User talk:Springald

Thought you might like this

The Intensification of Siege Warfare

Caerlaverock was so strong a castle that it feared no siege before the king came there, for it would never have had to surrender provided that it was well supplied when the need arose, with men, engines and provisions. Walter of Exeter, C.1300(1)

The Crown's effort to wage war systematically, on a markedly greater scale and within a demanding technological framework is distinctly revealed in its siege warfare. By the thirteenth century, Europe's industrial and economic growth was already manifest in the proliferation of castles, cathedrals and stone works in general; in England the number of 'castles' multiplied from only a few dozen since their inception in the eleventh century to perhaps as many as a thousand.(2) Not surprisingly, stone works consumed large portions of societies' energies, technical resources and capital.(3) The Crown's expenses on its network of fortifications and residences provide some indication of their importance.(4) During Henry III's reign, upwards of £80,000 or as much as ten percent of the Crown's revenue was spent on fortifications, including maintaining around fifty English castles in royal possession.(5) Edward I spent about the same amount in a much shorter time on the series of monumental fortresses in Wales, while at the same time establishing some fifty bastides in Gascony.(6)

Edward I's Welsh castles were pinnacles of medieval military architecture and defensive planning, designed to accommodate a new style of warfare conspicuous for its command of resources and military technology. Although the thirteenth century represented something of an apogee in medieval fortification, historians are less sure about the dynamics of attack and defence in their development.(7) Even though Edward I's defensive system in Wales was a marvel of defensive architecture and planning, in the event it may have been excessive; no comparable attempt was made in the fourteenth or fifteenth centuries during which time most of the Crown's defences suffered in constant need of repair. The discrepancy in views is even more understandable given the paucity of our knowledge concerning the development of siege weaponry. The period c. 1250-1350 witnessed nothing like cannons' impact on fifteenth-century warfare, and no trend in capitulation ratios or duration of sieges has been discerned.

Regardless of the lack of any clear shift in the equilibrium of attack and defence during this period, there is much evidence that contemporaries perceived that the offensive had gained or would soon gain the upper hand. Walter of Exeter's description of the strength of Caerlaverock castle was actually designed to stress the potency of Edward I's army which took the 'fearless' stronghold in a week. Bradbury's pioneering work on medieval siege warfare emphasized late medieval governments' capabilities in terms of deploying men, materials and more potent devices such as trebuchets and firearms.(8) Though much evidence supports the notion that the scale of the Crown's sieges increased from Edward I's reign, ascertaining the level of change based on the mobilization of the most common items of war is difficult due to the vagaries involved in mobilization and accounting as discussed earlier.(9) We can gauge the Crown's developing potency in siege warfare through its control of larger artillery. Although the Crown's largest trebuchets of the fourteenth century have become something of a fascination in recent years, the chronology of its development continues to divide historians.(10) Opinions on the advent of the heavy counterweight trebuchet, or one propelled solely by a falling counterweight instead of traction crews, range from the late twelfth to the early fourteenth century.(11) Most attempts to date its emergence in Europe have relied on the descriptions of chroniclers and clerks even though they seemed to prefer a set of familiar terms such as perrier, magonel, a generic for engine, or in some cases a nom de guerre regardless of the kinds of siege engines involved. Consequently far too many inconsistencies in the use of these terms (even by the same writer let alone across Europe) prevent us from extracting much technical meaning through cognomens alone. The acclaim bestowed on the largest engines and the enormous efforts required to build, maintain and operate them have left a long trail of records that allows to surmise the development of the Crown's arsenal with surprising precision, including the process whereby counterweights supplemented traction crews and eventually replaced them, a labour-saving technology that made fielding these devices a far less complicated and seemingly easier task.

Henry III

Both the mention of a new 'Turkish' engine just prior to Henry III's reign and the 'great engines' of Louis' invasion of England in 1216 have been accepted as evidence for the advent of the heavy counterweight trebuchet in the West. Details of other engines' construction and operation in England during this time indicate that the 'Turkish' engines more likely referred to traction trebuchets.(12) In England, expenses were recorded in 1211 for operating two great 'petraries' and two 'Turkish' engines with cords and slings.(13) The traction trebuchet was probably known in the West in the ninth century or earlier, and it is widely considered to have become a common feature of western sieges during the twelfth century, particularly after the crusader siege of Lisbon (1147).(14) Essentially a large pivoting lever and a sling for discharging shot, the traction trebuchet was powered by hundreds of labourers pulling on ropes attached to the short end of the beam; mostly wood, the traction trebuchet needed no other mechanism or trigger, and did not require much special expertise to construct or operate. Its relative simplicity usually achieved a high rate of fire, and some large, well-built versions are recorded as throwing projectiles weighing many hundredweight. However, the efforts of traction crews were often inconsistent and produced mixed results, and more importantly these crews required extensive efforts to mobilize and maintain in the field.

The greatest material demand for the Crown's engines at this time appears to have been obtaining ropes, presumably for traction labourers. For most of Henry III's reign, large purchases of ropes were a conspicuous feature in accounts of constructing and operating siege engines.(15) In 1215 several orders were made to supply Thomas Sampford with cords for drawing engines (ad trahendi petrarias et magunellos).(16) In 1221 two engineers were sent to Byham with 13 carts of cords to make engines.(17) In one account of making engines in 1254, more money was spent on cords than on iron and steel.(18) Obtaining the necessary manpower for operating these engines was also problematic. For the siege of Bedford (1224) bishops were supposed to provide one man from every 60 acres of lands to assist with operating the king's engines.(19) When labour for operating engines could not be impressed, wages ran high. Wages for operating petraries and mangonels was the only item specifically mentioned in an account for expenses of £1311 18s 2d during a siege in the 1220s.(20)

Based on the costs of construction, these engines were of modest size. In 1214, the construction of two Turkish engines cost £38 19s 5 ½d.(21) In 1216, the construction of two petraries and three Turkish mangonels and their carriage from Knaresborough forest to the castle cost in all just over £50.(22) The very high number of men required to operate traction trebuchets, however, seems to have prevented deploying many of them at any one place. In 1210 the number of throwing engines on John's campaign was probably not very great; only four masons accompanied the army to cut ammunition for engines.(23) John's major effort to take Rochester in 1215 included only five engines, one of which was described as a strange contrivance, but mining brought the siege to conclusion.(24)

