1. Cummins 1
Gunpowder Revolution of the Renaissance and the rise of the Modern Armies
Brandon Cummins
History 100w
Dr. Arvanigian
December 10, 2015
2. Cummins 2
During the fifteenth century, Europe experienced a change militarily that would
profoundly affect warfare. This change was ignited by the use of gunpowder, which quickly
transformed the way armies fought one another. The advent of firearms were used to a
devastating effect; the firearm effectively transformed military tactics in Europe for the next six-
hundred years. Similarly, this revolution of weaponry combined with the destructive power of
the cannon, changed how battles would be fought; not only on land, but also on the sea.
However, there is debate amongst historians regarding the scope and impact of gunpowder on
Europe. It can be argued that gunpowder profoundly impacted European warfare, via firearms,
cannons, and fortifications.
Gunpowder came as an accidental result by a Chinese alchemist. The first recorded
evidence of properties of gunpowder was in 808 A.D. which combined six parts sulfur, six parts
saltpeter, and one part birthwort.1 This mixing of compounds by Daoist alchemists was an
attempt at creating a potion for immortality.2 According to Peter Lorge, a renowned Asian
historian, modern gunpowder is a chemical combination of potassium, sodium, magnesium,
sulfur, and charcoal.3 This combination of chemistry provided the essential ingredients for
combustion. In fact, black powder does not explode but burns slowly and expands into a gas that
is used as a propellant to launch a projectile. The more black powder in the tube the quicker it
will burn.
1 Peter A. Lorge. The Asian Military Revolution: From Gunpowder to the Bomb (New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press, 2008), 32.
2 Lorge, The Asian Military Revolution: From Gunpowder to the Bomb, 32.
3 Ibid., 18.
3. Cummins 3
Gunpowder was a military innovation that the Song government saw as clandestine
technology. The Government limited the knowledge for producing gunpowder to a select few
officials of a certain rank. 4 The first use of gunpowder as a weapon was used as incendiaries in
the early ninth century. The Song dynasty of the eleventh century was able to effectively
produce an arsenal of gunpowder weapons. One of the first weapons the Song deployed into
combat was the fire-spear. The fire-spear was not widely used, but was able to effectively
incorporate a tubed design made of bamboo that allowed for a projectile to be launched out of
the tube using gunpowder. This weapon had a short-range, but was very effective in close
quarters combat. When used in volley fire against an enemy who did not possess this technology,
it created a psychological effect on the enemy. The enemy was confused and disoriented from
the shock of the sound thus giving the Song military an advantage. The downfall to the fire-spear
was that it lacked the ability to be used as hand-to-hand combat because the tubing was made out
of paper or bamboo.5
The next evolution in guns was the fire-tube. This weapon combined the tubing of the
fire-spear with a much needed upgrade of an iron tube that launched small projectiles, rather than
a spear.6 The fire-tube allowed a soldier to not be limited to a shrapnel shot, but also be able to
use the iron tube as a club in hand-to-hand combat. The fire-tube was also an effective short-
range weapon hurling projectiles 20 to 30 feet.7 Being able to shoot shrapnel was more
advantageous than shooting a single pellet shot because it had the potential of inflicting damage
over a large area. The Chinese used these gunpowder weapons primarily for siege and naval
4 Ibid., 33.
5 Ibid., 37.
6 Ibid., 37.
7 Ibid., 38.
4. Cummins 4
warfare but, gradually they used gunpowder weapons for anti-personnel.8 Guns were used
primarily as an auxiliary artillery weapon in China rather than a primary weapon. These weapons
were used defensively rather than offensively when a city was being besieged. The evolution of
the gun was a slow and tedious process that did not fully develop in China until the 12th and the
13th century. Guns played a significant role in combat during the Song dynasty in the form of
primitive fireworks, rockets, and small armed weapons. These crude weapons would lay the
foundation of military technology for centuries to come.
However, problems can arise if the gunpowder is not measured correctly. If the projectile
does not fit the breach of the gun the gases will escape around the projectile thus rendering the
projectile ineffective. The projectile can become a deadly weapon to the operator, and anyone in
proximity if the projectile does not leave the breach fast enough. If the missile fails to leave the
breach the missile may explode the breach and spread shrapnel.9
The exchange of gunpowder knowledge was passed along the trade routes of Asia into
Europe between the mid-twelfth to the thirteenth century.10 During this exchange of knowledge
between the Christian West and the Islamic Orient, technology was freely passed between
cultures in the form of goods and ideas. This transmission of gunpowder came to these cultures
as a well-developed technology from the Song dynasty. An English Franciscan friar, Rodger
Bacon, encountered a Chinese firecracker in 1267 A.D. He describes the properties of the black
powder needed to make an explosive device as being saltpeter, sulfur, and charcoal.11
8 Ibid., 38.
9 Ibid., 18.
10 Thomas F. Arnold and John Keegan. The Renaissance at War (New York, NY: HarperCollins,
2006), 30.
