Molinet is the only major source which refers to the use of artillery at Bosworth, saying that Richard had a great number of cannons (‘et grande quantité d’engiens volans’) and that he had them fire on the earl of Richmond, leading the French to mass their troops against the flank rather than the front of Richard’s battle.1 The presence of guns is supported by the act of attainder against Richard and his supporters in the parliament of November 1485, which says his army was ‘strongly armed and equipped with all kinds of weapons, such as guns, bows, arrows, spears, glaives, axes and all other weaponry suitable or necessary for giving and advancing a mighty battle against our sovereign lord’.2 Finally there is The Ballad of Bosworth Fielde, which claims that Richard had seven score serpentines chained in a row, along with a similar number of bombards, as well as 10,000 pikes and harquebusiers.3 It is only this highly unreliable later source that refers to troops using handguns – the harquebusier.
While we may dismiss the detail in the Ballad, it is reasonable to expect that Richard had the most up to date field artillery at Bosworth, for he had control of the Tower of London. This was the main arsenal and contained ordnance for siege, garrison and field use, as well as handguns. Then there is the presence at Bosworth of Sir Robert Brackenbury, constable of the Tower, which suggests a train of field artillery had indeed been brought up from London. In addition to these guns, the commanders of the individual battles may also have supplied some of their own artillery, for in 1480 we find the duke of Norfolk had four of his own breech loading artillery pieces loaded on board ship, accompanied by their gunners.4 Other guns may have come from the arsenals which existed in various cities across England.5
Although there is no specific reference to Henry firing guns in the battle, this is probably just another example of the inadequacy of the primary accounts. That there was field artillery with the rebel army is suggested by Commynes, who states that the French king supplied Henry with several pieces of artillery (‘quelques pieces d’artillerie’) for the campaign. Other guns may have come from arsenals in Wales and the west and north-west of England, while the Stanleys may also have been in a position to supply their own guns. Henry’s voyage and then his long march through Wales, which was completed at a good rate, argues against his army having a train of heavy artillery, but it places no limit on field artillery. Command of these guns at Bosworth may have been given to Richard Guildford, who had accompanied Henry from exile and was appointed master of the ordnance soon after the victory.
During the Bosworth survey 251 lead and lead composite projectiles were recovered. Most were of small calibre and intended for handguns but, as we will show, most if not all of these are of a later date. In contrast, on the basis of calibre and other attributes, the 33 (possibly 34) larger projectiles can be linked to the 1485 battle. The following discussion provides a detailed analysis of these projectiles. Though much of the scientific evidence will be presented elsewhere, by the end of the chapter many readers may have heard more about lead projectiles than they ever wanted to know. But such detail is essential if we are to justify our interpretations, for this is the first assemblage of its kind to come from a medieval battlefield. Some of the conclusions are obvious; some have been hard won but, thanks to experimental and scientific data, the evidence is convincing; other arguments are highly conjectural, but they are presented here to encourage further research.
In the fifteenth and earlier sixteenth centuries the term ‘artillery’ was often used for all projectile weapons, with handguns being distinguished from the rest by the terms ‘small’ and ‘great’ ordnance. The size of a gun is principally classified according to its bore, which is the internal diameter of the gun barrel, while the size of the projectile is classified by its calibre, which is its intended diameter. In the present analysis the terms artillery and ordnance are used in the modern sense of larger mounted pieces, with large and small being used to distinguish guns with a bore of above and below 100 mm respectively. Handgun is used here for all hand-held gunpowder weapons. With certain caveats discussed below, the latter can be divided between the earlier, larger bore hand-cannon and the generally smaller bore type, later known by the term arquebus. In the late medieval period handguns had various, apparently imprecise English names, such as hackbush and hackbut as well as handgonne. These terms included a range of heavier weapons of intermediate form, with a bore lying between and overlapping with true handguns and artillery, and were fired from some form of frame or stand, or while rested on a defensive wall.