The practice of attaching some kind of small counterweight on traction trebuchets has confused historians in their attempts to date the advent of the true counterweight trebuchet, or one relying solely on counterweight for power. Throughout Henry III's reign depictions of trebuchets often appear with both ropes and some type of counterweight (fig. 3.1-2, 3.3-4). A modest- sized counterweight on a trebuchet would serve to counteract the inertia of its beam, sling and missile, and would store momentum from the labourers' traction. Unlike the expenses of building engines in the first quarter of the century, works conducted later in Henry's reign begin to include quantities of lead purchased or requisitioned specifically for engines. In June 1244 the sheriff of Lincoln was ordered to purchase 20 carts of lead at the fair of Boston for Master Gerard to make engines at Newcastle, but not all of it was intended for counterweight.(25) In September the sheriff of Kent was ordered to receive from Master Gerard three engines, their gear and 17 carts of lead described as not part of the engines' counterweights; an order from September 1245 indicates that only 6 carts of lead accompanied 10 horse loads of iron, 4 horse loads of steel and 4 axles (cavillae) for the king's engines. (26)

In 1266 the siege of Kenilworth became the Crown's largest siege effort since 1224, in the process consuming the sheriffs' returns from ten nearby counties.(27) Extensive efforts were required. Kenilworth was a very secure castle: a stout central keep stood on a mound of bedrock, protected on its west side by a large artificial lake, and an intricate system of moats, earthworks and concentric curtain walls otherwise.(28) A striking aspect of the mobilisation was the number of requests for materials sent to diverse places. On 28 July some 2500 hurdles (8' x 7' or 10' x 8') were requested of the sheriffs of Oxford, Worcester, and Northampton and in September another request was sent to the sheriffs of six other counties for all the hurdles in their possession.(29) It appears unlikely that all of the Crown's requests were filled entirely. Although 30000 quarrels were requested from the sheriff of Lincoln, in March 1267 he was allowed £8 5s 4d for only 13,200 quarrels he had sent to Kenilworth.(30) The gathering of cords for engines was still a prominent aspect of the Crown's material logistics.(31) In April cords, hides and engines were requested from Bristol.(32) Peter de Neville, marshal of the king's household, supervised the construction and carriage of many siege devices. In early May he was sent to Gloucester with orders to oversee the preparation of some engines and take them to Kenilworth. The sheriff of Gloucestershire claimed £15 for carriage of 7 beams (virgis), a nail (cavilla) for an axle, cords and weights (filiis et pendentibis).(33) In June Peter claimed over £10 for another shipment related to engines, and 30s was spent having three cavillae and timber carried to Worcester from the Forest of Dean.(34) Another £11 was spent on cords, cables and hemp for engines, as was 4s of horsehair.(35) Small boats of barges were forwarded by the sheriffs of Worcester and Gloucester.(36) Even though as many as a dozen engines may have been deployed, the king's clerks only gave one engine a cognomen: a belfry called Ursus built the previous year for Roger Leyburn's efforts to recapture Sandwich.(37) A second belfry may also have been brought by the sheriff of Gloucester.(38) Portable towers had remained the most common and potent threat to the enceinte since the eleventh century. The Bear's size is unknown, but early crusader towers reached as much as one hundred feet in height and could house hundreds of men and light artillery; by the fourteenth century several accounts suggest the largest belfries might have sheltered as many as one thousand men.(39) We have little evidence of how well the few large artillery performed at Kenilworth. The Dunstanble Annals report that Edward's 'new machines' threw incessantly against the castle's walls and wooden towers, and stone shots thrown from engines in both camps kept colliding in mid air. Edward's towers were pushed up to the ditch only to be burned by defenders before any assault could be launched from them.(40) What began ambitiously ended undramatically. The castle survived intact, and typhoid is said to have brought the garrison's surrender.(41) After the siege, the Crown paid only 30s for dismantling the engines and seeing to the lead.(42)

Edward I

The siege of Kenilworth had revealed the limits to which a keep could provide 'cover fire' for the entire enceinte and consequently it has been proposed that a more symmetrically concentric design was adopted at Caerphilly and on a much larger scale in many of Edward I's Welsh castles.(43) In those decades, Edward initiated work on two dozen castles in Wales, almost half of which were new and could easily accommodate a set of important features: these castles incorporated state-of-art defences into a very dense design; several innovations such as multiple accesses to arrow slits sought to maximize defenders' efforts. When possible these castles were built with access to waterways even if constructing a 2 mile canal was necessary such as at Rhuddlan. These castles also began to include larger towers for accommodating cranes or military engines, affording the latter better range.

The integration of artillery and fortifications may have been one of the period's most novel developments in siege warfare. Historians tend to overlook the defensive potential of many siege engines, but the citadel in Cairo appears to have been modified for this purpose during the first half of the thirteenth century. As we have seen, Walter of Exeter's stipulations for Caerlaverock's defencibility included siege engines. A fortress with a powerful artillery often proved dangerous. Artillery duals occurred regularly, and although Giles of Rome must have exaggerated the trebuchet's accuracy, large engines were a constant threat to other engines and ships.(44) Harlech's defences are said to have incorporated a large elevated platform or bay for engines, and a forward tower erected at Criccieth around this time was named the 'Engine Tower'. The mural towers built for Caerphilly's northern dam in the 1280s may also reflect the new desire to sustain large engines, as they were much larger than the mural towers built for the southern dam the previous decade (figs. 3.5-6).

Early in Edward's reign we have several indications that the Crown began to give more emphasis to its siege engines, including constructing much larger devices. Master Bertram's account for building engines at the Tower of London in 1278 demonstrates the new scale of efforts. Under one heading, huge quantities of copper, lead and iron were required including a half ton of copper for an axle; some 248 hundredweights of Spanish iron; and nearly £167 of lead for counterweight which was transported in 61 carts.(45) Altogether the work on engines cost £1021 5s 9d ob. of which about half were wages.(46) There is seemingly no way to tell how many engines were created or repaired in his account, but the expenses and amounts of materials overwhelms efforts made for Kenilworth just a decade earlier.

