Artillery, Firearms, and Renaissance Italy

The Impact of Gunpowder Weaponry on Siege and Field Battles in

Renaissance Italy and Europe, 1400-1550
Nick Kaizer – 100108257

Dr. Jennifer MacDonald

March 5th 2014
HIST 3723: The Renaissance
 Gunpowder arrived in Europe from Asia in the 13 th century. It was first used militarily by

medieval armies in bombards, large gunpowder-fired siege guns. By the late 17th and 18th

centuries gunpowder weapons were the dominant weapons used on European battlefields. The

prevalence and importance of gunpowder weapons rose during the Renaissance period, between

roughly 1350 and 1550. When Charles VIII of France invaded Italy in 1494, Italians were

shocked at the power of his siege canons, and during the later phases of the Italians Wars, both

artillery and handguns became increasingly common in battles. Gunpowder weaponry was not as

important to warfare during the Renaissance as they would become in later periods, however

technological developments of and tactical usage of gunpowder weapons did impact the Italian

Wars. Siege guns proved to be very effective and led to the creation of new types of fortresses.

Field artillery and firearms had a more limited impact on warfare but were still important

weapons.

Several technological advances enabled the invention of new types of artillery, which

were superior to medieval bombards. One development was corning, which is first recorded in

1411.1 Corning was a method of producing gunpowder by compounding it when wet, and

forming it into small, dense grains of black powder. These small dense grains allowed the

decomposition process to spread faster. Because of this, corned powder produced a much

stronger explosion than older methods of production. 2 Stronger explosions increased the power

of the projectiles being fired. At about the same time, cast-iron or cast-bronze guns were being

produced which were strong enough to fire cast-iron or lead projectiles, as opposed to rounded

stones fired by medieval bombards.3 There were two advantages to these types of guns. One was

that the iron guns were produced with the aim of achieving a higher velocity, whereas bombards
1
John F. Guilmartin Jr., "The Earliest Shipboard Gunpowder Ordnance: An Analysis of Its Technical Parameters
and Tactical Capabilities," The Journal of Military History, 71, no. 3 (2007): 649-669: 660
2
Guilmartin: 660
3
Guilmartin 659-660

1
had been built to fire the largest stones possible. New cast-iron guns could do more damage with

stronger velocities. As well, iron and lead projectiles did more damage than large stones, making

these new guns overall more powerful.4 Secondly, it was more cost effective to mass produce

cast-iron balls than rounded boulders.5 Armies which used newer guns could do more damage for

less expenditure. These developments were utilized by gun foundries in France, and later in

Germany, Spain, and the Ottoman Empire, to produce new, smaller guns which were more

effective than previous types of bombards, both in terms of power and cost.6

When Charles VIII invaded Italy in 1494, Italians were surprised and impressed by the

strength of his artillery. Francesco Guicciardini, a Florentine Historian, recorded this invasion in

The History of Italy, and discusses the superiority of Charles VIII’s new guns over the medieval

bombards which were common in Italy. He describes that bombards had been well known in

Italy since the 1350s, and while they had rendered all older forms of siege engines obsolete, they

were ineffective due to their poor mobility and rate of fire.7 He describes the new French guns as

“more maneuverable, constructed only of bronze. These were called cannons and they used iron

cannon-balls instead of stones as before, and this new shot was incomparably larger and heavier

than that which had previously been employed.” 8 These smaller guns were hauled on carriages

drawn by horses instead of oxen, which gave the French gunners agility that Italy had never seen

before.9 The advantage of greater mobility, faster loading times, and greater damage of these new

cannons allowed the French to “in a few hours accomplish what previously in Italy used to

4
Guilmartin 659-660
5
ibid
6
ibid 659-660
7
Francesco Guicciardini, "The Formidable French Artillery and Troops Compared with the Italian Forces," The
Civilization of the Italian Renaissance: A Sourcebook, ed. Kenneth R. Barlett (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
2011): 259
8
Guicciardini: 259
9
F.L. Taylor, The Art of War in Italy, 1494-1529, (Westport: Greenwood Press Publishers, 1973): 5; J.R. Hale, War
and Society in Renaissance Europe, 1450-1620, (London: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1985): 83-86;
Guicciardini: 259

2
require many days.”10 This led to the defeat of Ferdinand of Naples, who kept his army

garrisoned in strongholds, rather than engage Charles VIII’s superior army. 11 This new type of

artillery was a shock to Italian leaders, and would lead to a profound redesign of various

fortifications throughout Italy.

