talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Aug, 2009 12:02 am
@Merry Andrew,
In a book about battles that changed the course of history the Battles of Castillion used 300 cannons known as cullverins. But Seward thinks they were handguns. Bureau was a firearms specialist. He was an arms dealer. The battle had a Biblical like twist to it. Remember Joshua tricked the inhabitants of a town by first charging them and run. The townspeople chased the Egyptian runaway slaves. Joshua bait team then turn around just as another bunch of Israelites attacked the townspeople. They had been enveloped and they were slaughtered. I think the city was Ain or something. In the Battle of Castillion Talbot run ahead with his cavalry and his infantry 20,000 was yet to arrive. He knew of Bureau encampment. However the French had a few horsemen exit the encampment. The dust they raised seemed give the impression that the French army was running away. Talbot by now 70 years old got his horsemen to chase after the fleeing
French army. The walls of Bureau's encampment was not straight but zigzag. When Talbot's horsemen came in range the cannons fired. The horsemen were slaughtered. Talbot was out of range but his horse fell. The French soldiered ran to him and killed him. At the other end of Bureau some French troops charge the English. But the cannons did all the damage. As to whether they were cannons or handguns I don't know.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Aug, 2009 12:07 am
@Setanta,
The book is less than 300 pages. It is on sale. In Toronto you could get it at Chapters. I am not sure if it was handguns used at the Battle of Castillion or cannons. The military books mention cannons but Seward thinks it was handguns. Seward researched this quite well.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Aug, 2009 12:11 am
@Setanta,
Yes at the Battle of Crecy the French cavalry ran over the bowmen. The ground was wet and the horses ran into the stakes the English had planted in front of their bowmen. It was dark too and night fall was starting. The French army were tired from marching long distance while the English were rested. They had arrived the day before.
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Aug, 2009 01:06 am
The Battle of Castillion

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Battle_of_Castillon.jpg/300px-Battle_of_Castillon.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Castillon

http://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/castilon.htm
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Aug, 2009 08:04 am
@talk72000,
Quote:
The ground was wet and the horses ran into the stakes the English had planted in front of their bowmen.


This is another example of how "modern" English military thinking of the day was. When Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester and brother-in-law of King Henry III had rebelled in the mid-13th century, his most important ally was Llewellyn the Great. Henry had intended to make his son Edward the Prince of Wales, but that would only have been a glorified title, whereas Llewellyn aimed at the actuality of ruling Wales. Many of de Montfort's allies were also Welsh borders, English lordlings who held lands on the Welsh border. With them out of the equation, Llewellyn was better able to secure the adherence of Welsh magnates who might otherwise have opposed him. In effect, Montfort and Llewellyn were scratching one another's backs.

Montfort eventually captured Henry and Edward. Edward escaped, and in a subsequent battle that same year (1265?), Montfort was killed and Henry liberated. Attempts to unseat Llewellyn, however, failed, and in large measure because of the Welsh bowmen who devastated the feudal cavalry.

Edward had a sharp mind. He was also vengeful and brutal, but that is no reason to ignore his intelligence. He adopted many of the measures which his enemies used when he became King in 1272. Montfort had called a parliament of the baronage and knights of the counties in an effort to gain broad-based support. Edward carried it a step further, establishing a permanent parliament, and one in which there was a Commons as well as a House of Lords. This meant that Edward could appeal directly to the Commons to vote him the supplies he needed. He was usually successful--the Commons were flattered to have the official, public notice of the King. They also routinely wrested "freedoms" from the King in return for supporting his policies and voting him supplies. The Lords were often willing enough to endorse revenue legislation coming from the Commons because it didn't come out of their own pockets, and they were not clever enough to see the long-term implications of a King who was not dependent upon their largesse and their troops.

Because something else Edward had learned was the unreliability of the feudal levy and feudatory loyalty. Montfort had relied upon the direct, material support of the baronage, and to a large extent of the Marcher Lords, the men with estates on the Welsh border, where magnates maintained large bodies of men at arms. That was fine for so long as Montfort could rely upon their support, but when things looked dicey (the French King and the Pope condemning Montfort), they quickly changed sides, and in the same summer. Montfort fell because so much of his army had changed sides, and a good deal of what remained melted away as the lordlings grew nervous about being involved in a defeat. Of course, their hesitation lead to that defeat.

So Edward wanted armies of hired troops, or of the retainers of men who owed everything to him, and who could not afford to turn their coats. This he accomplished by handing out to those men the lands confiscated after the settlement of the Montfort rebellion. Then he would not be dependent upon the feudal levy. Traditionally, the Marcher Lords were to deal with the small Welsh raiding parties, and the feudal levy would assemble at Chester for a summer campaign against Wales. But the feudal levy was sufficiently unreliable that it was never fully assembled at Chester until the summer was almost over, and the Welsh could survive the brief foray against them. But Edward had a paid, standing army, and he was able to rely upon the Parliament to vote him the supplies he needed, so that he could prepare for campaigning over the winter and get a start as soon as enough grass had grown in the Spring to provide fodder for the horses.