11 Arnold and Keegan, The Renaissance at War, 30.
5. Cummins 5
The first illustrations of cannons appeared in Europe from English manuscripts in 1326
A.D.12 The English Manuscript of Walter of Milemete described the illustrations in detail.
Milemete described the cannons being of a vase shape and having an arrow projectile protruding
from the breach.13 These first cannons were very ineffective because the “thunder-arrows” used a
small load of gunpowder. Any larger of a load and the arrow would catch fire, or the barrel of the
cannon would explode due to the large amount of nitrate in the powder.14 Most of the first
cannons into Europe were used primarily for display rather than a practical weapon.
Cannons were, however, an effective siege weapon of the early late medieval and early
Modern Age. Artillery weapons until the advent of the cannon into Europe were a series of lever
and pulley designs such as the trebuchet of the Medieval Age used for siege warfare. Cannons
gave a distinct advantage over their predecessors. A cannon was an optimal tool for bringing
down tall European walled castles. Cannons were able to topple walls by methodically firing
upon the base of the wall until it collapsed. The first cannons were of a very crude construction
that required successive improvements.15 Cannons were a very expensive siege weapon that
required time and knowledge to build. The cannons were hand crafted and ornately decorated
with the lords’ and monarchs’ emblems. Artist took prides in their work of cannons. Bell makers
were some of the first to begin work on cannons because they possessed the knowledge of
metallurgy.
12 Ibid., 30.
13 Bert S. Hall. Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology and
Tactics (Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press, 1997), 44.
14 Hall, Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology and Tactics, 44
15 Carlo Beltrame and Renato Gianni Ridella. Ships & Guns: The sea ordnance in Venice and
Europe between the 15th and the 17th centuries (Oxford, UK: OXbox Books, 2011), 1.
6. Cummins 6
Cannons first employed the stone shots just as the trebuchet of the past. These stone balls
were time consuming to make and were finally replaced by iron balls which were heavier and
stronger.16 Cannon makers placed a heavy importance on the ration between barrel length to and
the diameter. There was no exact way on how to build cannons of the era. Eventually manuals
were made that helped set precedence as to how cannons should be safely built as well as the
logistical aspect of the weapons (range and energy of the cannon).17 Cannons of this era varied
on the size and application of the weapon. Some cannons that were used for anti-personnel were
the ribalds, falconet, organ gun, and grape shot. A ribald was a tri-barreled cannon, a falconet
was a much more maneuverable cannon that’s main goal was to slay infantry, the organ gun was
a multi-barred cannon and a favorite amongst artists, and the grape shot was multi-shot weapon.
The grape shot was most devastating when infantry was concentrated in an area and it could
shoot multiple projectiles across the field of battle.
The first cannons that had the capability to fire within the walled cities were the
bombards and the mortars. The mortar enabled the operator to hit targets previously untouchable
with previous siege equipment which included the trebuchet and catapult. These mortars were
able to effectively bring a city to its knees by a shock-and-awe effect especially during the
cannons debut. Over the years they became more lethal and destructive and the operators adept
with these weapons over time. To operate these siege weapons mathematical skills was a
necessity.
Geoffrey Parker, a renowned military historian, argues in his book The Military
Revolution that bombards were terrifying to see on the battlefield of the Medieval Age, because
16 Arnold and Keegan, The Renaissance at War, 33.
17 Ibid., 34.
7. Cummins 7
they were overly large and impractical. Parker identifies in the battle of Berwick-upon-Tweed
the English used a monster bombard, 8.5 tons, but was only able to be moved via sea or river.18
Secondly, Parker argues that the massive bombard was powerless against some skillfully crafted
fortifications by the Scottish.
A classic example of the effectiveness of the cannon can be found in the Siege of
Constantinople in 1453. Pitted against the Ottoman Turks, the Byzantines desperately attempted
to prevent the fall of this famous city. Despite the best efforts by the defenders to retain their
city, the Ottoman guns were too devastating on the cities ancient walls. Ottomans used a 26 foot-
long cannon that hurled stone balls of 1,200 pounds at Byzantine walls.19 The fall of
Constantinople was a major blow to Christendom and paved the way for further Ottoman
incursions into the west. Furthermore, Constantinople had never previously fallen into enemy
hands, this was truly unprecedented.
While cannons cemented their role on land, they also cemented their role at sea. Prior to
the advent of gunpowder in Europe, warfare at sea had changed little since ancient times, with
participants attempting to ram and board their opponents. It would not be until the fifteenth
century that various European navies begin to arm their ships more widely. Especially as the
century came to an end and there was a greater emphasis placed on naval supremacy and the
ability to colonize various lands. Similar to their counterparts on land in the beginning, cannons
fitted for the sea was gradual, including the effectiveness and lethality. By the sixteenth century,
cannons became the staple weapon to engage the enemy at sea and ensure that cargo would be
18 Geoffrey Parker. The Military Revolution: Military innovation and the rise of the West, 1500-
1800 (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge university Press, 1996), 7.
