Honestly, Caesaropapism would probably be the first precedent Cesare looks to (plus, it even has his name in it ) - but to get that to happen properly (i.e. actually owning Rome), the Pope would have to declare against Cesare. I could see Julius II doing it, but not anyone else, as it'd be suicide. That could legitimately lead to a Pope in Rome under Borgia rule, which is... different. (In fact, that would be a hilarious factor in the current chaos, I kinda want to see it). That would be legit Caesaropapism if the Pope recognises Cesare of Vice Gerent of Christ - Or more accurately "God's Vicegerent on Earth" - which was a Byzantine Imperial Title. *byzantine weeaboo nature intensifying*
The idea of a Senatorial Class and Senate that only the Senatorial class can join is simply a nobles assembly - which if Cesare is victorious is a good fig-leaf, but unless it has teeth, he is basically making a title with some privileges that most Nobles would already have.
Personally, I'd want to get rid of all those who rebelled, and raise former subordinates to duke-like titles that are hereditary at the pleasure of the crown (i.e. if Crown says no - then it reverts). This basically entitles them to normal ducal privileges, but at the mercy of the Crown (and it also means the crown can prevent them amassing too many of these titles).
I don't know if this was a thing (Atm my knowledge of the Renaissance legal system comes down to episodes of Medici : Masters of Florence), but an independent judiciary/royal judiciary that can handle legal conflicts involving nobles, but with Royal authority could be pretty useful. It would be quite radical (and make him very popular with the middle and lower classes) if it included free legal representation. Suddenly you have an entire court system that can shut down rebellious, unlawful nobles, with corrupt practices. If he wins, he should have the power and clout to set this up. This would be radically early if wiki is to be believed (about 2 centuries), but it is renaissance Italy, fun new ideas appear all the time
Honestly, Caesaropapism would probably be the first precedent Cesare looks to (plus, it even has his name in it ) - but to get that to happen properly (i.e. actually owning Rome), the Pope would have to declare against Cesare. I could see Julius II doing it, but not anyone else, as it'd be suicide. That could legitimately lead to a Pope in Rome under Borgia rule, which is... different. (In fact, that would be a hilarious factor in the current chaos, I kinda want to see it). That would be legit Caesaropapism if the Pope recognises Cesare of Vice Gerent of Christ - Or more accurately "God's Vicegerent on Earth" - which was a Byzantine Imperial Title. *byzantine weeaboo nature intensifying*
The idea of a Senatorial Class and Senate that only the Senatorial class can join is simply a nobles assembly - which if Cesare is victorious is a good fig-leaf, but unless it has teeth, he is basically making a title with some privileges that most Nobles would already have.
Personally, I'd want to get rid of all those who rebelled, and raise former subordinates to duke-like titles that are hereditary at the pleasure of the crown (i.e. if Crown says no - then it reverts). This basically entitles them to normal ducal privileges, but at the mercy of the Crown (and it also means the crown can prevent them amassing too many of these titles).
I don't know if this was a thing (Atm my knowledge of the Renaissance legal system comes down to episodes of Medici : Masters of Florence), but an independent judiciary/royal judiciary that can handle legal conflicts involving nobles, but with Royal authority could be pretty useful. It would be quite radical (and make him very popular with the middle and lower classes) if it included free legal representation. Suddenly you have an entire court system that can shut down rebellious, unlawful nobles, with corrupt practices. If he wins, he should have the power and clout to set this up. This would be radically early if wiki is to be believed (about 2 centuries), but it is renaissance Italy, fun new ideas appear all the time
Love it! Remember, Cesare and his son are technically the heirs of Byzantium, so slight references to them makes some sense. And a independent court is very Roman, and would gain huge support from the middle and lower classes, as:
Peasant: 'That moron Antonio stole my cow!'
Judiciary: 'Yep, its pretty obvious he stole your cow. He will now go to jail and you can have you cow back'
This would reduce revolts and noble tension considerably as well. Although not sure how a nobles assembly would work/what powers we would give it?
Hmm, so basically the Pope is sort of a vassal, with the Pope granting the Borgia's the title of defender of the faith. Makes sense! What about that legalistic part you were saying before?
Not a vassal,but Cesare's theoretical master,much like the Merovingian kings were to the early Carolingians.Afterall,in the Catholic world,everyone's meant to be subordinated to the pope.I see two ways of making things work.Force the pope to declare Cesare head of government(whose titles could be Chancellor or Defender of Faith,which I preferred the most) of the Papal States but at the same time have him remain an independent king.The second method would be to once again get the Pope to declare Cesare head of government of the Papal States,but subsume Cesare's lands into the Papal States with lands outside of Latium being part of Cesare's personal possessions in his capacity as a vassal king.In the second method,Cesare would be more like Cao Cao.Cao Cao was Chancellor of the Han Dynasty(with the emperor de facto rendered a puppet) but at the same time was made a vassal king with a fief encompassing large parts of the Han Dynasty--this meant that he gains legitimacy as the protector of the emperor but at the same time gain the personal loyalty of the people inside his fief(which encompasses a large part of his zone of control) who owe him their loyalty in his capacity as their king.The foreign kings won't like the second method though every action Cesare undertakes would be technically be done on behalf of the pope.