Edward didn't convene his parliaments, though, until 1295. Before that time, he allowed the feudal magnates to meet their feudal obligations with cash, and even offered a discount, so that he would be free of the necessity of relying upon them militarily. He also extended his divide and conquer program to Welsh magnates, and his first big coup in 1272 was to separate Powys from the rest of Wales. The Welsh bowmen came mostly from South Wales, so Edward was able to turn their own weapon upon them.

Powys had been an independent "kingdom" after the Romans withdrew from Britain, and even though it had long ceased to be anything resembling a kingdom, the Lords of Powys in the south always resented the dominance of Welsh princes from Gwynned in the north. Llewellyn ap Griffith, grandson of Lewellyn the Great, had just conquered Powys in the 1260s, so the de la Pole family were quite willing to side with Edward against Gwynned. This is the same sort of short-sightedness which afflicted the English magnates. Edward made the de la Poles essentially Marcher Lords, but defeating Lewellyn ap Griffith did not lead to their own independence.

So Edward was free of the feudal levy (and establishing the Parliament twenty years later assured this), and his appearance early in the year with a professional, paid army loyal only to him as paymaster was a much a threat to the Marcher Lords as it was to the Welsh. The same would be true when he attempted the conquest of Scotland. The Marcher Lords in the west, and the Borderers in the north had lost a great deal of their power, and were no longer in a position to threaten the crown, or to rebel with impunity.

When Edward had dealt with Wales, and finally settled the Marcher Lords, he turned his attention to Scotland. The newly minted Parliament was a part of this plan. This was the era when William Wallace arose to prominence. One of Wallace's techniques on the battlefield was to form his spearmen into circular formations known as shiltrons, with stakes driven into the ground before them, and with the spearmen wield long, heavy pikes--both measures to negate the effect of traditional heavy cavalry. It is believed that at Falkirk, the English bowmen simply stood back and slaughtered the Scots in their shiltrons.

Whatever the truth about Wallace and the English (and truth is probably a rare commodity in those tales), Edward incorporated yet another tactical method into his military doctrine. By the time his grandson Edward III began the Hundred Years war, it was standard practice for the bowmen to erect a hedge of stakes in the ground to protect them from heavy, armored cavalry. So Edward I's measures gave the English a standing army, paid by the King and loyal only to him, large bands of well trained archers, and a tactical doctrine which called for them to stand on the defensive and receive the enemy attack before going over to the offensive. In most feudal era warfare, this was decisive. But if the enemy wouldn't play, it was useless--and worse than useless, as your army ate up their rations, and emptied your treasury without providing any results. So many expeditions during the reign in France of Charles V simply marched from Calais to Bordeaux, without accomplishing anything. This was what was happening to the Black Prince in 1356, when Jean le Bon, the father of Charles V, stupidly attacked the English near Poitiers. They need only have surrounded them and waited for them to surrender, which likely would have happened very quickly. Charles was captured there along with his father, and it seems he learned that lesson well.
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Aug, 2009 09:18 pm
@Setanta,
Thanks. I have the book '100 great military leaders' and Edward I, Edward III, the Black Prince and Henry V are in the list. Edward III was according to Seward was fluent in English and French, spoke and wrote Latin and understood German and Flemish. "In person he was an immensely tall, strikingly handsome young man with a pointed yellow beard and long drooping moustaches, his features 'like the face of a god' according to a contemporary."

Wonder if they will ever make a movie of the 100 years war? Maybe not as too many nerves would be touched. The English Royalty would object to be shown in poor light while the French would oppose it showing the stupidity of the French Cavalry and lack of military skill of King Philip.








ii
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 11:01 pm
It would be hard to compress so much history into a motion picture. It might make a good "mini-series," but even then, there would be so much going on that it would be difficult.

I don't think i'd include Edward III, Edward, Prince of Wales (the "Black Prince") and Henry V in such lists. Great leaders, perhaps, but not great military men. Edward I deserves it, though, in my never humble opinion. It is likely that all of the nobility of England spoke French in that era--those who didn't would immediately mark themselves out as nouveau arriviste.

Here's a little bit of trivia for you. Edward III was at a great feast in Calais, when a young noblewoman (i'd have to get up and go upstairs to look up her name, and i'm too lazy) lost her garter while dancing. Edward retrieved it for her, and handed it over in a suave and gallant manner. There was much tittering and murmuring in the crowd, to which Edward took offense, as both his intentions and his relationship with an acknowledged beauty of the day were chaste. So, he loudly said: "Honi soit qui mal y pense." ("Shamed be him who thinks ill of this.") He then founded the Order of the Garter as a chivalric order devoted to the courtly virtues as exemplified by fighting men. It quickly became something to which young bloods of the day aspired, and the Garter became such a common royal custom for acknowledging promising young men, that it's motto eventually became the unofficial motto of the English monarchy.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 11:15 pm
They didn't have elastic in those days, so a garter was an affair with a buckle, like a small belt.

http://www.handembroideryshop.co.uk/acatalog/1006228.jpg
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 03:01 am
Set wrote:
when a young noblewoman (i'd have to get up and go upstairs to look up her name, and i'm too lazy) lost her garter while dancing.


