Artillery in the English Civil War: Types, Reliability, and Impact
During the tumult of the English Civil War, a wide variety of artillery was used, each type serving distinct roles in both field and siege warfare. This article explores the different types of cannon, their reliability, and the frequency of failures, providing insights into the dynamics of gunpowder warfare during this pivotal historical period.
Types of Cannon Used in the English Civil War
Artillery played a significant role in the English Civil War, ranging from the field guns used in battles to the siege mortars employed in the laying of sieges. The Saker cannon, for instance, was popular due to its mobility, weighing less than a ton, making it an effective field piece for both the Royalists and the Parliamentarians. During Cromwell's invasion of Scotland, both the great guns and the mortar bombarded Edinburgh castle, with the mortar proving particularly devastating to the defending Scots.
A Catalogue of Artillery
According to records from the mid-17th century, various types of artillery existed. Norton, a gunner, provided a list in 1628, which included culverins, falcons, and bombards. These weapons were categorized based on their length and caliber, with culverins being especially long. A 1652 book, The Complete Cannoniere, by John Roberts further illustrates the variety of artillery used, showing that even the smallest guns could still be used effectively in targeted engagements.
Reliability and Impact of Cannons in the English Civil War
While field artillery was not always as effective as expected, siege artillery played a crucial role. Carver notes that in typical battles, the first exchange of fire aimed to break up the enemy’s battle line but often failed to achieve significant results. On occasions, as at Braddock Down, surprise fire from small cannons, such as those used by the Royalists, could cause terror. At Hopton Heath, the cannon fire from Sir John Gell’s paratroopers inflicted heavy casualties, and at Langport, the artillery of the New Model Army quickly silenced the opposition’s big guns. This suggests that, despite occasional failures, artillery influenced the outcome of many battles.
Field Artillery vs. Siege Artillery
Field artillery, though not always successful, was often used to lower the morale of the enemy and disrupt their formations. However, it was the siege artillery that made a greater impact, as evidenced by the numerous ruined castles throughout the British Isles during and after the civil wars. Siege mortars, with their explosive shells, were particularly devastating. ‘Roaring Meg’ from Hereford, a famous mortar, demonstrated its destructive power by firing 100 lb shells, known as ‘grenadoes’.
Frequency of Failures and Destructiveness
While there is no comprehensive data on the frequency of gun barrel failures, historical accounts suggest that it was not uncommon. For instance, in the 1642 campaign, the Parliamentarians had over forty artillery pieces, which were far fewer than expected due to insufficient draught horses and logistical challenges in transportation. A Royalist army attempting to attack Banbury Castle in October 1642 required fifty-seven wagons to support four big guns, highlighting the resource-intensive nature of artillery operations.
The rate of fire for field artillery was approximately 15 shots per hour, with both roundshot and canister used in field engagements. However, the destructive power of these weapons was significant, as evidenced by their impact during battles and sieges. For example, during the Battle of Marston Moor, the artillery played a critical role in decimating the opposing cavalry and infantry.
Conclusion
The English Civil War saw a mix of artillery types, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. While not always reliable, artillery—particularly siege mortars and small field pieces—proved to be a formidable force capable of altering the course of battles and sieges. Understanding the different types of cannon, their reliability, and the frequency of failures provides valuable insights into the dynamics of 17th-century warfare.