The Italian response to the power of modern siege artillery was to develop a new type of

fortification to defend their cities and strongholds. Guicciardini describes new types of

fortifications, including ditches, bastions, and angled ramparts, which were built in response to

the effectiveness of new artillery against medieval castles. 12 According to Guicciardini, elements

of these designs came from Turkish forts. 13 Medieval fortresses were tall and relatively thin;

before the introduction of effective siege guns, the height of these forts was their greatest

advantage. The height provided a strong barrier to attack and gave defenders good vantage

points.14 Bombards had a very slow rate of fire, larger ones could only fire about 7 shots in a day.

This gave defenders time to repair some of the damage caused by these guns. 15 However, the

new artillery which was brought to Italy by the French, Germans, and Spanish in the Italian Wars

was much more effective against medieval fortresses. New fortresses were developed which

were based not on height, but on their ability to resist cannon fire. These forts used angled walls

and bastions, in addition to ditches and earthen ramparts. The angled bastions were designed to

deflect cannon balls, and the width of the walls and the incorporation of earth would help absorb

impacts.16 This style was known as known as trace italienne, or star forts. The first true trace

italienne fort was built in 1519 at Civitavecchia, the harbour for the Papal Fleet, and was
10
Guicciardini: 259
11
Guicciardini: 259-260; Taylor: 13
12
Guicciardini: 263
13
ibid
14
Walter Cronkite, "Gunpowder." War and Civilization, August 03 1998. TLC Episode 3
15
Cronkite; Michael Spilling, ed, Battles that Changed History: Key Battles that Decided the Fate of Nations,
(London: Amber Books Ltd, 2010): 186-191
16
Ciro Paoletti, A Military History of Italy, (London: Praeger Security International, 2008): 12

3
designed by Giuliano da Sangolla, who may have used elements from an earlier design by

Michelangelo.17 These forts were designed to use artillery defensively, as well. In his

autobiography, Benvenuteo Cellini describes his role in manning the guns defending a Papal fort

during the Fall of Rome in 1527.18 When Charles VIII invaded Italy in 1494, Italians fortresses

were in general inferior to others in Europe, but by the mid-1500s Italian military architects were

designing some of the best fortifications in Europe. Other states hired Italian architects to build

trace italienne forts at great expense.19 This was not a universal change, however. Bologna

retained its medieval style defense walls throughout the Renaissance, despite attempts by the

Pope to rebuild the defenses, due to political resistance. 20 Regardless of such exceptions, most

European states built expensive fortresses due to the offensive power of cannons in sieges.

Artillery did not have such a profound impact upon field battles as it did on sieges, but

cannons did influence many battles during the Italian Wars. Unlike bombards, cannons were

maneuverable enough to be used as field artillery. 21 Niccolò Machiavelli wrote in The Art of War

that some ancient tactics, such as ones used by Scipio, would have been impossible if the enemy

possessed cannons.22 Machiavelli did not advise relying on artillery, however, though his opinion

of artillery did improve later in his life. 23 This was because of two reasons. The first was that

relying on cannons in battle, as with firearms, required one to adopt primarily defensive tactics,

which Machiavelli was not in favour of. Whenever possible, Machiavelli advised offensive

17
Paoletti: 12-13
18
Benvenuto Cellini, "Selections from the Autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini," The Civilization of the Italian
Renaissance: A Sourcebook, ed. Kenneth R. Barlett (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011): 292-303
19
Guicciardini: 259-263; Taylor: 129
20
Richard J. Tuttle, "Against Fortifications: The Defense of Renaissance Bologna," Journal of the Society of
Architectural Historians, 41, no. 3 (1982): 189-197
21
Guicciardini: 259
22
Ben Cassidy, "Machiavelli and the Ideology of the Offensive: Gunpowder Weapons in "The Art of War"," The
Journal of Military History, 67, no. 2 (2003): 388-389; Niccolo Machiavelli, Constitution Society, "The Seven
Books of the Art of War." Last modified November 04, 2013. Accessed February 24, 2014.
23
Cassidy: 388-391; Machiavelli

4
tactics, and considered the freedom to attack and the speed of assaults essential to success. 24

Cannons were more maneuverable than bombards, but they were not nearly as mobile as infantry

or cavalry units in pitched battles. At the Battle of Fornovo in 1495, Alessandro Beneditti

observed that “on every side the sky repeatedly flashed with fire and thundered with artillery and

was filled with wails and cries. Iron, bronze, and lead balls sped hissing aloft, and these threw

the ranks of cavalry and infantry into turmoil even without slaughter.” 25 Beneditti was evidently

impressed with the French field artillery, and attributes it to the destruction of Italian formations

in the field, but does say that the cannons killed relatively few soldiers. 26 One reason for this is

that as infantry and cavalry forces advanced they blocked the line of fire of their artillery and

reduced its effectiveness.27 One example used by Machiavelli to defend his ideas that offense is

better than modern firepower is the Battle of Novara, 1513, where Swiss infantrymen are able to

attack a gun-armed army before it had a chance to prepare an effective defense.28

In many battles of the period, field artillery had little impact on the course of the battle,

but artillery was used effectively in some field engagements during the Italian Wars. One was the

battle of Marignano, in 1515, between a Franco-Venetian force and the Milanese with their

Swiss allies. The Swiss infantry were attacked by French cavalry while being bombarded by

French field artillery.29 Swiss pikemen could fight either the cavalry or artillery alone effectively.