19 Jackson J. Spielvogel. Western Civilization Volume I: to 1715 (Boston, MA: Cengage
Learning Ltd.,2012), 411.
8. Cummins 8
protected. This was especially important for Spanish and Portuguese vessels carrying gold and
silver from the new world. As the design and effectiveness of these cannons evolved, so too did
the tactics and design of ships to accommodate such weapons. This lead naval commanders to
use the broadsides of ships to fire upon the enemy, and place emphasis on maneuverability.
Additionally, the rise of European warships armed with cannons enabled the colonization
of various places around the world, helping to cement Europe’s power and authority.
An example of the cannons role in history can be seen in the attempt by the Spanish
Crown to invade England in 1588. Armed with hundreds of galleons, the Spanish hoped to land
thousands of men off the English coast to claim Elizabeth’s crown. Despite the resources spent
on building such a large invasion force, the out dated Spanish galleon’s were no match for the
more modern English warships armed with farther reaching cannons, in addition to austere
weather conditions.20 The result was a devastating defeat for the Spanish armada and a blow to
Spain’s superpower status. This clearly demonstrates the potential of the cannon at sea and its
ability to defend or cripple opponents.
Both historians Tonio Andrade and Parker agree there is a lack of knowledge of naval
warfare in the Modern Age which relied heavily upon the use of artillery weapons. Both
historians agree that without the introduction of guns on ship, and there would not be a rise in the
military revolution, and the escalation of European empires. 21 Andrade argues in his book, Lost
Colony, that the Dutch had a distinctive advantage at sea because of their firepower especially
against Chinese pirates near Formosa. One Ming scholar said, “The Dutch base their power on
20 R.G. Grant. Battle: A Visual Journey through 5,000 Years of Combat (London, UK: DK
Publishing, Inc., 2005), 148.
21 Toni Andrade and William Reger. The Limits of an Empire (Burlington, VT: Ashgate
Publushing Company, 2012), 1.
9. Cummins 9
their huge ships and cannons. The ships are three hundred feet long, sixty feet wide… On the
sides are small ports where they place brass cannons… underneath the masts they have huge
twenty-foot-long iron cannons, which, when fired, can blast holes into and destroy stone
walls.”22
The defenders of the fortifications likewise had to adapt to this change in warfare which
generated pressure and fostered innovation and creativity. Some notable artists that were that
came to the service of various rulers were Leonardo Di Vinci. Monarchs began to turn to
Renaissance artists who were more than artists. These men were at the cutting edge of
mathematics, science, and other various disciplines. These men were viewed as having a wealth
of knowledge. Regions that were war torn were among the first to incorporate new fortification
designs and ideas, principally Northern Italy. Some of these new designs included the rise of
reinforced walls, angled bastions, buttress, earthworks, and the use of trench works through the
years. Much of the work from engines was derived from trial and error. Additionally, there was a
greater emphasis placed on mathematics. Engineers had to have an intimate understanding of the
ballistic capability, fortification designs, and the robustness of the walls themselves. These
advances also placed more financial demand on rulers who in turn had to find the means and
resources to improve their fortifications.
By the mid-fifteenth century fortifications had a dramatically changed from the
fourteenth century. The new designs called for shorter walls that were thicker, and an earth
worked design. This design was supposed to make the bastion a smaller target to shoot at with
cannons. By adding thinker walls it made it harder to conduct siege warfare upon the bastion.
22 Toni Andrade. Lost Colony: The Untold Story of China’s First Great Victory over the West
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011), 36.
10. Cummins 10
Parker argues that these fortresses help European powers gain a foothold upon the Asian
content.23 There are some in the historical community that disagree with Parker’s assumption of
the fortress. In particular, the historian Jeremy Black argues that the artillery was overestimated
by non-Europeans. Black points out the battle of Hormuz of 1622. He suggests that historians
must take in account the global military balance of the seventeenth century. 24
This did not stop the Europeans’ intrigue of the new the new technology. By the 1320’s
guns became a common place amongst European monarchies. Early cannons in Europe were
used for entertainment for the monarchs.25 The earliest known mention of guns being used for
defensive purpose in Europe was from the Florentine government. Two magistrates of the
Republic of Florence noted on February 11, 1326 that the city requested “securing a supply of
balls or spears, or iron pellets, along with cannons of metal”.26
Previous to the advent of guns into Europe, the concept of waging war was based upon a
Feudal System in which infantrymen were made up of the amateur peasantry that fought in favor
and in loyalty to their lords. Many of these men-at-arms were of freeborn aristocratic families, or
mercenaries.27 The main objective of the man-at-arms was to burst through the frontline of the
infantry opposition in order to route and demoralize the line. Professional soldiers of medieval
warfare were highly skilled soldiers who were trained by their lords’ or monarchs’ in the art of
combat. These soldiers were the knights, archers, and cavalry. In order to train a soldier of this
caliber, training had to start at an early age. Those trained in the art of combat were primarily of
23 Andrade and Reger, The Limits of an Empire, 1.
24 Ibid., 155.
25 Arnold and Keegan, The Renaissance at War, 30.
26 Hall, Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology and Tactics, 43-
44.
