Gone Medieval - Wars of the Roses: Castles & Guns

Episode Date: August 28, 2021

In Britain, you’re never too far from a castle. These landmark structures are key to the history of the country, the rise and fall of great powers being marked upon their walls. In this episode, Dan Spencer takes a closer look at the use of castles in the Wars of the Roses both as defensive garrisons and as headquarters. Dan is a military historian and leading expert in the study of early gunpowder weapons, artillery fortifications and castles. He also takes Matt through the developing use of guns during this period, and the everyday health and safety mishaps which came from operating them. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From long-loss Viking ships and kings buried in unexpected places to tales of murder, power, faith, and the lives of ordinary people across medieval Europe and beyond. Join me, Matt Lewis, Dr. Eleanor Jarniger, and some of the world's leading historians as we bring history's most fascinating stories to life, only on history hit. With your subscription, you'll unlock hundreds of hours of exclusive documentaries

with a brand-new release every week exploring everything from the ancient world, to World War II. Just visit historyhit.com forward slash subscribe. Welcome to this episode of Gone Medieval from History Hit. I'm Matt Lewis. Now, castles and cannons are perhaps the two most recognisable medieval instruments of conflict, one built to defend and the other to attack. Castles still dominate parts of the landscape today and the medieval period saw the birth of gunpowder weapons that would go on to revolutionise warfare. I'm lucky to be joined today by Dr Dan Spencer, whose book The Castles in the Wars of the Roses,

examines the role of these great buildings during the Civil War of the 15th century. Dan is also an expert on the development of gunpowder weapons, so I'm really looking forward to chatting through attack and defence in the medieval period. Thank you very much for joining us, Dan. Great beyond the show, thank you. Right, so let's get cracking, let's get really stuck into some castles. And when I think Wars of the Roses, to be honest, I think one of the most famous and probably fascinating castles during the Wars of the Roses

is Harlech Castle on the West Wales coast. Can you tell us about the seeds there and why it lasted so long? It's pretty remarkable for how long it endured. Sure. I think to understand the importance of Harluck during the Wars to Rose, I think it's first important to say a little bit about Picasso itself. So it's one of the great castles built by Edward I, in the late 13th century to secure his conquest of North Wales.

And it had very strong, natural and man-man. fortifications. So in terms of its situation, it's located on a rocky crack overlooking the sea, and it has what's called a concentric fortifications. So you have a lower outer wall, enclosing a taller inner wall, stranded by ditch and could be resupplied by sea. It's not obvious at all if you visit Harlick now, but as the sea has received a great deal, but in the middle ages, supplies could be brought in directly via the Watergate. And this together with its isolated occasion on the edge of Snowdon, it meant that it was a very difficult place to approach or attack. And unlike many other castles in the kingdom, it was regularly garrisoned, small force and men,

and being kept in a good safe repair in the 1450s. In terms of Harlech's involvement in the Wars of the Roses, it begins in 1460, in the aftermath of Lancasterian defeated the Battle of Northampton, when Queen Margaret and her son, Prince Edward took refuge in the castle, after a rather long and perilous journey across Wales and during which they were robbed of their possessions. When they arrived at Harlech, they were said to it received a warm reception and many gifts, and it appears that during their stay, they conferred the constable ship of the castle onto a member of the local gentry,

David App, the Ayan app, Aeyon. What happened was that subsequently the Yorkers conquered the rest of Wales from the summer of 1461 to the spring of 1462, but David continued to hold the castle in the name of Henry VI. And we know this from the Parliament roll of 1461, which is the enrolled recording of Parliament, which states that the inhabitants of the region

were suffering at the hands of the garrison, who were said to have imprisoned and robbed people as if it were a land at war. Now, the period from 1461 to 8 has often been characterised as a Yorkist siege of Harluck, but in fact, this is not quite correct. The Yorkists did make periodic attempts to capture the castle, such as in 1466,

when John tipped off, Ola Wusser was allocated this task, but poor weather conditions and the remoteness of Harlick led to it being abandoned. Instead, for much of this period, the York authorities relied upon sending demands for Harlech to be surrendered by its defenders, with dire threats if they did not comply, but these empty threats were ignored by the garrison. But the fame of the Yorkists to eliminate this Lancashirene outposts, by committing sufficient resources, did have consequences.