Between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries there were probably several key phases in the development of gunpowder weapons which transformed their battlefield capabilities. As a result, by the second quarter of the sixteenth century they became a decisive factor on the battlefield – a transformation often associated with the battle of Pavia in 1525.6 The technological developments included improvements in gunpowder, the introduction of cast iron projectiles, advances in the casting of large iron and especially bronze gun barrels, and improvements in the design of gun carriages. The character and capabilities of the guns in this period are still poorly understood, but have been most fully explored for the arsenal of the dukes of Burgundy. This collection contained handguns in large number and a bewildering array of artillery, both large and small.7
During the fifteenth century it seems that the personal commitment of European leaders, such Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy, and Charles VII of France, was crucial to the growth in the use of artillery and small arms on the battlefield. The destructive impact of artillery, when effectively deployed in a battle, had been a hard learnt lesson for English commanders, particularly in their humiliating defeat at the hands of the French at Castillon in 1453.8 It is not surprising then, that the documentary record shows gunpowder weapons deployed in various battles of the Wars of the Roses.9
By the 1470s English kings and their military commanders seem to have adopted gunpowder artillery as enthusiastically their counterparts elsewhere in Europe. Edward IV, who was closely allied with the Burgundians, committed substantial resources to the commissioning, maintenance and deployment of artillery for use in the field and in sieges. Although some specialised pieces were purchased from arms manufacturers in Flanders and Brabant, during the second half of the fifteenth century iron serpentines were being manufactured in significant number, in brass and in iron, both in the English garrison at Calais and at various places in England itself.10 Richard III seems to have shared his brother’s interest, so it is unlikely that at Bosworth he had not sought to deploy a train of the most advanced field artillery.11
Although the very smallest medieval artillery pieces, such as those used at Bevershoutsveld in Flanders in 1382, will always have been fairly mobile, the heavier field pieces were cumbersome and difficult to re-deploy and re-aim.12 Then, by the 1470s, there seem to have been significant advances in the types of artillery and of handguns available. The duke of Burgundy, through control of key industries in the Low Countries, may have been at the forefront of developments in this increasingly important weapons technology.13 It was these new field and siege guns that Charles the Bold deployed in large number in 1476 in the battles of Grandson and Murten in Switzerland, where they were captured by the Swiss. These guns were illustrated in a near contemporary document and, because both battles were iconic victories central to the development of an independent Switzerland, a substantial number of the guns were preserved and many still survive today.14
These guns suggest that by 1476, in the leading armies of the day, the gun carriages were already similar in many respects to those used with later artillery. It is unclear the degree to which these developments were linked with technological advances in the production of gun barrels or improvements in the propellant. However, once the field guns could be reasonably quickly and easily redeployed and re-aimed this would have had dramatic tactical implications, enabling the sort of close infantry support previously only possible, if at all, with the very smallest artillery pieces. Yet Machiavelli, writing in 1521, claims that field guns were still, even then, vulnerable to rapid enemy attacks, especially by cavalry.15 Clearly these new guns had not yet achieved the full mobility seen in the galloping guns of the seventeenth century.
In trying to interpret the new developments there are major problems if we depend upon the documentary record, for where it provides detail it is often difficult to interpret. Thus, for example, it is far from clear exactly what munitions were being supplied in 1485 when three carts of ‘renyyng ordenance’ were sent from the Tower for the defence of Harwich.16
Improvements in mobility seem, not surprisingly, to be reflected in the tactical use of artillery on the battlefield. Ordnance was already being used in the late fourteenth century against massed troops on the battlefield, as in 1385 at Aljubarrotta in Portugal. However, all except the smallest of artillery pieces, such as those used at Bevershoutsveld, seem normally to have been fired from defensible positions. Thus the defeat suffered by the English forces at Castillon in 1453 occurred when they came under fire from artillery positioned within a defended French camp.17 Several battles of the 1450s and 1460s in England also saw artillery placed behind defensive works, whether specially made or exploiting existing man-made features. For example, at Northampton in 1460 the Lancastrian army defended a camp, with the artillery placed behind what seems to have been an existing park pale.18 Where the guns had to be deployed in open ground then wagon mounted artillery may have been used. This was a tactic which had been effectively applied by Hussite forces in eastern Europe in the 1440s, where the wagons themselves were drawn up to create a defensive position with the gaps covered by handguns fired from behind pavises.19 This may have been how the wagon mounted guns were used in 1459 at Ludford Bridge in Shropshire and at Blore Heath in Staffordshire.20