27 Ibid., 11.
11. Cummins 11
noble lineage. On the other hand, the peasantry was usually unskilled and lacked proper
equipment, and was often put on the front line as infantrymen. These lowly soldiers made up the
majority of the armies. Medieval reasoning devalued the peasant army to an expendable resource
because of their lack of skill in combat and no linkage to nobility.
With the introduction of guns into militaries of Europe the peasants became a formidable
fighting force that became the backbone of the early Modern Age. The rise of the infantryman
was born out of necessity for advancement of the weaponry. No longer was their need for archers
or knights due to the potential firepower of the gun. It was significantly easier to train an
infantryman with a gun, polearms, or crossbow than it was to train them with bows. An
advantage of a bow to a gun is the rage it had over a gun. A bow could be deadly accurate up to
two-hundred yards. The other advantage that a bow possessed was the ability to shoot a
projectile in rapid succession. A disadvantage of the bow was the time it took to tediously train
an archer. It was a lifelong of training, starting from adolescence.28 With a gun your skill had to
be average. With the bow you had to consistently master your skill of archery. Another downside
to an archer was the cost of arrows. Arrows were an expensive piece of military hardware;
archers relied upon the peasantry to tediously make arrows. At the battle of Crécy, it is estimated
that the archers shot five-hundred thousand arrows during a six hour battle.29 This blatant
wastefulness of arrows proved that bows were an outdated technology even though it helped
them win the battle.
Cavalry was an expensive commodity in the Medieval Age. Western European armies
invested heavy emphasis on cavalry as core element of strategy during warfare. The Hundred
28 Ibid., 20.
29 Ibid., 20.
12. Cummins 12
Years’ War was fought between King Edward III of England and King Philip VI of France
beginning in 1337 A.D. over the disputed territory of duchy of Gascony, which is now in modern
day France.30 During the Hundred Years’ War King Edward III brought 12,000 horses to fight
for his crown in France.31 Each horse ate an estimated 25 pounds of feed a day, half of which the
feed had to be grain.32 This was a huge logistical feat for the English because the crops to feed
the horses was not taken from Gascony, but rather imported from England. The cavalry also
contributed to the loss of revenue in the sovereign’s treasury during the war with France.
Parker argues that cavalry was not of equal importance in regards to time frame and
location. In fact, cavalry of the era were the main force for militaries during the beginning of the
fourteenth century. Parker agrees that after generations of careful breeding horses were large in
stature when compared to the shire horse. Parker claims that these cavalry horses were seventeen
hands tall.33 It should be noted that even though Parker agrees that cavalry was an important
necessity to warfare prior to the mid-fourteenth century. The men-at-arms and in this case, the
knight, was already seeing a decline during this era in favor of archers as seen in the case of the
battle of Crécy. Crécy showed that archers could be an effective weapon against the charge of
cavalry.34
For nearly a thousand years, from the Roman Cataphract to the knight, the armored
cavalry reigned supreme on the battlefields of Europe. In the early Modern Age, the knight’s
superiority on the battlefield would see the decline of their class in favor of the infantryman.
During the Medieval Ages, heavy cavalry can be described as being fully armored knights
30 Spielvogel, Western Civilization Volume I: to 1715, 349-350.
31 Hall, Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology and Tactics, 11.
32 Ibid., 11.
33 Parker, The Military Revolution, 69.
34 Ibid., 69.
13. Cummins 13
possessing a multitude of weapons from lances to swords and maces. Heavy cavalry horses were
armored and larger in stature to the common horse. Pikes were the most effective weapon against
heavy cavalry during the late Medieval and early Modern eras. The age of knights on horseback
that reigned supreme was coming to an abrupt end. Calvary would still have a role in the early
Modern Age, but never again would they hold the strategic advantage as they did in the
fourteenth century onward.
A pikeman’s job was extremely crucial to the survival of the rest of their army. Pikemen
were the first line of defense used to defeat heavy cavalry in the Mideval Age. Without a
cohesive formation, the line could break when defending against a cavalry charge. The pikemen
were the first valued infantryman that could turn the tide of battle with a single sharpened pole.
Pikes were long and heavy, and they needed strength and training to maneuver them.35 It was
easy to tell if pikemen were unexperienced by the way that they handed their pikes. A well-
disciplined pikemen would hold their pikes steadily. If the pikes wavered the enemy could tell
that they were exhausted or inexperienced.36 During the Battle of Grandson the Swiss pikemen
successfully defend off the Burgundian giving the lowly class of soldiers respect amongst the
ranks.37 This lowly class of infantrymen would give rise to the more sophisticated infantrymen in
the fifteenth century when the polearm would be replaced by the volley fire of the gun.
When referring to the term “gun” in the fourteenth century, it is often thought to derive
from an Anglo-Latin contraction of the term “mangonel” which was a common word for a
35 Arnold and Keegan, The Renaissance at War, 86.
36 Ibid., 86.
37 J. R. Hale. War and Society in Renaissance Europe 1450-1620 (New York: St. Martin's Press,
1985), 47.