The Crown's warfare during what may have been the most crucial moment technologically was ill suited for testing any such device. The Welsh strategy of guerilla warfare and lack of major fortifications perhaps removed the need for much siege equipment during Edward I's wars there, and the raw countryside of difficult terrain made mobilizing heavy equipment extremely difficult. At the siege of Dryslwyn (1287) only one engine was constructed for a modest £14 and supplied with ammunition by twenty quarrymen, suggesting a light machine with a high rate of fire.(47) The next year this engine required 40 oxen but only 4 wagons to transport it through the mountainous terrain.(48) Morris writes that the machine was escorted to Emlyn by 20 men-at-arms and 463 infantrymen, and while no doubt these infantry acted as a safeguard, they may have also served as a traction crew. During these same years, when lead was required for a 'great engine' at Bristol, an unspecified amount 'existing' in the village was taken to the castle at a cost of only 4s for transportation, although this amount could have been supplementing other material.(49)

In Aquitaine during the years 1294-1298 both pro English and pro French forces conducted sieges with notable successes but to nether sides' cumulative advantage.(50) Further examination of the records detailing preparations for these conflicts may provide additional insight during this crucial period. The French were clearly engaged in heavy preparations- one account included forty springalds great and small.(51) The term springald (springard, espringal, etc) begins to appear in French records in the mid thirteenth century and based on cost and description it was the most powerful mechanical 'bow', often requiring a platform or mount.(52) Its closest equivalent in English records is the first mention of a crossbow ad tour or ad turnum in 1237, a weapon probably spanned with some sort of windlass or perhaps a screw winch.(53) The term springald, clearly signifying a larger weapon than the crossbow a tour, is mentioned in English records by 1297 and thereafter rapidly became the Crown's preferred low trajectory weapon until rivalled by small cannon during Edward III's reign. The springald's most interesting aspect for our present purpose is contemporaries' need to distinguish this engine from the crossbow ad turnum. A shipment to Gascony in 1297 included 3 springalds and 48 crossbows of which 12 were great crossbows with winding mechanisms.(54) Unlike crossbows which derived their power from a single (composite) bow, springalds may have been torsion-powered as indicated by the copious amounts of hair and cords spun into ropes for them; 56 lbs. of horsehair for springalds was sent to Stirling in 1304, and later accounts contain even more.(55) At a cost of about £5, a springald was often substantial enough to require its own base which was sometimes wheeled for ease of transport. It was also around this time (1303) that Edward of Carnarvon gave his engineer defensive armours consisting of an aketon, a coat of plates and a basinet.(56) It is doubtful that a military engineer's life was ever a safe one, but the gift of armour at that particular time may have been in response to the development of a more powerful anti-personnel device such as the springald.

At the beginning of the fourteenth century, the Crown amassed its largest siege arsenal yet. Edward's invasion of Scotland in 1296 demonstrates a definite change in the way the Crown conducted and perceived sieges.(57) At Edinburgh three engines were set up on the first day and threw a total of 158 stones over three days before surrender was offered. If nothing like a shortage of ammunition impeded these engines then their rate of fire of roughly 17 shots per day was much lower than a traction trebuchet's. One interpretation of the events which followed has Edward declining the offer of surrender, leaving for Stirling and ordering the engines to maintain their volley.(58) We are much more sure that Stirling's surrender was declined in 1304 until construction was completed on the 'lup de guerre', a showpiece among the Crown's biggest military engines.(59) Since Stirling's capture by the Scots in 1299 it had been a thorn in the side of English operations in the north.(60) To manoeuvre around the foreboding castle in 1303, prefabricated bridges complete with drawbridges and springalds were made and brought from King's Lynn to cross the Firth of Forth.(61) Between 1299 and 1304 steady progress was made in establishing a supply line mainly through Newcastle and Berwick.(62) Previously Edward had lacked the strength to attempt a siege of Stirling, but after the sieges of Dunbar (1296), Edinburgh (1296), Caerlaverock (1300), Bothwell (1301), and Brechin (1303), an impressive array of engines had been created which only needed to be brought together to render their combined force on Stirling.

Since January 1304 engines and supplies were being sent to Berwick.(63) The extent to which the Crown relied on Richard de Bremmesgrave, receiver of victuals at Newcastle, to handle many logistical needs is well illustrated by the role that he played in supplying the siege.(64) Newcastle was not subjected to the same attacks as castles farther north, yet it was well positioned to maintain communications with the principal sites of English occupation: Edinburgh, Jedburgh, Roxburgh, Berwick. Engines were routinely shipped from Newcastle to Berwick and thence to their final destination.(65) In March the constable of Edinburgh was requested to send targets to Stirling through this supply route.(66) In April a shipment of lead, iron, crossbows and quarrels were sent to Stirling by Bremmesgrave.(67) In May, 20 crossbows for 1 foot, 4 crossbow for 2 feet, 24 baldrics, 18,000 quarrels of 1 foot and 6050 quarrels of 2 feet arrived from Bremmesgrave in 9 coffers.(68) On 3 July the king ordered Bremmesgrave to send quarrels and repair materials for crossbows.(69) Five days later the clerk at Stirling received his shipment which included 60 sheaves of steel (of 30 pieces each), glue, 2 sacks of horsehair (56 lbs.) for springalds, 400 quarrels a tour and 950 quarrels of 2 feet in 4 baskets, and materials for bowstrings.(70) By 6 April Reginald the engineer had received from Bremmesgrave many springalds, two engines made at Brechin, the Segrave, the Vernay, the Robinett, 16 beams of the Forester and 18 beams of the Aberdeen (perhaps an indication that engines' yards were composite constructions). The Forester and the Aberdeen were made at Berwick in 1298 and supplied with counterweights (pendula magni ingenii).(71) In 1304 they were accompanied by 784 stones of lead and 124 stones of iron (15 lbs. each).(72) On 9 April orders were sent for an engine called the 'Linlithgow' to be brought to the sea with more ammunition; twenty-one carts or wagons of stone projectiles and lead for counterweights accompanied it.(73) The 'Bothwell', a belfry, was brought to Stirling in 8 wagons instead of the 30 or so carts which carried it in 1301.(74) One engine was brought from Bridgewater, and more were shipped to Inverkip from Ireland by Robert the Bruce.(75) Robert Glasham brought the 'Prince' from Brechin, and Robert of Bedford brought from St. Andrews an engine called 'Kingston', named after the constable of Edinburgh.(76) A ram was built on site.(77) We also know that in addition to the aforementioned engines, the 'Lincoln', 'Vicar', 'Parson', 'Berefrey', 'Gloucester', 'Dovedale', and the 'Toulemonde' were present at the siege. The 'Warwolf' was constructed on site- the task occupied a work force of five master carpenters, 50 carpenters and 4 pages for most of the siege and Edward was so impressed with one of the 'valets' involved in the project that he rewarded him with £40.(78) Assuming that all of the cognomens indeed referred to different engines, altogether at least 22 major engines were requested or built for the siege as well as an indeterminable amount of springalds and lesser arms.