as it was responsible for contributing towards unrest and Lancashrian plots in Wales throughout the 1460s. And what finely prompted Edward before the lieutenant to deal with this running sore was response to the actions of Jasper Tudor, who in the summer of 1468 landed near De Harlick with small forts and France, and led a great raid across Wells culminating in a sack and burning for town of Dendee in the northeast. So in response, William Law Herbert assembled a large army to the Fetlandcastrians, with artillery before a seed provided from the Tower of London. And what appears to happen is that two Yorkist armies converged on Harlech were one force led by his brother, Sir Richard Herbert,

defeating Jasper's army in battle, with Lord Herbert then advancing on Harlech, which David surrendered after a short siege. I guess that episode in 1468 probably highlighted the dangers of Harlech still being there because Jasper Tudor, you know, reasonably popular in Wales and able to go directly to that base that was sat there waiting to receive him to cause further trouble. So it was kind of a backdoor into Wales

and into England for the Lancasterian cause that the Yorkists couldn't really afford to just leave open forever? No, I mean, it seems slightly odd that they did leave it, you know, Harlech in Lancashire in Hanz for as long as they did. But I suppose it sort of shows how many, I suppose, other problems

that Edward was having, say, in the north of England. I guess also it perhaps reflects on William Lord Herbert, in fact that even though he was effectively running wells for Edward, it seemingly, he didn't do a great job of it in the north-west of the country. Yeah, even for him there were parts that were beyond his reach, I guess. And I guess being, I've been to Harlet Castle and it's fantastic there, although walking on the walls when it's windy is pretty perilous because there's no barrier on the inside of the walls. Is there, I feel like

going to get blown off all the time? No, no, exactly. I guess in those days when the sea was so much closer, because it would be even more remote and sort of a forbidding place, I suppose. Yeah, and it's hard to imagine, but as you say, because the sea's receded quite a long way, if you go to it now. But when the sea was right up there against the water gate, I guess it makes resupplying it much easier for those holding out inside as well if the ship can come in with supplies quite easily. Exactly.

And I suppose from there you have links of all sorts of places. So the rest of Wales, Ireland, Scotland. So there was lots of potential for goods and mentally brought into the castle. So how did they eventually bring about the end of the... It cedes the right word for what happened at Harlick or sporadic attempts to take it away from the Lancastrians, but how was it eventually won up for the Yorkists? Well, it was effectively when the two herbits, I suppose, and they effectively allocated enough resources to capture it.

So I suppose it was the feat of Jasper's army in battle, and then the fact that they besieged the castle with lots of artillery. So we don't know much about the siege, other than that at least one Yorkish gentlemen was killed by gunshot. So we know that there was at least some military action going on. But I think effectively by this point, David realized that the game was up, and that, you know, there was no liability of holding out for any longer. And the kind of rules of siege warfare meant that if you didn't surrender at the right time,

you were in severe danger of losing your life when you lost it anyway. I think in the case of Harlech, even after they did surrender, the garrison were in prison. I think some of the petty captains were executed. But, of course, if the carter had been stormed, then, you know, the lines of all of the garrison would have potentially been, you know, a risk of being executed out of the hand. So after Edward the 4th becomes king in 1461, I associate that period in the immediate aftermath of his victories with trying to subdue the far north of England. So he spends a lot of time up there with the Lancasterians having crossed over the border into Scotland.

And that period seems to involve a lot of sieges and castles changing hands regularly in the north. So what were some of the prominent castles during that period that caused problems for Edward and opportunities for the Lancasterians? There were quite a few up there. So the context, and the reason why the north of England, you know, posed this problem for the Yorkers was this very militarised border region. So there were lots of castles which kept in a very good state of defence. And it's because the inhabitants were often engaged in warfare with the Scots. And another dimension is a feud between two of the most important families, the Nevels and the Persis. So actually, I suppose, sort of hostilities precede the outbreak of the wars, the roses, as such in some ways.

