hoop & stave guns with chambers), whereas the preponderance of evidence (in the form of the surviving Burgundian gun tubes) shows that development on the continent continued.

This could have as much to do with the English not being comitted to any long term campaigns or strenuous seiges (the campaigns of the WoR being short and seeking decisive battle, rather than following continental practise), whereas the 1450's, 60's and 70's on the Continent saw much more prolonged military activity. Advances in military technology are often forced by circumstane arising in war. Despite popular myth, England was comparitively peaceful. This is reflected by the information we have regarding state of town walls, and many towns remaining unwalled, and a general increase in manor houses of comfort rather than new castles being built.

By the way Neil, Corning of gunpowder, rather than the exclusive use of serpentine cameinto widespread use by mid 15th century, with a proportionate increase in effectiveness of artillery.

--------------------

I know that corning was known by c15th, but I'm not sure it was general practice.

We have several descriptions of corning processes, but (at least the ones I'm familiar with, there may be ones I'm not) all sound like smallscale "craftsman" processes, rather than the kind of industrial process that be needed if it was done routinely for most powder - they are talking about mixing the stuff in a mortar and pestle, for instance.

Also, we have frequent references to "decayed" gunpowder (i.e that the various ingredients had settled out) in documents up to the c15th - ironically, the gunpowder Guy Fawkes was going to have used to blow up parliament was found to be in this condition, and wouldn't have detonated anyway.

This implies that even better than a century later, corned powder was not standard, or at the very least, that uncorned powder was still in use.

As far as I'm aware, (in the UK at least - things may be different on the continent), corned powder becomes the standard for the Navy in the C17th, after trials prove that is clearly better than uncorned...

I'd find it kind of surprising we needed a trial if the corned stuff had been easily available for 200 years at that point?

When you say that many of the Burgundian pieces had names on them ... which ones an where. I can't recall the Burgunderbutte mentioning them ... but it's 10yrs since I looked at it!

My point was really that whilst some had names ... most did not (at least not as far as inventories go in England/Calais).

As to the first practical field carriage being French Chearles VII/Louis IX hmmm ... I'm sure the Firework Book in the Royal Armouries collection predates them and has a perfectly usuage field carriage illustrated. Also there is a Gargoyle on a Church built soon after the battle of Shrewsbury (so c.1402-10) which shows a wheeled carriage for a gun.
However ... most inventoris still list trellsis rather than wheels in the 2nd half of the C15th ... so they become common ... but slowly. As you mention this may have more to do with the wars beoing fought rather than anything else.