I was reading about late medieval warfare and happened upon Charles the Bold's 15th Century ordinances describing the composition of a lance. Ideally, it would consist of a man-at-arms and a mounted swordsman together with a mounted non-combatan, three mounted archers and one pikeman, one crossbowman and one handgunner. Now, historians debate if a lance was a purely administrative unit or indeed a tactical unit but this is not really pertinent to this thread even though all discussion is welcome.
What I'm more curious about is why the different kinds of missile troops are mixed? Do they compliment each other and are used in conjunction or is it because the recruitment pool was too small to allow just handgunners for instance?
Also, the mounted archers, were they expected to dismount or did they actually fight on horseback like a skirmishing force? They were paid a little more than the ground soldiers, I don't know if this is because their skillset or to help pay for the upkeep of the horse.
>>1051629
>What I'm more curious about is why the different kinds of missile troops are mixed? Do they compliment each other and are used in conjunction or is it because the recruitment pool was too small to allow just handgunners for instance?
I'm more inclined to think that it had administrative purposes, e.g. provide a commander with a good ratio of troops. I don't think they would fight together. Fielding cavalry and infantry together in the same unit would have made no sense, as it would have only slowed the cavalry down. When it comes to different types of missile troops it's possible that they complemented each other, but most contemporary depictions, that don't feature some sort of siege, usually don't show troops being mixed. They might have different quality of equipment, but they're usually armed similarly. When it comes to mounted archers, both is possible. I've definitely seen archers fighting from horseback in historical depictions.
As an example, here's a late medieval army taken from the Hausbuch Wolfegg, one can see that the troops march together depending on their type of equipment.
>>1051928
I've just noticed a few crossbowmen among the men with the handguns, so essentially I've proven myself wrong here. Nevermind what I said in that regard.
>>1051928
Interesting. Around what time would this painting be from? Also, from the ordinances we know that the crossbowman and handgunner were paid the same, so there doesn't seem to be any favoritism in play. With that said it'd be interesting to know just what drove so many leaders into hiring handgunners. By all accounts they were slow, unreliable and inaccurate as opposed to other type of missile troops. Economics? I get that they would be frightening but by the middle of the 15th Century guns would hardly be news to any field soldier.
>>1052066
As I said, it's from the Hausbuch Wolfegg, which is a late 15th century source (likely after 1480).
>With that said it'd be interesting to know just what drove so many leaders into hiring handgunners. By all accounts they were slow, unreliable and inaccurate as opposed to other type of missile troops. Economics? I get that they would be frightening but by the middle of the 15th Century guns would hardly be news to any field soldier.
I'm often surprised by the amount of handgunners too. Do you have any historical sources in regards to these issues with the weapons? I've heard rumours in regards to them being rather "gimmicky" too rather than useful, but I wonder whether that's historical truth or just a myth.
>>1051629
Generally in Western Europe when you see "mounted archers" they're more like mounted infantry/dragoons rather than Mongol style horseback archers. They ride to the battle, dismount, fight on foot and then remount to reposition or retreat.
>>1052168
I literally just saw this
>berne for example expresed her annoyance during the swabian wars that many of her crossbowmen and handgunners had entered the field with halberds and pikes, and zurich was forced to order all those men capable of handling guns to arm themselves with them. the unpopularity of the handgun probably derived from the difficulty the gunners experienced in handling such weapons. in battle the rate of fire must have been dreadfully slow, loose powder being very difficult to handle in wet and windy conditions
-The Swiss at War, 1300-1500
Some issues would be obvious to anyone and well-known problems with cannons and bombards blowing up and needing reforging. But obviously they felt it was worth it, we can only speculate in their reasoning.
>three mounted archers
Are you sure they were mounted archers? The French had soldiers who they called "Archers" but were actually more like light cavalrymen.
English archers during the 15th century were mounted, but they dismounted to fight. Shooting from horseback is very, very inaccurate.
>By all accounts they were slow, unreliable and inaccurate as opposed to other type of missile troops.
Smoothbores are more accurate than most people believe they are and are about on par with the accuracy of a traditional bow. They are also much easier to aim, having a flatter trajectory and a faster projectile. This means a longer effective range as well.
Also, guns are much more powerful, and have much better armor penetration than a bow.
The ratio of firearms to bows increased rapidly throughout the 15th century. The handgun was considered a better weapon for skirmishes and sieges, but commanders hadn't really figured out how to use them effectively in the open field yet. That, combined with the expense of equipping everyone with firearms, is probably why firearms were only a proportion of the missile troops.
There isn't much written on the bow/firearm debate in the 15th century, but plenty in the 16th.
If you're interested, start with John Smythe and Humphrey Barwick. These were two old English veterans writing immediately after the Spanish Armada crisis. Smythe believed that bows were still superior weapons for battles in open fields and on horseback, while Barwick argued that firearms were superior for all purposes. And for the record, neither of them ever make the argument that supposedly "firearms need less training" or that bowmen are "too hard to train".
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A12567.0001.001?rgn=full+text;view=toc;q1=john+smythe
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A05277.0001.001/1:2?rgn=div1;view=toc;q1=barwick
>>1053042
Men with guns without pikes guarding them were considered dead men walking.
>>1054247
Uh, by who?
>>1055134
By everyone.
It was only really the invention of the bayonet that made musket men or handgunners able to stand by themselves.
>>1055158
>By everyone.
Do you have a single source to back that up?
Musketeers were frequently sent into battle in segregated units without pike support, so I'm 90% sure you're talking out of your ass.