With such an impressive arsenal the Crown was worried that there would not be enough lead for the trebuchets' counterweights.(79) Already at the siege of Brechin lead had been stripped from a church roof for counterweights.(80) On 12 April 1304 Edward realised he was again lacking enough weight to propel his engines so he ordered the prince to strip lead from the church roofs in Perth and Dumblane being careful not to leave the alters uncovered.(81) The total quantity of lead is hinted at by the payments made. Whereas at Brechin a total of 5 cart loads had been taken at the cost of a half mark per load, for Stirling 75 cart or wagon loads were taken with repayment at 5 marks per load. Both churches received 5s per load as a gift towards damages.(82) Lead was often measured by the cartload or fother which weighed close to a ton and cost £2-3 between 1250-1350, which suggests that as many as 75 tons might have been taken.(83) At least 27 of these cartloads were intended for counterweights.(84)

The array of engines also demanded hoards of ammunition. Ammunition for large engines was usually stone balls sometimes shaped according to templates or moulds provided by the master mason.(85) Stone ammunition was cost effective but marble, lead, even pots containing Greek Fire or similar explosive were used.(86) At Edinburgh (1296) Edward reportedly used lead.(87) In 1303 a master plumbario was paid for working 189 lbs. of lead into puellis et ruellis jactandis.(88) At Stirling as at Brechin the year before, small amounts of sulphur (9s) and saltpetre were purchased to be thrown in earth pots, a technique first seen in the orient.(89) After suffering terrific bombardment, Stirling's garrison offered unconditional surrender but with the Warwolf nearing completion Edward declined and advised the defenders to take shelter.(90) Once completed, the Warwolf's first shot amazed onlookers by destroying a section of wall.(91) Edward I's stubbornness may seem ridiculous, cruel, or childish, but apparently contemporary chroniclers were not as critical.(92) For someone who had promised to lay the whole country to waste these kinds of actions should have been expected.(93) Edward I's actions may also have stemmed from a desire to demonstrate the full strength of English siege capabilities and the prices paid by garrisons who did not initially surrender.

Edward II

Edward II would have preferred to subdue Scotland per his father's strategy of sieges, infantry armies and their maritime support. The strategy itself has been criticised as has Edward II's maintenance of defences.(94) Contrary to opinion, Edward II paid very close attention to the fabric and armouries of castles, and was able to coordinate massive defence works. Despite a miserable economy and fickle support, Edward II spent more than his father on Scottish fortifications. During his difficulties of raising men and money, Edward II relied on a defensive strategy and continued strengthening artillery in the north, perhaps as his most viable alternative. At the start of Edward II's reign the northern castles were in good repair and several peels with stone foundations and drawbridges were under construction.(95) At Linlithgow an engine, springald and bretache were readied between April and September 1306 costing £953 13s 8d.(96) The vast array of siege equipment created for Stirling was still on hand at Berwick. In December 1306, Berwick's inventory included much of the Warwolf's components, 2 springalds and six crossbow a tour, 24 crossbows of one-foot, and 9 crossbows of two-feet, as well as a number of quarrels for these and materials for their repair.(97) Further work on engines and a bretache at this time amounted to £234 8s 4d for wages alone.(98) The sheriffs of London were ordered to send provisions and more engines to Berwick in October 1307.(99) In December 1309 Berwick supplied Henry de Beaumont with a cavilla.(100) In the same year a carpenter, mason, engineer, and smith were sent from Northumberland to Stirling.(101) At Dundee 20 quarters of seacoal were purveyed for work on engines in 1310.(102) Reginald the engineer and his team of carpenters were also engaged in repairing engines in the North in 1311.(103)

Despite these preparations Robert Bruce seized the initiative and by 1313 Scottish raids had felled several pro-English castles and extracted high tributes in the process. Edward II still maintained an eye towards munitioning castles. In 1313 Berwick was allowed to retain all its wool customs for the purchase of munitions.(104) Carlisle earned its charter in 1315 by withstanding a siege wherein the Scots employed only one engine which proved no match for the garrison's seven or eight acquired the previous year along with 360 stones of lead.(105) Carlisle's defences had also been strengthened by converting some houses into a belfry and bretache.(106) In 1316 Richard the engineer, an artillator and a smith were to be found at Carnarvon, while at York a serjeant and two associates were making lance heads.(107) The gates and engines at Cokermuth were repaired in 1317.(108) During 1318-1319 work intensified at the king's iron mines at Knaresborough, and the castles' engines and hoardings had recently been renovated for £55 4s 11d.(109) Carlisle's trusty engines also received repairs at this time and another one was constructed to augment the bailey's defences.(110)

Despite possessing numerous pieces of artillery, Edward II appears to have been reluctant to deploy them against Berwick when attempting to regain the wealthy city in 1319.(111) No prearrangements for engines seem to have been made for the siege, though John Barbour's The Bruce vividly described how an English sow, or shelter, was crippled by an engine's shot and set on fire by dropping flaming haystacks from a crane. Edward had assembled a powerful army, and perhaps he hoped to receive the city through Robert the Bruce's default, or even better to draw him into battle. Contemporaries were well aware of the long term effects and costs of damage. A decade after its siege by Edward III, Berwick still needed repairs of £310 6s.(112) Phillip VI often bribed enemy garrisons into submitting, obviously considering their high costs a worthwhile investment. In any case Berwick's garrison agreed to surrender if not rescued. Engines and 100 ditchers were requested only from York on the day after investment, but York was busy preparing its own defences. However, a week later the siege was abandoned when Edward's council could not agree on a course of action following the defeat of York citizens at the battle of Myton.(113)