But even the new Burgundian artillery of the 1470s seems to have been deployed at Grandson in a man-made defensive position, as the artillery had been at Castillon or Northampton.21 Similar tactical considerations might explain why Richard chose, at Bosworth, to deploy his army beside or behind a marsh. Thus, even when we have extensive documentary evidence, as with the Burgundian artillery of the 1470s, we still lack a clear understanding of the capabilities of field artillery. This is also true in the next century. At the exceptionally well documented battle of Pinkie in 1547 it seems that only the heaviest field and siege pieces in the English army are reported in the written sources. Yet partial survey of the battlefield has already produced at least three lead composite round shot, of 35 mm, 37 mm and 51 mm; a solid lead round shot of c. 40 mm; two probable cast iron rounds of c. 50 mm; and two small calibre lead balls of 21 mm and 24 mm.22 At Flodden detail of the small artillery is specifically excluded from the description of guns captured from the Scots: ‘five great Curtalls, twoo great culverynges, four sacres, and syxe Serpentynes as fayre ordinaunce as hathe bene beside other small peces.’23
Bosworth is the first battlefield where sufficient round shot has been recovered for archaeology to make a contribution on this issue. The differences in the sizes and composition of the rounds, and in the firing evidence they contain, indicates great variation in the guns. If the later fifteenth century was indeed an important period of innovation in field artillery, as the Burgundian evidence may suggest, then the 12 surviving battlefields of the Wars of the Roses (1453–1487) could have an important story to tell.
We will never recover all round shot fired in any battle. However, unless the assemblage has been depleted by collectors, the battle archaeology may reveal the range of sizes and approximate number of guns that were used and even perhaps the intensity of fire they laid down. The firing evidence on the projectiles, unlocked using the results of experiments and analysis of surviving early guns, may also show the types of guns in use and perhaps provide insights into their range and effectiveness.
The fifteenth and sixteenth centuries are an almost unique period for the archaeological study of field artillery, because at this time a significant percentage of artillery rounds were manufactured in lead. This is a remarkable material. It is sufficiently malleable to capture a detailed signature of the use of the projectiles, yet so stable in most ground conditions that it can preserve this evidence for centuries. While there has been research on unfired round shot assemblages from late medieval wreck sites, such as the Mary Rose (1545) and the Molasses Reef Wreck in the Turks & Caicos Islands (c. 1513), there has been no comparable work on fired examples.24 Previous studies of early modern round shot from battlefields are of cast iron projectiles, which do not preserve the complex range of firing and impact evidence seen on those of lead. However, large assemblages of fired and unfired small arms bullets from early modern battlefields have been studied.25 We have therefore sought to extend the methodology developed for lead bullets to encompass late medieval round shot. The analysis has proved particularly effective, in part because of the greater forces in play during firing of artillery which result in more substantial and complex evidence. It is also because of enormous differences in the construction and firing methods of different types of gun in this period, resulting in very distinctive firing signatures. This work has been complemented by research on surviving early guns in collaboration with Steven Walton, experimental firing in collaboration with Derek Allsop, and scientific analysis using neutron tomography at the Paul Scherer Institute in Switzerland in collaboration with Sue Kilcoyne.
Like a ballistics examiner working on bullets from a modern crime scene, using the evidence left on the projectiles fired on the battlefield one can now begin to study the weapons used more than 500 years ago at Bosworth. It is not clear how far this analysis can be taken, but what is possible at Bosworth should also be applicable on other well preserved battlefields of the period. Through such investigations archaeology may advance understanding, both of individual battles and of the development of gunpowder weapons and their use on the battlefield, in the very period where the documentary record is at its weakest.
The 251 lead balls recovered in the Bosworth survey range in diameter from 6 mm to 97 mm (Figure 7.1). Where the projectile is of solid lead then, with certain caveats, the intended calibre can be calculated from the mass, enabling distorted projectiles to be included in the analysis. For composite projectiles, where the lead sphere contains substantial inclusions of iron or stone, this clearly will not work. This poses problems, particularly for large calibre projectiles, as most have been distorted in firing and on impact. For the present purpose we took the most accurate direct measurements of diameter that was practicable. However, work is underway using 3D imaging to measure accurately the distortions of the rounds, which will also provide an accurate volume for each, from which it will be possible to calculation an ideal sphere.