To counter cavalry they would form into a square and use their pikes as an effective barrier to

cavalry charges, but this made them prime targets for French gunners. Likewise, they could

assault the guns as they did at the Battle of Novara, but this would make them vulnerable to flank

24
Cassidy: 388-398; Machiavelli
25
Alessandro Beneditti, De Re Militari: The Society for Medieval Military History, "Alessandro Beneditti, The
Battle of Fornovo (1495)," Last modified April 22, 2013. Accessed March 3, 2014.
26
Beneditti
27
Cassidy: 390-391
28
Cassidy: 398; Machiavelli
29
Cassidy: 398

5
and rear cavalry attacks.30 The artillery alone would not have been effective, but when used in a

combined arms tactic was an important factor in France’s victory. 31 Another battle was Bicocca,

in 1522. Here, the French fought alongside Swiss mercenaries as they had in 1494, against

Spanish, Imperial, Milanese, and Papal forces. A Swiss attack was halted with heavy casualties

when the pikemen attacked a fortified Spanish position defended by both cannons and infantry,

including many arquebusiers.32 From their defended position the Spanish were able to use both

their cannons and firearms to inflict heavy casualties on the Swiss attackers. 33 Both battles show

that artillery used in conjunction with other forces and fortified positions could be very effective,

and the same was true with firearm-armed infantry.

The development of the matchlock firing mechanism allowed portable firearms to

become important weapons during the Renaissance, but like field artillery their impact was

mixed. When used in conjunction with other infantry or in defensive positions, firearms could be

very effective. The arquebus, a smoothbore firearm with a firing mechanism, could, unlike older

firearms, be used by one individual due to a firing mechanism. It had similar advantages and

disadvantages to the musket which eventually replaced the arquebus. Arquebuses were very

inaccurate compared to crossbows and longbows.34 They had a very poor rate of fire compared to

longbows, though it was similar to many crossbows, due to the difficulty in loading them. A

good arquebusier could fire one or two shots a minute, or on average one every forty seconds. 35

A good longbowman however could shoot six arrows in forty seconds. 36 Matchlock arquebuses,

30
Ibid
31
Ibid
32
Ibid
33
Ibid
34
Clifford J. Rodgers, “The Military Revolutions of the Hundred Years War,” The Journal of Military History, 1993,
Vol 57, No 2, p. 257
35
Cassidy: 393-394; Gervase Phillips, "Longbow and Hackbutt: Weapons Technology and Technology Transfer in
Early Modern England," Technology and Culture, 40, no. 3 (1999): 581
36
Phillips: 581

6
the most common type, were useless in rainy weather, as the matchcord needed to fire the

weapon would not remain lit in rain.37 The arquebus did have two advantages that made it a

viable weapon during the Renaissance. At short range an arquebus Is very effective against both

flesh and armour, and can cause horrifying wounds. Crossbows and longbows were also

effective against armour, however, but at short ranges they were surpassed. 38 The second

advantage of an arquebus was its short training period. One could train and become a good

arquebusier in a matter of weeks, whereas a good longbowman had to train for years in order to

develop the skills and muscles needed to use the bow effectively. 39 The quick training time made

it easier to raise an army of arquebusiers than bowmen. The advantages of the firearm allowed it

to grow in prevalence during the Renaissance, but its disadvantages limited its effectives in

combat.

Firearms were used in many battles during the Italian Wars, though their impact on

individual battles is mixed, and successful utilization of firearms usually involved being used in

conjunction with pikemen or fortified defenses. Cellini describes the Papal defenders during the

Sack of Rome using arquebuses to defend against assaults by Imperial troops. He also states that

Charles III, Duke of Bourbon, was killed by an arquebusier. 40 Similar to his thoughts on the use

of cannon, Machiavelli does not advise relying on firearms heavily in battle. 41 This is because

arquebuses were better suited to defensive tactics as opposed to offensive ones. 42 Machiavelli

recommended using firearms alongside of archers as skirmishers.43 During this period the

English used firearms alongside of longbows in mixed formations, and the Venetians also used

37
Cassidy 393-394
38
Cassidy: 394; Phillips: 580
39
Cronkite; Phillips: 585; Rodgers: 257
40
Cellini: 292-303; He claims that it was his bullet which killed the Duke
41
Machiavelli
42
Cassidy: 388-394
43
Cassidy: 388-389