And North London in particular was a county dominated by the very powerful. Percy Earls of the Thumberland. In terms of the major castles, I mean, the ones that probably featured the most are ones like, sort of Anic, Bamberra, Dunsumbra and Alkworth. So it's striking that even after Edward's, you know, quite overwhelming victory at Toughton in 1461, that many people in Northumberland and, let's say, Cumberland and whatnot, remains loyal to the cause of Hemisphere's. And what the other dimension of the world is proximity to the Scottish border. following Tautan, the Lancashrian leadership, Pemnusix, Queen Marker, etc, they fled over the borders of Scotland, whereby they agreed a military alliance with the Scottish government

in return for handing over various border settlements such as Berwick-upon-Tweed, which was handed over to the Scots and Carlisle, which they were unable to do so. And Scottish support was really important for the Lancasterians and it allowed them to regain control some of these castles such as Anik and Bamberra and Dunstanborough. And between the years 1461 and four, These castles changed hands quite a few times between the two sides. In terms of my favourite episodes from these campaigns, I'll just go through a few of those. One of them is the siege of Anic Castle in the winter at 1462 to 3. So the castle was under-saged by a far superior Yorkist army.

And with food supplies running low, it seemed only a matter of time before the offenders would have to capitulate, as had their comrades at Bamber and Dunsthamber. As the siege continued throughout the depths of winter, a Scottish army led by George Douglas, Earl of Angus March to their rescue. In early January 1463, the Scots arrived in the vicinity of Anick, which threw the Yorkists into disarray, and they withdrew a short distance away, and this was supposedly so they could adopt them all superpositioned by offering battle,

and they would rule allow some members of the garrison to sally out to join forces with their rescuers. Yet the Scots, rather than confronting the Yorkists, then actually retreated all the way back across the border, Scotland, leaving the remaining members of the garrison, you know, who hadn't had foresight to leave the castle to surrender under terms. I think it's because the Scots had been defeated by the Yorkists before. So, for example, at a battle at Carlisle in 1461, so perhaps they were a bit worried about, you know, fighting the Yorkists. I think because they were also, the

orchids did have a large force, but there's a great quote from the Walker of Chronicles, who actually says that they thought the Scots had missed an opportunity to defeat the Yorkers because their soldiers had been so long in the field and will grieve of cold and rain that they had no courage to fight. So they literally have been suffering. I guess Northumberland can be quite a cold place, particularly in December and January,

so it must have been very hard for the soldiers out in the open to deal with that. Yeah, and do you think Edward the Force military reputation plays into this? So obviously they've won that massive victory at Tauton. Edward remains undefeated on the battlefield throughout his active period in the Wars of the Roses. Do you think there's an element of the Scots come down and, I don't know, do they lose their bottle when they get there at the thought that Edward might confront them?

Or do you think that the Scots came down just to try and relieve the garrison and get them out of the castle and there was a misunderstanding that it was a rescue party who were coming to lift the siege? Yeah, that's a great point, actually. It could well have been that. I think partly the reputation of Yorkists. I mean, Edward wasn't actually in the north at this time. The sieges had been sort of undertaken by the Nebels,

so the Earl of Warwick was kind of overseeing all this. And I think you're right to it. Could a world have been seen as a rescue mission. I guess by this point, in fact, Anne was the last remaining Lancastering Castle in Northumberland this particular period. So I suppose by this point you could say, well, what really could they have done more,

I suppose other than fight the Yorkists, but as they've been defeated by them before, perhaps they were a bit wary of doing this. And is there one episode, is it Bambera Castle, where they hold out cannons are fired and one of the men in charge of, is it Bambra Castle, is hit through the window of his apartment? Yes, we have a couple of accounts of the siege of Bambra Castle, because that's effectively the final showdown of the Lancashrians in Northumberland in 1464.