At Bordeaux in 1324, the threat of attack was being met with massive preparation which better reveals Edward II's grasp of materials war siege. An elaborate set of defences were erected to blockade the Garonne at nearby St. Macaire.(114) The preparations in Bordeaux amply demonstrate the defensive value of engines at this time. After La Reole fell to French forces (22 September) a siege of Bordeaux seemed imminent. A truce was declared until March 1325. In the interim both sides readied themselves for more hostilities.(115) During the accounting year 1323 1324, nearly 5,000 l.t. were spent on preparing Bordeaux for war. Large engines figured prominently in these defences where they were commonly deployed to target shipping. Small arms were purchased, mostly crossbows and quarrels, a belfry was erected inside Bordeaux, and piles were driven into the riverbed to prevent a fleet's approach.(116) Edmund de Martheley was appointed to oversee work on engines inside the city from November 1324 to July 1325.(117) Eight beams were purchased for 16 l.t. each.(118) Giant cables, called hawsers, were obtained for holding a great engine's weight, a likely indication of a pivoting counterweight.(119) At the end of the account the expenses were categorized. Wages totalled more than 317l.t., wood cost over 348l.t., some 24 l.t. was spent on cables and over 86 l.t. was spent on iron. In all the engines cost 961 l.t., although much of the labour and probably materials were impressed or cajoled.(120)

Edward III

The growing emphasis on the war in France presented Edward III with a new challenge. The previous Anglo-French disputes over Aquitaine had demonstrated the futility of fighting a purely defensive war restricted to that area. As we have seen, a strategy relying on siege warfare defensively and offensively required a well coordinated network for handling supplies. Even the war in Gascony required major support from English industries. Furthermore, when support was required in hostile territories it needed protection, creating an extra burden on the Crown's resources.(121) There was little feasability of Edward III maintaining a strategy of conquest in France without establishing supply lines. Consequently much of Edward III's strategy in northern France hinged on challenging cities by blockade with a formidable yet mobile army, perhaps in hopes of drawing battle. Even Calais was taken by blockade, although its marshy surroundings may have prevented a more pressing investment.

Even for the war in Scotland, Edward III had less occasion to deploy a major siege effort. The siege of Berwick in 1333 was probably the largest siege of his reign, and there orders for the construction of engines were only sent two months after the siege began.(122) Barbour mentioned guns at the siege of Berwick (1333), but this reference is not corroborated by any contemporary source. Nonetheless a respectable effort was fielded, including more than six major engines with the aid of John Crabbe. Previously employed by the Scots in prominent roles such as ordering the defence of Berwick in 1319, Crabbe was subsequently captured by Walter Mauny and ransomed by Edward III for 1000 marks so that he could be pressed into service. John turned his talents against Berwick in 1333, and oversaw the construction and operation of engines. In 1338 he supervised the construction of engines for the siege of Dunbar, of which one belfry cost £47 4s 10d.(123) In 1341 he teamed with William Hurel, the king's carpenter, to select wood from the forest at Trent for making engines.(124)

Even though few major sieges occurred during Edward III's reign, works on siege engines became a regular activity. Despite these ongoing developments in conventional engines and the novelty of gunpowder weaponry, the steady increases in England's technical congruence and industriousness provided greater flexibility in the procurement of arms. The orders for engines provide an insight into the rate of diffusion throughout society. Normally the Crown assigned highly novel or difficult projects, such as the Welsh castles, pontoon bridges or major engines, to some engineer(s) or senior master craftsman, aided by administrative official(s) for accounting or financing. As the fourteenth century progressed, orders for projects previously considered difficult began to be directed to just the sheriffs without need of assigning specific master engineers or craftsmen. In 1336 the king ordered the sheriff of York to purvey 2 trebuchets, a springald with 100 bolts, 4 crossbows with 400 quarrels, 60 bows with 60 sheaves of arrows, 6 pairs of hand stones, 2000 pieces of Spanish steel, and armour sufficient for 40 men including coats of plates. All of the items were to be delivered to Berwick to be kept by the receiver of victuals until further notice by the king.(125) Presumably the knowledge of building these items, most notably two trebuchets, had become common enough that the sheriff could arrange for their construction through local master craftsmen/engineers.

It appears that the size of the largest engines increased, and still their logistics became more routine. An engine made at Stirling during 1336-1337 required 390 stones of iron, or about 50% more than the largest machines of Edward I.(126) When two engines were built for the siege of Berwick (1333), at least 40 oaks were required for their frames.(127) More definite evidence for the size of stone shot thrown by these engines is also available. Appropriate stone for projectiles was not always readily available; for the siege of Edinburgh in 1336 stone was carted from 7 leagues away.(128) With the advent of the Hundred Years War the quarry at Folkestone in southeast England emerged as a mass production site for ammunition. In 1342 the sheriff of Kent spent £13 10s on 300 stones each cut to weigh either 600, 500 or 400 lbs, and he purchased another 300 stones of various weights for £7 10s.(129) In 1343 the receiver at Sandwich was waiting for 300 stones from Folkestone, and stones from there were also sent to Calais.(130) Jean Buridan, in his study of movement and projectile motion written in the mid fourteenth century, tells us that engines threw stones of up to 1000 lbs. in weight, and a writer in 1376 claimed projectiles weighed as much as 1200 lbs.(131)

Evolving from Greek fire, gunpowder was first used in a type of exploding pot thrown from the larger siege engines and later as a means of throwing projectiles such as darts and stones. The pace of development in gunpowder weapons was astonishing: during the fourteenth century gunpowder weapons diversified into forms ranging from very large cannon to crude hand-held guns. Although guns and cannon were the most notable advancement in military technology during Edward III's reign, their integration into the English siege warfare was a slow process.(132) That the Crown still preferred springalds over guns through at least the 1330s and 40s is strong evidence that gunpowder weapons had not assumed any prominent role in its tactics or strategy. French raids on England's southern coasts in the late 1330s stimulated defensive preparations throughout London. Materials for engines were carried to the Tower in July 1339, and in August William le Gyvour was to receive money for making engines.(133) A bretache was built for £126 near the Tower and stocked with 7 springalds and nearly 1000 quarrels. The defences along the Thames were strengthened, possibly incorporating guns but relying mostly on springalds.(134) Episodes in 1335 and 1336 on England's southern coast reveal similar responses.(135)