14. Cummins 14
catapult.38 However, it truly came from the habit of naming mechanical siege engines from Old
Norse feminine names, stemming from the prefix “gunn”.39 It is significant to note that the word
“gun” in the fourteenth century referred to anything that was used a siege engine weapon; for
example, rams, catapults, and even firearms were under this classification.40
It is unclear in the sources during the battle of Crécy in 1346 if guns were used in the
battle. Disputed Genoese sources recalled that the English deployed three small cannons on the
battlefield after the retreat of the Genoese crossbowmen.41 Regardless of the sources firearms
were used in the Hundred Years’ War by both sides. Firearms were used as a shock-and-awe
effect against their foes. These small hand cannons were extremely inaccurate, and were seen as
a novelty on the battlefield.
Another example of guns being effectively used on the battlefield was in the Battle of
Beverhoudsveld on May 3rd, 1382. Philip van Artevedle faced a major dilemma before the battle,
he lacked heavy cavalry.42 Philip van Artevedle led a militia of Flemish rebels against the Rule
of Luis of Male. When they met on the battlefield van Artevedle was outnumbered by his
opponent five to one roughly forty thousand to six thousand.43 Van Artevedle employed two-
hundred ribaudequins on carts as an attempt to turn the tide of the upcoming battle. 44
Ribaudeqiuns were named after the servant class of the ribalds. The ribalds were known to be a
lowly expendable class of servants in the Medieval Age.45 The armies of the fourteenth century
38 Hall, Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology and Tactics, 44.
39 Ibid., 44.
40 Ibid., 44.
41 Ibid., 46.
42 Ibid.,, 49.
43 Ibid., 49.
44 Ibid., 49.
45 Ibid., 44.
15. Cummins 15
thought of the gun as a meager weapon. The Ghent militia was able to fit three to four
ribaudequins to a cart allowing the militia to fire in rapid succession. The Gentenars lured the
Flemish men-at-arms who possessed some guns of their own. When the Gentenars retreated back
to safe distance, the ribaudequins roared over the battlefield. This spectacle of early guns left the
men-at-arms panicked and frightened, the Gentenars routed the rest of the forces with a flaking
maneuver.46 This was a significant battle in the history of guns in Europe because it proved that
guns could be an effective weapon against a large force, and that the noise of the weapon could
cause mass chaos and confusion on the battlefield.
Kelly DeVries agrees that in that Philip van Artevelde and his militia was able to
effectively use the bombards as a shock-and-awe method of warfare. DeVries uses a quote from
Jean Froissart, “had made and operated a marvelously large bombard… when this bombard
discharged, one could hear it for five leagues away during the day and during the night…”47
During this siege on Oudenaarde the Ghent militia was able to successfully use firearms to their
advantage.
DeVries argues that firearms had drawbacks within their own ability to be an effective
weapon on the battlefield. DeViries cites the opinion of historian Lynn White, “earliest cannon
were crude, cumbersome, and inefficient. They were costly to make and costly to supply
chemical fuel. They could not be aimed with any great exactness; they were slow to load and
fire; they could rarely hit the same spot on a fortification twice…”48
46 Ibid., 50.
47 Ivy A. Corfis and Michael Wolfe. The Medieval City under Siege (Rochester, NY: The
Boydell Press, 1995), 228.
48 Corfis and Wolfe., The Medieval City under Siege, 228.
16. Cummins 16
DeVries discusses that Geoffrey Parker’s argument in his book, The Military Revolution,
is a gross underestimate of firepower in the late medieval warfare. Supporting DeVries
argument, Geoffrey Parker illustrates in his book that the military revolution of Europe was
facilitated by the advancement in weaponry during the early Modern Age. Parker argues that the
development of the firearm was the catalyst for the revolution taking place in Europe.
Small arm weapons such as the hand-cannons were introduced to European militaries in
the late fourteenth century. These small hand-held firearms proved to be problematic due to the
firearms small bore. The firearm was too short and was mounted on a stave for accuracy. The
gun lacked effective firepower, and a long enough barrel to make it accurate. These early
handguns also lacked the proper amount of gunpowder to make them effective. Handguns made
little to no impression on the battlefield. Firearms had to be refined before they could be an
optimal weapon on the battlefields of Europe.