So, as I mentioned before, the castle has changed hands multiple times, but then in 1464, the York is finally defeated the Lancashrians at the Battle of Hedley-Maw and Hexham. And on previous occasions, Ed would have been quite merciful towards to Lancasterian, but on this occasion he effectively had, you know, leading prisons executed. So basically the surviving Lancashrians took refuge in Bambra Castle. We have this really wonderfully detailed account of the siege, which actually skiffs, you know, lots of details about how the siege took place, and it explains that it started with two heralds being sent to offer pardons

to all members of the garrison, except for two particular individuals, one of which was Saravrein, who had been a committed to Yorker case until he, changed sides and betrayed Anic to the Lancasterian. So basically he was, there was no hope for mercy for him. Unsurprisingly, you know, Lancashrian commanders, because I suppose there was nothing in it for them to surrender. They decide. And in fact, in this account, they actually say that they actually threaten to execute members of the garrison if they had to use gunfire against the walls of the castle because, effectively because it was a very valid possession of the king. I suppose the downside of using artillery in this situation is that, okay, it helps you capture a place,

but then again, if it's your castle ultimately, if you're claiming it as Edward IV, then you're damaging your own property. And I suppose ruined castles on the Scottish border as well are a bit of an invitation to the Scots to come over and have a go. So you'd want to minimise the damage and disruption and the cost of repairing it afterwards. Definitely, definitely. And in fact, Bamberra was actually a royal castle, unlike quite a few others in the region as well. So in one account we have that the Yorkers stormed the castle under the cover of their gunfire. The other one, which I think you're referring to, is that their gunfire caused damage within the walls of the castle, and that grey was incapacitated by the gunfire. And then at this point, the garrison decided to sort of effectively hand him over to the Yorker in order to, say, throw necks, effectively.

So we talked a bit about castles being used for siege warfare, but they were also, a couple of them were significant headquarters for, the factions during the Wars of the Roses. So I guess most notably, Kenilworth was a real home for the House of Lancaster and for King Henry the Sixth. And Ludlow is adopted as a military base by Richard Duke of York, so Ludlow out on the Welsh borders. Why, in particular, do you think those two places were selected for headquarters or centres of operation? Well, in the case of Kenilworth, actually mentioned it's a really important Lancasterian castle. And it had been since the 14th century. So when John of Gaunt took over the castle and he spent a great deal of money transforming into this really lavish residence. And under the Lancasterian King,

so his son, Henry the 4th and Henry the 5th and Henry the 6, it was actually one of their favoured residences. I think that's not just because it was a very comfortable place, but also because you can't so much see it now if you go to Kenner Work, but it was one time surrounded by this massive artificial lake. It's that very powerful water that's very powerful water that's and effectively it was an island. So it was very popular in the reign of Hemsda-6, and he said there often. And in fact, in the 1450s,

when things are starting to go wrong for the Lancasterians, he actually spent a lot of time there, I suppose, because it's sort of closer to, I suppose to West Midlands and sort of sense of support for his dynasty. Because I guess we get this geographical disconnect, don't we say? The House of Lancaster aren't necessarily focused

around the town of Lancaster. their power base is much more across the Midlands, particularly the East Midlands, and they're popular in the north. And the House of York have very little to do with York during this period. They're much more based around Ludlow and the Welsh marches, kind of as part of their inheritance from the Mortimus, I guess. So we don't have this reflection of their titles in where they end up being based. So the House of Lancaster is much more active in the East Midlands than we would think from their titles. Oh yeah, exactly, yes. I mean, partly it's come down to by this point that say people like the Duke of York, they have estates and titles all over the place.

So yeah, so there's not as much association perhaps with Lancaster and York, the geographical areas as we might associate. In terms of the reason why Ludlow was so important was because it was the main sort of residence of Richard Duke of York. And its prominence to the castle really dates back to the 14th century when it became the main residence of the Mortimer, Earls and March. And many of York's campaigns were sort of organised from the castle. So in fact, 1452, his first campaign, he issued his public statement to the king from the castle, and we have records of him sending out instructions to his followers to assemble across the kingdom for a sort of march on London. But I suppose Ludlow's prominent or perhaps best-known

episode associated with is the Ludford Bridge campaign in which, effectively, the Yorkist, conversal their forces upon the castle to confront the king. And what happened was there was an armed standoff, a short distance away from the castle at Loughford Bridge. In the event, what happened was the Yorker suffered from mass defactions the night before the battle, and they ended up fleeing. And then the castle was plundered by the Royalist soldiers. Yeah, it's interesting because we tend to think of castles being all about warfare, don't we? But they did have these other important roles that they played. So we tend to think of a castle being a place that was held or besieged.