Experiments with small amounts of gunpowder became more common, and some notable success must have been achieved in Gascony. By the late 1330s the Crown employed a master of cannon there, and small amounts of gunpowder was consistently supplied to a number of castles by Genoese specialists.(136) When we afforded a glimpse into these circumstances in England, the same scale was at operation until the well known order for 100 ribalds in 1345-6. In 1327 Dover officials complained of being deprived of among other things 40 lbs. of sulphur (about 2 marks worth); a large amount compared to those seen in the early fourteenth century.(137) With no mention of saltpetre and the inclusion of 2 lbs. of tinder and 100 lbs. of cotton in the order, the sulphur may have been intended for Greek fire or some explosive as before.(138) In 1334, saltpetre was purchased alongside sulphur but only 5s worth altogether.(139) Certainly, Edward III's armies had not mastered gunpowder weapons by 1340. While besieging Tournai, the international force under Edward III paid someone to make explosives promised to force immediate capitulation, but he absconded with most of the money.(140)

During Edward I's reign, English perceptions of siege warfare underwent a transformation. The English Crown's siege capabilities were greatly improved by the ability to keep troops in the field, by its command of resources and new technologies. A major change in the perception of siege warfare also manifested in other ways. The dress and behaviour of the army at the siege of Caerlaverock (1300) were described as colourful and jovial; at Stirling an oriel was erected for the viewing comfort of ladies of the household.(141) Trebuchets were given far more esteem by chroniclers, armies and architects, and Edward I himself was extremely cavalier and confident about employing such devices. The arrogant pride shown by English armies, particularly during Edward I's reign, convey the perception that some novelty had occurred in siege capabilities. It is tempting to look to Edward's crusade as a source for improving siege techniques and devices. Greek fire, which the Crown came to use regularly from the 1290s, had been known in Europe for centuries and appears in English records occasionally like in 1194.(142) By the time of Edward's crusade several types of gunpowder weapons formed the technological vanguard in eastern and near eastern armies; cannon are depicted in China as early as 1180, by which time 'thunderclap fireballs' or exploding bombs were being thrown by traction trebuchets.(143) Although gearing may have enabled a more potent engine and versatile artillery unbound from traction crews, the Crown's ability to deploy larger artillery stemmed from incremental improvements made over the course of the thirteenth century primarily in carpentry, trebuchet technology and the ability to mobilize resources. Edward I harnessed this steady progress into a more intense and ambitious siege warfare, aided by considerable development in other siege devices. Recognizing this offensive potential, Edward I's programme of castle building appears to have been in response to the perception that offensive capabilities had improved markedly.

Edward II sought to rely on a strategyof siege warfare, initiating a regime of constant siege works to maintain the impressive artillery but in the event England's defences were ill prepared for the Scots' hit-and-run strategy and few offensive sieges could be launched. When facing an equally potent system in France, Edward III was much more reticent to mobilize such large artilleries but his threats had to be taken seriously: when the occasion demanded Edward III could still mobilize efforts as impressive as Calais. Several factors in addition to the desire for mobile armies may have worked towards this policy. Despite much advancement in siege capabilities, in many ways the advice of Pierre Dubois held true: sieges were costly and unpredictable.(144) The untimely and unpredictable nature of campaigns may have deterred large-scale preparations for a siege unless it was the primary objective of a campaign as had happened at Kenilworth in 1266 and Stirling in 1304. The chance that a stronghold might surrender very quickly also removed the need for large artilleries in every army, and the desire to take cities intact further deterred bombardment. Perhaps just as important, sieges could be entered into with less of the king's attention and could therefore be threatened with greater effect especially in conjunction with proven increases in capabilities. The king's administration which had been absolutely necessary for financing and directing labour-intensive sieges was hardly needed for the operation of siege engines involving relatively few men as at Ediburgh in 1296. Even if these weapons did not bring quick surrender from the defenders, the task of defence became much more harried requiring a greater expense of resources and energies including precious calories. In this context, more efficient and more powerful fortifications would have afforded vital protection against attacks, minimized liabilities against ploys and half-hearted threats or at least bought more time for any relief. Far more fortifications were less competent, and the combined improvements in the offensive may have shifted the equilibrium of siege warfare by altering the basic question from whether or not a site could be taken to how long fortifications or supplies would hold out. It is probably due to these changing perceptions and dynamics that northern Europe witnessed an unprecedented spate of battles in the first half of the fourteenth century often involving a relieving force being drawn into battle.(145)

NOTES

1. The Siege of Caerlaverock..., N.H. Nicolas, ed., (London, 1828), p. 60.

2. Some argue for an earlier date for the diffusion of stone fortifications, B. Bachrach, 'On Roman Rampart 300-1300', The Cambridge Illustrated History of Warfare, G. Parker , ed. (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 64-91. Bradbury, The Medieval Siege, p. 67, places the number of English fortifications at 'several hundred' by 1200; Pounds, The Medieval Castle in England and Wales, p. 68, posits 900 English castles by 1154. Cf. Vale, Origins of the Hundred Years War, esp. map 1 for dense pattern of fortifications in Aquitaine.

3. Colvin, History of the King's Works, provides an 'industrial' perspective of the castle's evolution as does Pounds, The Medieval Castle in England and Wales; see also L.F. Salzman, Building in England down to 1540 (Oxford, 1952).

4. For an overview see Pounds, The Medieval Castle in England and Wales, pp. 75-83.

5. Pounds, The Medieval Castle in England and Wales, p. 82.

6. A.J. Taylor, The Welsh Castles of Edward I (London, 1986); bastides, Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 308-11.

7. C. Allmand, 'New Weapons, New Tactics 1300-1500', Cambridge Illustrated History of Warfare, pp. 96-7, describes a seesaw effect until a decisive swing in favour of cannon in the second quarter of the fifteenth century; Bachrach, 'On Roman Rampart 300-1300', pp. 87-8, agrees that siege costs and techniques increased in the twelfth century but the 'art of defence more than kept pace with the technology'; G. Parker, 'The Gunpowder Revolution 1300-1500', Cambridge Illustrated History of Warfare, pp. 106-7, sees no major change in siege warfare until the second quarter of fifteenth century. Bradbury, The Medieval Siege, pp. 128 f, and Prestwich, Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages, pp. 280-1, both posit a major change in offensive capabilities in the early to mid thirteenth century. Contamine, Warfare in the Middle Ages, pp. 200-1, C. Oman, A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages, ii (London, 1924), pp. 52-4, and M. Vale, 'New Techniques and Old Ideals: The Impact of Artillery on War and Chivalry at the End of the Hundred Years War', War, Literature and Politics in the Late Middle Ages, C. Allmand, ed. (Liverpool, 1976), p. 58, extend defensive supremacy until at least the early fourteenth century.