Small arms weapons played a larger role in fifteenth century warfare than it had in the
previous century. The first large scale use of small arms weapons came during the Hussite Wars
in 1419. The industrial might of the German cities produced firearms and gunpowder for the
upcoming battles. The Hussite army used a wagon in which they could fire hand cannons and
crossbows from a “armored” position behind heavy wooden paneling.49 The Wagenburg was a
stationary Medieval tank that provided a sizable firepower. During a battle the wagons could be
towed to an optimal firing position for the Hussites. The wagon carried anywhere from fifteen to
twenty soldiers. Between the gaps of the wagons stood shields, and behind those shields were
soldiers armed with medium-caliber firearms.50 These medium ranged firearms provided the
49 Hall, Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology and Tactics, 108
50 Ibid., 108
17. Cummins 17
wagons with the main source of fire power. This tactic of wall to open gap was a representation
of a walled city. A walled off city would have an enclosed part of the wall as well as an open slot
in which a soldier could fire from that vantage point. This tactic of firearms and wagons gave the
defenders a three-hundred and sixty degree angle from which to fire upon. A fully devolved
version of this tactic would encompass nearly one hundred and eighty wagons and some thirty
five firearms.51
Parker argues that Ottoman’s took advantage of firearm and turned musketeers into the
elite troops known as the Janissary corps to defeat the Italian states’ armies. He uses the example
of siege of Otranto in 1480 where the Janissaries overwhelmed the citizens defending the
Otranto.
Firearms were the single greatest achievement in the Early Modern Age was the
expanded the size of militaries from the fifteenth century onward.52 Firearms prolonged sieges
and extended military campaigns.53 Engineers spent more time fortifying their positions because
of the damage caused by guns during siege warfare by artillery.54 Governments saw the increase
of war due to the cost of guns. The soldier was expected to either bring their own gun, or be
loaned one from the military.55 The military would then collect the money owed by the soldier
by taking it from their wages. The small arms weapon’s cost were nowhere in comparison to the
artillery costs of the fifteenth century. In 1482 the French government estimated that the cost of
artillery was roughly 8% of the military expenditure.56 Venetians estimated at the turn of the
51 Ibid., 108
52 Hale, War and Society in Renaissance Europe 1450-1620, 47.
53 Ibid., 46.
54 Ibid., 46.
55 Ibid., 46.
56 Ibid., 46.
18. Cummins 18
seventeenth century that gunpowder and their supply accounted for a third of the cost for a
campaign.57 During peacetime militaries of Europe would stockpile ammunition, firearms, and
soldiers in case of war.
German city-states saw the potential of handguns. In 1430 Numemberg city council
showed that they had five-hundred and one handguns and six-hundred and seven crossbows in all
neighborhoods.58 In the city of Frankfurt they produced a large number of firearms to combat the
Hussites. The city of Frankfurt used twenty firearms and ten crossbows per gate to defend the
city walls.59 This was all made possible in these German cities because these cities had advanced
skill in the art of metallurgy. The cities also had access to raw materials that allowed for the mass
production of these weapons. These larger cities would often mass produce firearms in the
means to monopolize the manufacturing of the weapons in their region. The idea behind
stockpiling firearms was that if they had more firearms than the enemy, it would intimidate the
attackers during combat.
The arquebus completely overhauled previous designs of handguns. They incorporated a
new design that had a longer barrel (40 inches) with a smaller bore (15milimeters)60 The
arquebus had effective range of around one hundred to two hundred yards.61 Prior to the
arquebus design, a firearm was fired from the chest or under the arm.62 The Arquebus had a thick
stock, which allowed it to be fired from the shoulder.63 It was a simple and relatively cheap
57 Ibid., 47.
58 Hall, Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology and Tactics, 95.
59 Ibid., 95.
60 Ibid., 96.
61 Arnold and Keegan, The Renaissance at War, 96.
62 Ibid., 94.
63 Ibid., 94.
19. Cummins 19
design that proved to be very reliable.64 Firearms before the advent of the arquebus were large
and cumbersome and had to be ignited by a red-hot pricker.65 The firearms previous to the
arquebus were mounted, and had two or more men that operated the gun. These larger firearms
were heavier, but were more powerful and could fire at a greater distance. Unfortunately, they
could not be easily carried thus making their design impractical. It was not until the 1520’s in
Northern Italy that infantrymen carried smaller muskets into battle. The arquebus employed a
matchlock design that allowed for the user to fire the weapon via a lit cord.
These firearms were muzzleloaders, and required a mechanical system that would ignite
the gunpowder to launch the projectile. This mechanical system of trigger-and-lever was an early
invention of the fifteenth century. Early arquebuses had an “S” shaped lever pivoted to the side
of the barrel with a cord covered in saltpeter to ignite the flame.66 These weapons became known
as matchlock which made the projectile fly at speeds of supersonic velocity. The arquebus took
advantage of the high pressure spike produced when fast-burning gunpowder ignited.67 Another
innovation of the fifteenth century was the advent of the crumb powder. Crumb powder was a
fine-grained powder that allowed the arquebus to fire at longer ranges. The arquebus was a
carbine version of the musket. The musket would be the primary weapon for infantrymen during
the sixteenth century for all the major European powers.