But I know you're talking your book about other roles that castles played. during the Wars of the Roses. So could you give us a flavour of the other things that castles were used for, particularly in the Wars of the Roses? Yes, I mean, castles were a great significance to their owners and often in many cases previous owners as well. So it's partly due to their economic value, so they tended to be centres of great estates. But they also had great symbolic importance as well. So they were very much a visual demonstration of the wealth and power of their owners. So often what you get is members of the aristocracy are very active in trying to acquire control of castles and this often led to conflict. So for example, when the lead-up to the walls,

the roses, you have Percy's attempted to regain that ancestral castle wrestle in Yorkshire, and that brought them into conflict with the Nebels. And because the ability, they had military power in this period, they often try to resolve their sort of legal disputes using violence as well. So, for example, in 1469, a dispute over a case of castle in Norfolk led to a siege in which the Duke of Norfolk laid siege at the castle which was held by the Paston family. And there's lots of reports, isn't there, of the Duke of Norfolk bringing up cannons to bombard Castor Castle in, the Pastern letters talk about it, getting quite desperate at one stage.

Yes, it's a wonderful, in some ways, it's probably one of the best documented cedars we have just because we have this wonderful source of Pastern letters and this sort of correspondence between the owner of the castle and John Paston II, I think, and his mother, in which they're sort of talking about the state of the siege and how it's progressing. And we do definitely get a sense that the walls of the castle are quite badly damage. And in fact, that may have been a period in which cases suffered quite a lot of damage.

So as you mentioned before, like Ludlow becomes this centre for the House of York where they send their senior young men to go to effectively be educated. And it's almost like using the Principality of Wales at this point as a mini training ground. So those Welsh border regions, everyone's incredibly. to be politically active. It's slightly disconnected from the central government. And so Edward the fourth is given this kind of really in-depth basis for his education there, so much so that he decides to send his own son there a little bit later. And I guess that reflects the importance of Ludlow and the castle there in the landscape around it, that it was used for something as

important as training young nobleman. Definitely, yes. And I think in terms of it's, you say, it's location, it's sort of in the border region between England and Wales. And later on, once we get into, I suppose more the Tudor period, it actually becomes effectively the administrative capital of the Welsh marches and Wells itself. And Henry the 7th would kind of continue the policy. He sent his son, Prince Arthur there, pretty much the same as Edward V and Edward V had been. Yes, exactly. And I think it's partly due to its location. So it's sort of in the sort of Welsh region, but it's also, I suppose, not, you know, it's not as remote to some of, let's say, like, Camarth and perhaps in the south of Wales. It's quite, I suppose, fairly accessible for

some like London or the Midlands. Yeah, and I suppose it demonstrates the importance of the castles in building those networks of affinity and local relations kind of all focused on a castle as the focal point in the region. Did you find it easy to research these things for castles? I imagine that either there's lots of information about them because they're really big, important buildings that are centres of authority or there's very little because they're, especially in times of war,

they're functional buildings that are changing hands quite often, perhaps being destroyed regularly. is there a lot of information for you to work off to study these castles? I mean, in some ways it's a very mixed picture. So in some ways it's quite difficult. So when it comes to financial records for this era, in contrast to early and later ones, in fact it's Wars and the Roses is wrenfly poorly documented.

So for example, we've got a lot of financial evidence for royal castles in the 14th and early 15th centuries. So we've got some quite detailed accounts of expenditure on castles submitted by constables and other officials. But we have very little for the latter part of the reign of Henry VI or his Yorkist successors. And similarly, what we have in terms of, let's say, noble, gentry households varies enormously. So that means that sometimes we rely quite heavily upon what financial records we do have. So we've got some good ones for royal castles in the north and south of Wales,