8. Bradbury, The Medieval Siege, pp. 128f.

9. Above, Introduction.

10. An engine closely related to the structure of cranes, windmills, ships and later the clock's mechanism, White, Medieval Technology, pp. 102-3. An excellent bibliography can be found in Chevedden, 'The Invention of the Counterweight Trebuchet'.

11. For 1199, D. Hill, 'Trebuchets', Viator 4 (1973), pp. 95-114; White, Medieval Technology, p. 102. For other dates, see Bradbury, The Medieval Siege, pp. 254, 263-4, and Prestwich, Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages, p. 289, who argue for an early thirteenth century invention; Contamine, War in the Middle Ages, p. 194, believes the counterweight trebuchet was still a novelty in the West c. 1300. J. Needham believes the counterweight trebuchet was first used in the Near East in the 1260s, Science and Civilisation in China, vol. 5, part 6: Military Technology: Missiles and Sieges (Cambridge, 1994), p. 221.

12. J. Liebel, Springalds and Great Crossbows, J. Vale, tr. (Leeds, 1998), pp. 2-3, however, suggests that the Turkish engines were torsion- powered springalds.

13. Pipe Roll 13 John, p. 39; cf. CDS, i, p. 93 (1212).

14. Current scholarship places the advent of the traction trebuchet in China around the beginning of the first millennium, after which it spread across Asia and possibly to Europe by the ninth century, P. Chevedden, Z. Shiller, S.R. Gilbert, D.R. Kagay, 'The Traction Trebuchet: A Triumph of Four Civilizations', Viator 31 (2000), pp. 433-486; C. Gillmor, 'The Introduction of the Traction Trebuchet into the Latin West', Viator 12 (1981), pp. 1-8; Needham, Science and Civilisation in China, vol. 5, part 6, p. 204. White, Medieval Technology and Social Change, p. 102, f; Bradbury, Medieval Siege, p. 260; Prestwich, Armies and Warfare, p. 289.

15. Pipe Roll 16 John, p.97; For. Accts. Henry III 1219-34, pp. 17-18; Pipe Roll 5 Henry III, p. 99.

16. Memoranda Roll 10 John, pp. 139, 141.

17. Pipe Roll 5 Henry III, p. 99.

18. CLR 1251-60, p. 217.

19. Bradbury, The Medieval Siege, p. 140.

20. For. Accts. Henry III, 1219-1234, p. 52.

21. Pipe Roll 6 John, p. 156; for a comparison of other engines' costs see below.

22. Pipe Roll 17 John and Prests 14-18 John, p. 13.

23. One master mason and three others, Prestwich, Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages, pp. 285-6.

24. Bradbury, The Medieval Siege, p. 139.

25. Lead was occasionally worked onto towers and other shelters as protection against flammables, or onto rams to increase their impact or even as projectiles.

26. CLR 1240-1245, pp. 245, 323.

27. Prestwich, Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages, p. 300. The 'Baron's War' in general had worked to reduced returns until the early 1270s, Powicke, King Henry III and Lord Edward, ii, p. 506.

28. A large tower protected the mechanisms for controlling the flow of water, Powicke, King Henry III and Lord Edward (Oxford, 1947), ii, p. 431; cf. Bradbury, The Medieval Siege, p. 142; Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 56-7; Prestwich, Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages, pp. 299-300.

29. Buckingham, Bedford, Gloucester, Worcester, Warwick and Leicester, CLR 1260-1267, pp. 221-2, 225-6, 230, 232-3.

30. CLR 1260-1267, p. 263.

31. Ibid, pp 229, 231; CLR 1267-1272, pp. 269,

32. CCR 1264-1268, p. 188.

33. CLR 1267-1272, no. 999.

34. CLR 1260-1267, pp. 219, 221.

35. For horsehair, Ibid,, p. 229-30; others, CLR 1260-1267, p. 231.

36. CLR 1260-1267, pp. 253, 289; CLR 1267-1272, p. 269.

37. It remained at his disposal during the 'pacification' of southern England, A. Lewis, 'Roger Leyburn and the Pacification of England, 1265-7', EHR 54 (1939), p. 200.

38. CLR 1260-1267, p. 223.

39. In the mid fourteenth century these structures are said to have been capable of housing one thousand men, Bradbury, The Medieval Siege, pp. 241-50, esp. 244, 248.

40. 'Annales Prioratus de Dunstaplia, AD 1-1297', Annales Monastici, H.R. Luard, ed. (Rolls Series, 1864-9), p. 242.

41. Powicke, King Henry III and Lord Edward, ii, p. 531; Bradbury, The Medieval Siege, p. 142.

42. CLR 1260-1267, p. 294.

43. A design that would have been made apparent to Edward during his crusade.

44. E.g., his claim that a trebuchet could strike a needle, Governance of Kings and Princes, pp. 426-8.

45. London, PRO, E 101/467/7(3), Account of expenses for works at London and Westminster 2 to 6 Edward I.

46. £444 16s 2d for wages.

47. Above we saw how two traction trebuchets cost over £38 in 1214.

48. Morris, Welsh Wars, pp. 213-16.

49. London, PRO E 101/4/12, Account of Richard Lovel, constable of Bristol castle 14-15 Edward I.

50. Vale, Origins of Hundred Years War, pp. 200-15.

51. Compte Royaux (1285-1314), ii, no. 25393.

52. Liebel, Springalds and Great Crossbows, pp. 3-5.

53. CLR 1226-1240, p. 274; see also CLR, 1240-1245, p. 61.

54. Vale, Origins of Hundred Years War, p. 209.

55. CDS, ii, no. 1559; and infra.

56. Ibid, no. 1413.

57. For brief discussions of these events and attitude see, M. Vale, 'Edward I and the French: Rivalry and Chivalry', Thirteenth Century England II (Woodbridge, 1987), pp. 165-176, especially p. 165; Prestwich, Armies and Warfare, pp. 2 f.