7
mixed firearm and archer unts to great tactic effect. 44 Battles such as Fornovo were hardly

impacted by the use of firearms. However, as the number of firearms increased during the period,

more generals had to adjust tactics to incorporate the short range, poor accuracy, and long reload

times of firearms.45 The Battle of Cerignola is a famous example. In 1503 a Spanish force was

attacked by a French one in Italy. The Spanish general had received a large number of

reinforcements armed with arquebusiers before the battle, and to make use of these troops he

adopted a defensive position behind a small wall and trench. Despite having an advantage in

artillery, the French and Swiss quickly went on the offensive, which effectively blocked their

own artillery. Assaults by French cavalry and Swiss pikemen were repulsed with heavy

casualties as they tried to assault the centre and flanks of the defenders. The defenses slowed the

enemy troops within the effective range of the Spanish firearms, and many were killed or

wounded by close range fire. The tired Swiss that made it past the wall were then attacked by

fresh Spanish and German pikemen. 46 The majority of infantry and almost all cavalry during the

Renaissance were armed with melee weapons, and arquebusiers were at a disadvantage due to

the flaws of their firearms.47 An effective counter to the vulnerability was to position them with

other units such as pikemen or to fortify their position, which allowed generals to utilize the

short range destructive powder of firearms and keep them protected from melee units. 48 During

the century after the Renaissance firearms would become common weapons for infantry and

cavalry, but were still used in conjunction with pikemen until the widespread adoption of the

bayonet.

44
Phillips: 582-587
45
Cassidy 393; Taylor: 3-33
46
Cassidy 393-394
47
Cassidy: 393
48
Taylor: 30-33

8
 The various Italian Wars between 1494 and 1559 drew forces from many European

powers into Italy, notably Spain, France, and the Holy Roman Empire. One effect of these wars

was the introduction of modern siege and field artillery into Italy. Gunpowder weaponry had a

mixed amount of impact on warfare during this period due in part to recent technological

developments. The new siege artillery introduced in Italy was very successful and resulted in a

transformation of military architecture, while field guns had a much lesser impact on field

battles. Both field artillery and firearms were used to great effect in the wars when used in

conjunction with other forces or from fortified positions. In many battles however, these new

weapons were not that important to the outcome. Gunpowder had been used in European wars

since the 13th century, though its usage and importance increased during the Renaissance, and

would continue to do so in the Early Modern Period.

9
 Bibliography
Primary Sources
Beneditti, Alessandro. De Re Militari: The Society for Medieval Military History, "Alessandro
Beneditti, The Battle of Fornovo (1495)." Last modified April 22, 2013. Accessed March
3, 2014. http://deremilitari.org/2013/04/alessandro-beneditti-the-battle-of-fornovo-1495/.

Cellini, Benvenuto. “Selections from the Autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini.” The Civilization
of the Italian Renaissance: A Sourcebook. Edited by Kenneth R. Barlett. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 2011.

Guicciardini, Francesco. “The Formidable French Artillery and Troops Compared with the
Italian Forces.” The Civilization of the Italian Renaissance: A Sourcebook. Edited by
Kenneth R. Barlett. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011.

Machiavelli, Niccolò. Constitution Society, "The Seven Books of the Art of War." Last modified
November 04, 2013. Accessed February 24, 2014.
http://www.constitution.org/mac/artofwar_.htm.

Secondary Sources
Cassidy, Ben. "Machiavelli and the Ideology of the Offensive: Gunpowder Weapons in "The Art
of War"." The Journal of Military History. no. 2 (2003): 381-404.

Cronkite, Walter. "Gunpowder." War and Civilization. August 03 1998. TLC Episode 3.

Guilmartin Jr., John F. "The Earliest Shipboard Gunpowder Ordnance: An Analysis of Its
Technical Parameters and Tactical Capabilities." The Journal of Military History. no. 3
(2007): 649-669.

Hale, J.R. War and Society in Renaissance Europe, 1450-1620. London: McGill-Queen, 1985.

Paoletti, Ciro. A Military History of Italy. London: Praeger Security International, 2008.

Phillips, Gervase. "Longbow and Hackbutt: Weapons Technology and Technology Transfer in
Early Modern England." Technology and Culture. no. 3 (1999): 576-593.

Taylor, F.L. The Art of War in Italy, 1494-1529. Westport: Greenwood Press Publishers, 1973.

Tuttle, Richard J. "Against Fortifications: The Defense of Renaissance Bologna." Journal of the
Society of Architectural Historians. no. 3 (1982): 189-201.

Cover Image
Patriartis. DiviantArt, "Arquebusiers." Last modified October 2013. Accessed March 3, 2014.
http://patriartis.deviantart.com/art/Arquebusiers-406152031.

10