or, you know, what we happen to come across in narrative sources. However, I think, I mean, there is definitely potential for carrying a further research in this area by pursuing different angles. So one really good one is to study the architecture of surviving castles. So, for example, we look at Ashley D.A. Zeus in Leicestershire, which was transformed by its owner William Lord Hastings from being a manate into a grand castle during the rain left and the fourth. If we look at the surviving architecture of, let's say, the Great Tower, we can see that it's richly adorned with Yorkic symbols all over the place. And that shows us how clearly he identified with the cause of Edward VIII and the Yorpe's dynasty. And similarly, another example from this period, if we look at Brackland Castle in Monmouthshire, it was actually a castle by the time we get to the Walls, the Roses,

but a great deal of work was carried out on it by its owner, William Herbert, Pembroke. And Pasoenutu'll feature it is this moted great tower, which is situated outside the main circuit of the walls. And his construction work was really used by Herbert as sort of a way of visually demonstrating his wealth and power as the effective vice-roy for Edward VIII in Wales. Yeah, so do we see castles during this period then starting to become almost a transition

between the old military, fairly stark fortresses and the sumptuous kind of Tudor Elizabethan manor-hous that we think of. Is there a period of transition here where people are starting to use castles, they still have a military function, but they're becoming much more comfortable places to live as well? I think in hindsight we can see that, yes,

so we do get very much a sort of focus on, you know, visually demonstrating wealth and power. Some of it perhaps goes back even earlier, you could say. So, for example, I've done a certain amount of research on Bodium Castle in East Sussex, which dates from the late 14th century, and you could say the same things about that as well. And these sort of trends become more apparently, you know, as we go into the 16th century and whatnot. But what I would say is that even though, you know, there is a move towards this, they still were considered to be important in terms of military terms as well.

I'm certainly judged by contemporaries to be important in this way as well. I suppose the way of looking at this being that, you know, these are buildings which have sort of multiple functions and purposes for people. So it's not sort of one or the other so much. Yeah, yeah. I suppose people had to live there. You know, the place had to do its job, but people also had to live there and they wanted to be reasonably comfortable

while they were having to stay there. Now, the other big interest of yours, I guess, is gunpowder weapons. So we can find you on Twitter as Gunpowder Dan. And Gunpowder plays a big part in your research as well. So can you talk us through a little bit about how gunpowder weapons developed and changed during the late medieval period? Yes, so guns, as in metal weapons at five projectiles from the initial of gunpowder, had been around in Western Europe since the early 14th century, so around the 1320s. Which I think is earlier then most people would think they were here.

We tend to think they come over, you know, the Wars of the Roses, we see a lot of cannon and mercenaries coming from the continent with guns. But I guess a lot of people wouldn't know that they've been around for almost 150, the years by that point. Exactly, yes. So I mean, yeah, so by the time we get to the Horses of Roses, and they've been used for quite a while, although I suppose the thing to say is the way they were used changed quite a lot over time. So the English are recorded as having used guns at the Battle of Cressee in 1346, which is very early, although to begin with, they were mostly used in siege warfare. So in the English context, so the guns began to be used in defence of

towns and castles from the late 14th century onwards. And what you see is, they're a gradual transition praise with additional forms of weapons. So you know, you get catapults and tors and powered weapons, no sprinkles. And they gradually replace those. And then around 1400, you get guns being used much more than offensive siege warfare. So you get the rise of these weapons, which we know sort of bombards, these huge weapons which can knock down the walls of castles. And certainly during the 100 years of war, the 15th century stage of it, guns played a very important role in siege warfare. Armies were routinely. equipped with these weapons.

So by the time we get the war to the races, they've been around for a long time. But one interesting development we do get with the war to raise is actually them being used on the battlefield on a regular basis. So in some ways, by that period, you know, they're both very old but also being using quite new ways as well. Yeah, still developing. So is there a sense that the 100 years war

perhaps help create this kind of arms race that increased the speed of the development and deployment and the changes in the uses of these things? Quite often these periods of warfare and conflict can pressurize these things. can't they and force them forward? Oh yeah, I mean, certainly, yes. I mean, because, you know, warfare is quite a driver of these things,

and you had competition between different factions, and we see sort of technological developments. So I mentioned use of guns on the battlefield, and one of that was in around the 1430s and 40s, you had the development of gun carriages. So up until that point, it might sound a bit strange, but effectively guns were moved in very large cuts, so you would drag them to, say, a castle or town of the seaging,

and then you would unload them from this cart, put them on the sort of wooden bed, and then operate them. But that's quite a laborious process. It's not very useful for, let's say, a battlefield situation. So they, in fact, developed, you know, wooden carriages, which made it much more accessible to move them about. So how was gunpowder made during the medieval period? Was there a kind of fixed recipe?