58. Docs. Illus. Scot., ii, p. 27.

59. PRO, London, E 101/10/18, particulars of Richard de Bremmesgrave, keeper of stores at Berwick, 30-32 Edward I.

60. G.W.S. Barrow, Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1988), pp. 120-31.

61. Colvin, History of King's Works, i, pp. 416-7; infra, Chapter Four.

62. For the English position during the early 1300's, Barrow, Robert Bruce, pp. 191-2.

63. CDS, iv, no. 1797.

64. For food CDS, ii, nos. 1458, 1482, 1497, 1527, 1542.

65. Ibid, nos. 1230, 1234, 1237.

66. CDS, v, no. 356.

67. CDS, ii, no. 1491.

68. Ibid, no. 1539.

69. Ibid, no. 1556.

70. Ibid, no. 1559.

71. Docs. Illus. Scotland, ii, p. 320.

72. CDS, ii, no. 1500. The remaining items were 2 great ropes and 2 smaller ropes for drawing these, 2 hawsers, 5 little ropes and an old one, 600 throwing stones, 4 ropes called hawsers and a long rope of 72 toyses, 6 white horse hides and 10 pieces of canvas.

73. Ibid, no. 363; CDS, iv, p. 467.

74. Docs. Illus. Scot., ii, pp. 449-50; Prestwich, Edward I, p. 493.

75. Prestwich, Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages, p. 300; CDS, ii, no. 1510.

76. Colvin, History of the King's Works, i, p. 417.

77. Prestwich, Edward I, p. 502.

78. CDS, ii, no. 1599; reward CDS, iv, p. 477.

79. Docs. Illus. Scot., ii, p. 481.

80. CDS, ii, no. 1687.

81. Docs. Illus. Scot., ii, p. 481.

82. CDS, ii, no. 1687.

83. Measurements of lead, F.B. Andrews, The Medieval Builder and His Methods (New York, 1993), p. 78; cost of fother, Salzman, Building in England, p. 263.

84. CDS, ii, no. 1513.

85. J. Harvey, English Medieval Architects. A Biographical Dictionary Down to 1550 (Gloucester, 1984), p. 115.

86. For marble shot, cf. Hill, 'Trebuchets', p. 106.

87. CDS, v, no. 472; Bradbury, The Medieval Siege, p. 257.

88. CDS, iv, p. 456.

89. Docs. Illus. Scot., ii, p. 480. For 'thunderclap fireball' in eastern warfare, S. Turnbull, 'Chinese influence on Japanese siege warfare', Royal Armouries Yearbook 3 (1998), pp. 145-58; Hill and Hassan, Islamic Technology, p. 111.

90. CDS, ii, no. 1560.

91. Prestwich, Edward I, p. 502.

92. CDS, ii, no. 1560; see Prestwich, Edward I, p. 502 and idem, Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages, p. 300.

93. H. T. Riley, ed., Chronica Willelmi Rishanger, Rolls Series 47 (London, 1865), p. 447.

94. C. McNamee, The Wars of the Bruces. Scotland, England and Ireland 1306-1328 (East Linton, 1997), p. 123.

95. Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 497-8.

96. CDS, v, no. 5??.

97. CDS, ii, no. 1863.

98. CDS, v, no. 492.

99. CDS, iii, no. 20.

100. Ibid, no. 121.

101. Ibid, no. 72.

102. Ibid, no. 210.

103. CDS, v, no. 562 (b).

104. CCR 1313-1318, p. 10.

105. Lead that was stripped from a chapel, London, PRO, E 101/14/36, Military expenses of Gilbert of Tyneden, 8-9 Edward II.

106. CDS, iii, no. 464.

107. CCR 1313-1318, pp. 265, 363.

108. Ibid, pp. 496-7.

109. CCR 1318-1323, engines and hoardings, p. 160; mines, pp. 43, 171.

110. Ibid,, pp. 160-1.

111. Prestwich, Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages, p. 284

112. CDS, iii, no. 1434.

113. Ibid, no. 663; Prestwich, Armies, p. 284; Barrow, Robert Bruce, pp. 239-40.

114. Vale, Origins of the Hundred Years War, pp. 238-9. See also infra, chapter 4.

115. J. Sumption, The Hundred Years War: Trial by Battle, vol. 1 (London, 1990), pp. 92-6; Vale, Origins of the Hundred Years War, pp. 237-8.

116. Ibid, pp. 238-9.

117. London, PRO E 101/165/2 Account book of Edmund de Martheley for works at Bordeaux 18 and 19 Edward II; see also Vale, The Angevin Legacy, pp. 238-9.

118. London, PRO E 101/165/2, fol. 19v,.

119. ad tendens magna ingen pond, E 101/165/2, fol. 20v.

120. Ibid, ff. 17r, 19v, 20v, 21v, 23r.

121. Infra, chapter four.

122. CCR 1333-1337, pp. 24, 38.

123. Prestwich, Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages, p. 288; CCR 1339-1341, p. 11.

124. CCR 1341-1343, p. 27.

125. CCR 1333-1337, p. 622.

126. CDS, iii, pp. 366-7.

127. CCR 1333-1337, pp. 24, 38.

128. CDS, iii, p. 366-7.

129. L. F. Salzman, English Industries of the Middle Ages (London, 1913), p. 80.

130. CCR 1343-1346, p. 77; Hewitt, Organization of War, p. 72.

131. Buridan: Grant, Source Book in Medieval Science, p. 277; 1376: Ralph Payne-Gallwey, The Book of the Crossbow (London, reprint, 1995), p. 314.

132. For an overview of gunpowder weapons' development in Europe at this time, Hall, Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe.

133. CCR 1339-1341, pp. 163, 179, 542.

134. Riley, Memorials of London, pp. 204-7; Cal. Plea and Memo. Rolls, pp. 102, 176.

135. Infra, Chapter Four.

136. Vale, Origins of the Hundred Years War, p. 261.

137. At Stirling (1304) 9s of sulphur was purchased.

138. Cal. Memo. 1326-1327, no. 1588.

139. Tout, 'Firearms in England', p. 689.

140. Sumption, The Hundred Years War, i, p. 351.

141. For Caerlaverock, Prestwich, Edward I, p. 487; Siege of Caerlaverock, pp. 2-4. For Stirling, Prestwich, Edward I, p. 501; CDS, iv, no. 466.

142. Pipe Roll, 6 Richard I, p. 175 (igne greco), p. 212 (112s spent on pitch and sulphur).

143. S. Turnbull, 'War, trade and piracy', Royal Armouries Yearbook 2 (1997), pp. 150-1.

144. As mentioned by Vale, Origins of the Hundred Years War, p. 203.

145. A similar argument has been put forward for Europe's response to gunpowder artillery in the period 1450-1530, Ayton and Price, Medieval Military Revolution, p. 7.

Norbert Colon 21:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC) So which book is this taken from? Not naming sources is a terrible crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.153.28 (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)