I had that in a deep recess of my memory: it was Catherine Montacute, Countess of Salisbury.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 05:13 am
@Francis,
Just a little more trivia: a couple of French towns and villages kept their English names (nearly) from that period, Soustons (South Town) for instance (Soustons plage being one of my favourites), Hastingue (Hastings) (one of my favourite bastides), Libourne (Leyburn), Nicole (Lincoln), Hossegor (Horse Guard) ...
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 10:10 pm
@Setanta,
We had Lord of Rings why not Hundred Years' War: Pre-history starting with 'Episode I - Eleanor of Aquitaine' When Elanor married Henry II it gave England a foothold on French soil. Eleanor was the Queen of France and 29 when she met the 18 year old Henry. She was unhappy with her marriage to monkish Louis VII. 'Episode II - Edward Longshanks' Edward I the 'Hammer of the Scots'. 'Episode III - The She Wolf' Isabel the sister of Charles IV, the King of France.
The first trilogy: 'Episode I - Enter the Dragon' with fire all over northern France. 'Episode II - The Black Prince'. 'Episode III - The French Feud, Burgundy versus Armagnac'.
Second trilogy: 'Episode IV - The prodigal son' - Henry V as a feckless youth until he ascends the throne. 'Episode V - The Regent of France' Duke of Bedford, the only English royal who loved the French. 'Episode VI - The Witch of Orleans' Joan of Arc and the Charles VII.
The Finale - Bureau's Guns.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 11:01 pm
Here is what a handgun at the Hundred Years' War would look like:

http://www.themcs.org/weaponry/cannon/2006%20MCS%20Paris%20Hand%20Bombarde%201390-1400%20308.jpg

http://www.themcs.org/weaponry/cannon/Tannenberg%20Cannon%20pre%201399.jpg

http://www.themcs.org/weaponry/cannon/2007%20MCS%20Milan%20Handgun%20end%20C14%20start%20C15%20598.jpg

http://www.themcs.org/weaponry/cannon/cannon.htm

The barrel was pistol size with no trigger or handle. It was attached to a rod or stake which was held by the armpit and fired by igniting the charge thru a hole on top.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 11:34 pm
Here are medieval gunslingers:

http://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/smarms_s.jpg

http://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/e_gune2.gif

http://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/hgunt-ts.gif

http://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/h_guner2.gif

http://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/gp_wpns.htm

0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 11:44 pm
@Francis,
There is a persistent legend that the Countess of Salisbury had long been rumored to be involved in witchcraft and that the garter which she wore was a sign that she belonged to a particular coven. When the garter slipped, it was exposed to everyone's sight. Seen in this light, the honi soit qui mal y pense motto takes on a different significance. According to this story, Edward was warning the assembled group not to jump to any conclusions about the Countess's religious loyalties, that this suspicious looking garter had no other significance than to hold up a stocking.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 12:52 am
Here is more on the Hundred Years War:

When William the conqueror invaded England he set up a kingdom on both sides of the Channel.
Quote:
Its basic cause was a dynastic quarrel that originated when the conquest of England by William of Normandy created a state lying on both sides of the English Channel. In the 14th cent. the English kings held the duchy of Guienne in France; they resented paying homage to the French kings, and they feared the increasing control exerted by the French crown over its great feudal vassals. The immediate causes of the Hundred Years War were the dissatisfaction of Edward III of England with the nonfulfillment by Philip VI of France of his pledges to restore a part of Guienne taken by Charles IV; the English attempts to control Flanders, an important market for English wool and a source of cloth; and Philip's support of Scotland against England.


http://www.answers.com/topic/hundred-years-war
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 09:29 pm
After checking the references I believe that since the French army were besieging Castillon they must have had some big cannons out of the rance of the cannons of Castillon. Maximum would be ten big cannons facing Castillon. Talbot avoided attacking the big cannons facing Castillon and so turned around to the broadside wavy built up walls of the encampment. Since Bureau had a total of 300 culverins or cannons the majority must have been the small one-man hand guns with long barrels with a serpentine trigger and firing wick for the gunpowder charge. Talbot made his men charge at the encampment single file of two to three men to provide a narrower target. The wavy outline of the encampment walls allowed cross fire by the French. I am sure that French archers shot their arrows at the English as they charged towards the encampment walls.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/26/2022 at 05:17:24