Was it something more experimental? Okay, so gunpowder, there's three elements to it. There's salt heater, sometimes known as potassium nitrate, sulfur and charcoal. So those first two elements had to be imported from abroad. So the Tastasium nitrate would be Mediterranean, or by the way of India or mainland Europe, and then sulfur from volcanic regions like, let's say, Italy and whatnot. So it was mixed together in various compositions. This is a task often carried out by gunners because it's something you'd have to do beforehand. You wouldn't want to be mixing gunpowder, let's say, you know, in the middle of a battle, for instance. And in terms of

compositions, it varies. So particularly by the time we get to the late 15th century, they've actually developed compositions for different types of guns. So generally speaking, you'd have a higher proportion of saltpetre if you wanted the gunpowder to ignite more quickly. So if small weapons, smaller projectiles, that made sense, whereas you tended to have lower portions for, let's say, a very big siege guns, for instance. And I think lots of what we read about medieval gunpowder weapons is pretty frightening. They were pretty unreliable, quite dangerous to fire, as dangerous to those kind of behind the guns as they were in front. Was it important for them to make them more reliable and safer? Yes, I mean,

accidents definitely did happen and we sometimes get some interesting glimpses of this. So for my PhD and which I published as a monograph, I spent a lot of time going through financial records. And in the records of the townhouse of Hampton in the 1450s, for instance, the town's going to receive compensation for his clothes being set on fire whilst he was making gunpowder. So it was a fairly dangerous process. In terms of making it more alive, but it's interesting, they, I mean, gunners were aware of the potential dangers. So often what they did was they proved or test fired guns. They would, you know, effectively test them out in public. We have an example, I think, from 1481 in which a very large bronze gun was test fired in the president of Edward IV for the Scottish campaign.

And under that particular instance, the gun actually shattered. under the strain of firing. And we do know from financial records that gun chambers, many of these guns have separate removal powder chambers, which are separate to the barrels, will be repaired. I believe even from carrying out research and surviving pieces in museums, we know that the raw-time guns undergone repairs at times. That said, I think the reason why they test fired it was, they were quite careful to make sure the ones that did go on campaign, you know, had a reasonable chance of, you know, being operational for at least a bit of time before, you know, in effect of these problems.

Yeah. So what kind of people, if you found the sorts of people who got involved in the production and use of gunpowder weapons, what was the driver for people to want to do it? Well, I suppose it's probably been money in the profession, to be honest. I mean, you do get a fair number of people who are associated with guns in some different formats or others. So you get people like, Mastainty. and carpenters were involved. So masons, because the main projectile used in the 15th century, was actually, I say, sort of cannon or gunshot made out of stone. So you get gunshot. And

carpenters, because you have a lot of woodwork associated with, let's say, carriages and whatnot themselves. In terms of their construction, there's sort of two main methods. So you have, one is to make guns out of wrought iron, which sort of a low quality form of iron that can be. When heated to high temperatures, you can effectively manipulate it to a certain extent. So Smiths were quite involved in the making of guns. The other main method is actually casting guns using a copper alloy. So it's the same sort of technique as Bell founders used. So those are the two main methods.

And then the work and most associated work were gunners. It was somewhat different to later gunners. They're not just soldiers involved any of the operation of guns, but these are really quite skilled individuals. So they were involved in making guns, repairing guns, making gunpowder, casting, let's say, led shots for the guns. and they were quite well-paid individuals, and I suppose they didn't have, you know, schools as such,

courses where you learn how to do it. I think it was very much the apprentice system where you'd learn from somebody else. And so I guess for the people then picking the weapons up, which could potentially cause more harm to you than anybody you were aiming them at, is it a question of money? Is this a mercenary issue where mercenary forces of gunners

were willing to take the risk to get the cash that they could command on the battlefield for having these weapons? I suppose, yeah. I mean, money would have been, quite important. People have to have money to live, don't they? In terms of the mercenary element of it, I suppose it's quite a

mixed bag in some ways because when it comes to gunners, often quite a few of them were from abroad. So particularly the low countries is a really important region in the 15th century and later for the employment of gunners, but you also get quite a few English gunners as well.