England had a serious debate as whether they should keep their ancestral longbow or,
upgrade and switch to the arquebus. The arquebus won out when the English merchants armed
with longbows were forced to retreat when the locals off the coast of Guinea were armed with
64 Ibid., 96.
65 Ibid., 95.
66 Hall, Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology and Tactics, 96.
67 Ibid., 97.
20. Cummins 20
arquebuses.68 It should be noted that there were rifled barrels during that era, but were used as
specialized marksmen guns that were capable of greater distance than the arquebus.69 Rifling is
the grooving of the interior of a barrel that allows for a projectile to become more accurate and
fly further. These weapons were not available to the common infantryman, and were issued to
soldiers with a higher degree of skill with a rifle.
Some disadvantages to the arquebus were the tactics involved with using the firearm.
During a battle arquebusiers were hard to control once the battle became widespread on the field.
The arquebusiers could get spread out on the battlefield losing their tactical advantage with the
firearm. Arquebuses as well as muskets took a long time to load. The loading time of the firearm
made the arquebusiers vulnerable to a cavalry charge.70 One solution to this problem was for the
arquebusiers to stay within the square formation of the pikemen. By staying within this
formation, they were virtually impenetrable to cavalry charge. The arquebusiers would stand
closely to the pikemen with their polearms lowered while firing.
Another tactic used by the arquebusiers was the sleeve and horn strategy. The sleeve and
horn strategy encompassed the coordination of both arquebusiers and pikemen. The “horn” of the
formation was the arquebusiers at the each corner of a pike square.71 A sleeve was arquebusiers
who formed at the rear of a pike square.72 Sometimes there would only be two “horns” located at
the left and right of the front. Proper spacing between the arquebusiers gave an optimal firing
line at enemies in front and the flank. To an amateur opponent to encounter this formation
caused a great deal of intimidation amongst the ranks. Henry VIII recruited an Italian to come up
68 Arnold and Keegan, The Renaissance at War, 94.
69 Ibid.,, 96.
70 Ibid., 97.
71 Ibid., 97.
72 Ibid., 97.
21. Cummins 21
with some thirty-two different strategic maneuvers involving the sleeve and horn in the 1540’s.73
Overtime, they determined that different formations were more effective depending on the type
of battle being fought. These experimentations of formations gave way to the line formation of
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
Parker argues that rise of mercenaries was facilitated by the development in militaries,
and the need for experienced soldiers. These professional soldiers were willing to take their
services from their homelands to other parts of Europe. By the mid-sixteenth century most of the
old world’s weaponry had been abandoned for the musketeers. Parker argues that the sword as
well as the bow disappeared on the battlefields that the polearms were still necessary to have in
defeating the cavalry. Both musketeers as well as polearms were inseparable with one another.
He argues that polearms defeated cavalry, cavalry defeats swordsmen, and firearm reigns
supreme but needed the polearm. 74
During this era, there were a plethora of different designs, and mechanism to fire a
projectile out of a gun other than the standard matchlock muzzle loaders. One firearm in
particular that stood out amongst the others was the wheel lock firearm of the mid-sixteenth
century in Germany.75 Matchlocks of the era had one major flaw to their design; you could not
carry them loaded and ready to discharge. The matchlock had to be manipulated with two hands,
which may take a while depending upon the soldier’s proficiency, to be fully operational. Using
two hands instead of one made the standard matchlock difficult for soldiers to quickly load and
discharge their weapons efficiently and rapidly in the heat of battle.
73 Ibid., 98.
74 Parker, The Military Revolution, 18.
75 Arnold and Keegan, The Renaissance at War, 113.
22. Cummins 22
The wheel lock was able to become the first handgun of its era in which the person
shooting the gun only needed to use one hand to discharge. It was primarily used as a self-
defense weapon, but it was also used offensively in battle. German states of the sixteenth century
used the wheel lock as a replacement for lances for their reiters cavalry.76 Reiters were German
heavy cavalry of the sixteenth century who wore all black armor into battle. The gun was easier
to carry on horseback onto the battlefield, and gave the heavily armored reiter a much needed
mobility to aim and fire at the enemy. The carbineers who rode into battle would possess
anywhere between three to four wheel lock pistols in holsters on their saddles, plus they would
have their primary weapon a sword.77
The reiters were deadly effective with the wheel lock pistol together with tactics. Their
tactic was called “caracole”.78 This strategy called for the reiters to haut in front of their enemies
and discharges their wheel lock pistols from a safe distance. When they had discharged their
pistols they would fall back to a safe distance and reload. The effective range for the wheel lock
pistol was around 20 yards. The reiters behind them would take their position and fire upon the
enemy. This use of volley fire could prove to be an effective line of fire against foes of the
reiters. The reiters revolutionized cavalry during the sixteenth century. The idea of using a pistol
rather than a lance was a popular and effective way of winning a battle. By the end of the
sixteenth century cavalry armed with pistols became the standard form of cavalry throughout
Europe. The introduction of carbineers as the main form of cavalry spread from the German
states to France and finally to the Italian states in the sixteenth century.
76 Ibid., 113.
77 Ibid., 114.
78 Ibid., 115
23. Cummins 23
The wheel lock incorporated a spinning wheel. There was no need for a lit match to
discharge a round in the barrel. The wheel was serrated, and was loaded from the muzzle. Inside
of the handgun there was a steel wheel that used a clockwork spring mechanism that would
wind-up tight.79 Wheel lock weapons required a specialized spanner or wrench tool to wind the
spring mechanism within the gun.80 Once the pan was primed with powder, the hammer cocked,
and the trigger was pulled, the tension in the spring would be released. The wheel would then
spin hitting the iron pyrite on the gun’s hammer, and thus igniting the gunpowder. Flint was not
an ideal material to use in ignition. The flint would over time grind down the wheel making it
inoperative. Pyrite, on the other hand, was able to produce sparks by itself and did not damage
the iron wheel.
There were some drawbacks to the wheel lock pistol, primarily the cost to manufacture
the weapon. Some of the few people who were able to afford this weapon were men-at-arms,
nobility, and royalty. The weapon was so expensive to produce because of the complexity of its
design. Wheel locks were thus used primarily for cavalry and game.81 Another drawback to the
design was the delay from when the trigger was pulled to the projectile being hurled out of the
pistol. This crucial loss of time could mean the difference between life and death. Lastly, the
wheel lock garnished a reputation as being the scoundrel’s weapon of choice during the era,
similar to the AK-47 of the twentieth century. The pistol frequently turned up in criminal
activities of the era. It was notorious for being used as a weapon for assassination. The pistol
was used in the assassinations of a number of high profiled figures during the sixteenth century
79 Ibid., 114.
80 Ibid., 113-114.
81 Ibid., 114.
24. Cummins 24
including Francis of Guise in 1563, and William of Orange in 1584.82 This prompted certain
states to ban the firearm altogether, as well as, ban weapons that were not of a certain length.
They saw the pistol as a threat to law and order.
As weapons progressed during the fifteenth through the sixteenth centuries so did the
necessity for better armor to evolve to protect the men-at-arms. The men-at-arms (nobility class)
saw the new found technology as a threat to their own existence. This was increasingly becoming
an issue because a firearm could inflict a large wound on the knight, killing him instantly. This
weighed heavily on the minds of the noble class. It was unheard of that a person of a lower class
could kill with such speed as the infantryman with a firearm.83 As previously stated, it took years
of training to make the man-at-arms an effective battle combatant. In the minds of monarchs who
relied upon their vassals to fight it dealt a huge blow to their fighting capability, as well as, the
cost of training a man-at-arms. It was a growing concern that had to be dealt with swiftly.
Many monarchs compared the gun to crossbows with the lethality that the crossbow
possessed. This urged some monarchs to remove or refuse quarter to any enemy combatant that
was caught using a firearm after a battle.84 Despite attempts to limit firearms by some monarchs,
some monarchs embraced the new firearm technology and incorporated them into their armies.
The use and growing lethality of firearms were not enough to force fully armored men-at-arms
and others from wearing plate armor. Armor improved dramatically over the years. The creation
of fluted armor, as seen in the Maximillian style suit of the early sixteenth century, featured a
82 Ibid., 115.
83 Hall, Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology and Tactics, 20.
84 Arnold and Keegan, The Renaissance at War, 36.
25. Cummins 25
fluted design that increased the armor’s strength while not adding additional weight to burden the
occupant.85 In the end firearm technology was always one step ahead of armor.
Lastly, gunpowder played a crucial role in the early Modern Age. The advent of
gunpowder helped bring about a military revolution within Europe. Europeans had to adapt their
tactics as well as their fortifications to keep up with advancing military technology. The crucial
advancement in technology occurred with the use of cannons, mortars, and small arms. These
weapons brought about the demise of men-at-arms and triumph of the infantry. In addition naval
warfare was revolutionized with introduction of gunpowder. There is a consensus among
historians that there was indeed a military revolution. Despite this shared viewpoint there is
debate regarding the impact and scope of gunpowder in European warfare.
85 Hall, Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology and Tactics,
194.
26. Cummins 26
Bibliography
Arnold, Thomas F and John Keegan. The Renaissance at War (New York, NY: HarperCollins,
2006).
Andrade, Toni. Lost Colony: The Untold Story of China’s First Great Victory over the West
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011).
Andrade and William, Toni and Reger. The Limits of an Empire (Burlington, VT: Ashgate
Publushing Company, 2012).
Beltrame and Ridella, Carlo Renato Gianni. Ships & Guns: The sea ordnance in Venice and
Europe between the 15th and the 17th centuries (Oxford, UK: OXbox Books, 2011).
Grant, R.G. Battle: A Visual Journey through 5,000 Years of Combat (London, UK: DK
Publishing, Inc., 2005).
Hall, Bert S. Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology and
Tactics (Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press, 1997).
Hale, J.R. War and Society in Renaissance Europe, 1450-1620 (New York: St. Martin's Press,
1985).
Lorge, Peter A. The Asian Military Revolution: From Gunpowder to the Bomb (New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press, 2008).
Parker, Geoffrey. The Military Revolution: Military innovation and the rise of the West, 1500-
1800 (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge university Press, 1996).