In terms of their reliability, I should say that even though accidents do happen, I think to a certain extent that sometimes perhaps exaggerated or there's too much attention given to that? Because I think ultimately people in the middle ages were quite practical. If they were too dangerous for their operators to use, then it would be, it probably would have, you know, limited, you know, the development of the technology and people willing to use them.

So do you think we perhaps overestimate that idea that guns blew up in people's faces quite often? I think we do, yes. I mean, because we know from military campaigns that guns could be kept around in use for quite a lot of time. So, for example, I looked at one Fett addition to France in the only 1430s. You've got a set of accounts for the guns at the beginning to campaign at the end of it. And even after two years of heavy fighting, still two-thirds of the guns were still operational.

So they could be kept, if they were properly maintained, they could be kept in quite a good state of repair. And for the Pail of Calais, where we've got some great financial records, I've been able to trace, I've been chased at least one gun, which was in use for at least 50 years. So some of them did have quite longevity. I think the other thing to remember as well is the middle age is quite a dangerous time. So lots of accents happens. So if they weren't so interesting, things like quality control, or they couldn't enforce it.

Didn't have the same kind of health and safety rules around carrying big wadges of gunpowder around with you everywhere. No, exactly, yes. And then, you know, people died from, you know, like falling into rivers or being thrown from horses. So it was quite a dangerous time, I suppose, really, whatever you did, really. Yeah. And I guess just to linger on that idea of the guns being dangerous, it was probably the most high-profile casualty of a gun-powered a weapon during this period, or at least one that backfired. Was James II of Scotland in 1460? Can you tell us what happened to him?

Yes, so James II, King of Scots, was besieging Roxburgh Castle, which was a border castle between England and Wales. And what happened was he was mortally wounded, and he was inspecting a large Flemish gun, which misfired. And what happened was a forced explosion caused part of the guns wouldn't carry us to break apart. and part of it waged itself into the king who then, you know, suffered very badly before dying. The interesting thing about this example, as you say, it's very famous, it's very well known, is that actually the account that we have of him, you know, suffering, this death actually talks about the fact that he was being careless, in being, you know, inspecting the gun quite so closely because he was so proud of his, you know, very impressive gun from abroad. He forgot that if you're being sensible, like a sensible gun, you'd stand back a certain distance from the gun.

So to a certain extent, you could say he was being rather careless in that example. The fact that he was so famous means that he gets recorded in this particular way. I should imagine there was quite an effort on the part of the man who'd made the gun to point out that the king was being a little bit reckless, because otherwise he was in danger of being accused of killing the king with his defective weaponry. Quite possibly, yes. I think people probably realise that James had finally gotten a bit carried away at that. That's fantastic.

I think I'd probably feel more comfortable being on the back end of a medieval gun now than I would have been at the start of this chat. so thank you very much, Dan. If you found Dan's discussions about castles, interesting, his book The Castle in the Wars of the Roses, is out now, and he regularly gives talks on gunpowder weapons. You can find him on social media. As I said, he's on Twitter as Gunpowder Dan,

so you can seek him out there and ask him any questions you've got. Don't forget to also subscribe to Gone Medieval, wherever you get your podcasts, and tell all your friends and family that you've gone medieval. I'd like to give a quick mention, too, to a brand new podcast from History Hit, not just the Tudors, presented by the fabulous, Susanna Lipscomb. There's an episode on Bridewell, the palace that became a prison.

It fits quite nicely with today's chat with Dan by looking at a building in Tudor London, whose use was transformed from a palace into a prison. Why not give that a listen? And fill your podcast library to Brimming Point by subscribing to not just the Tudors from History Hit. Anyway, I'd better let you go. I've been Matt Lewis, and we've just gone medieval with history hits.