What legalism meant was a regime based on merit,bureaucracy,centralization and a tough,draconian laws--especially against the aristocracy.In China for example,if you plot against the emperor and your plot was uncovered,you won't be the only one executed--your entire family,including your in-laws and your cousins related to you by the nineth degree would all be executed.Only young children and women are excluded and they are forced to become slaves for the rest of their lives.On the other hand,if you are successful and served the state loyally,you could be given high positions and highly generous rewards.The Qin Dynasty managed to unify China based on such a system but was eventually overthrown in a large peasant rebellion as the toughness of the system meant that certain people were forced to rebel when the law became inflexible and unreasonable.For example,the founder of the Han Dynasty was forced to rebel because he was ordered to escort workers to construct the emperor's mausoleum but was late due to floods--which was punishable by death according to Qin law,despite the situation being entirely out of his control.Subsequent dynasties in China would continue to retain a more toned down version of the laws,but in an attempt to make the people more accepting of the laws,the emperors would become allied Confucians(who advocated for governance based on mercy and virture though in practice they hardly do so).This is the reason for allying yourself with the Church--in place of the Confucians,you make the people more accepting of your tough but still reasonable laws by getting the Church to endorse you.
Not a vassal,but Cesare's theoretical master,much like the Merovingian kings were to the early Carolingians.Afterall,in the Catholic world,everyone's meant to be subordinated to the pope.I see two ways of making things work.Force the pope to declare Cesare head of government(whose titles could be Chancellor or Defender of Faith,which I preferred the most) of the Papal States but at the same time have him remain an independent king.The second method would be to once again get the Pope to declare Cesare head of government of the Papal States,but subsume Cesare's lands into the Papal States with lands outside of Latium being part of Cesare's personal possessions in his capacity as a vassal king.In the second method,Cesare would be more like Cao Cao.Cao Cao was Chancellor of the Han Dynasty(with the emperor de facto rendered a puppet) but at the same time was made a vassal king with a fief encompassing large parts of the Han Dynasty--this meant that he gains legitimacy as the protector of the emperor but at the same time gain the personal loyalty of the people inside his fief(which encompasses a large part of his zone of control) who owe him their loyalty in his capacity as their king.The foreign kings won't like the second method though every action Cesare undertakes would be technically be done on behalf of the pope.
What legalism meant was a regime based on merit,bureaucracy,centralization and a tough,draconian laws--especially against the aristocracy.In China for example,if you plot against the emperor and your plot was uncovered,you won't be the only one executed--your entire family,including your in-laws and your cousins related to you by the nineth degree would all be executed.Only young children and women are excluded and they are forced to become slaves for the rest of their lives.On the other hand,if you are successful and served the state loyally,you could be given high positions and highly generous rewards.The Qin Dynasty managed to unify China based on such a system but was eventually overthrown in a large peasant rebellion as the toughness of the system meant that certain people were forced to rebel when the law became inflexible and unreasonable.For example,the founder of the Han Dynasty was forced to rebel because he was ordered to escort workers to construct the emperor's mausoleum but was late due to floods--which was punishable by death according to Qin law,despite the situation being entirely out of his control.Subsequent dynasties in China would continue to retain a more toned down version of the laws,but in an attempt to make the people more accepting of the laws,the emperors would become allied Confucians(who advocated for governance based on mercy and virture though in practice they hardly do so).This is the reason for allying yourself with the Church--in place of the Confucians,you make the people more accepting of your tough but still reasonable laws by getting the Church to endorse you.
Ok, so with a balance of legalism and this independent court/judiciary we could see a perfect mix of both noble and populous satisfaction? which could lead to a perfectly stable state, all we need is a more federalized system to let the states themselves prosper as they were before the domination of Cesare, but still with control of the treasury, navy and army of course controlled by him.
Ok, so with a balance of legalism and this independent court/judiciary we could see a perfect mix of both noble and populous satisfaction? which could lead to a perfectly stable state, all we need is a more federalized system to let the states themselves prosper as they were before the domination of Cesare, but still with control of the treasury, navy and army of course controlled by him.
Not a federal system.Legalists would in fact disdain federalism since they wanted centralization.There can be a independent court/judiciary but you shouldn't have federalism unless you are trying to unify Italy the same way Prussians unified Germany.If you take control of Italy through blood and steel,full centralization is probably the way to go--considering Italy isn't really such a big place.You should only have federalism,which would probably be a form of feudalism in this stage if you are unifying Italy by negotiation.
Not a federal system.Legalists would in fact disdain federalism since they wanted centralization.There can be a independent court/judiciary but you shouldn't have federalism unless you are trying to unify Italy the same way Prussian unified Germany.If you take control of Italy through blood and steel,full centralization is probably the way to go--considering Italy isn't really such a big place.
Plus the more centralized the stronger right? I feel like letting the Republics/Duchies do their own thing (e.g. Venice) would be better suited to let themselves do their own thing, as they successful at that, within the Empire/State/Kingdom.
Plus the more centralized the stronger right? I feel like letting the Republics/Duchies do their own thing (e.g. Venice) would be better suited to let themselves do their own thing, within the Empire/State/Kingdom.
Are you planning on unifying Italy by negotiation much like the Prussians did to Germany or the way the Savoyards did?If you are doing it the Savoyard way,the way to go would be to install governors answerable to Cesare alone.
Are you planning on unifying Italy by negotiation much like the Prussians did to Germany or the way the Savoyards did?If you are doing it the Savoyard way,the way to go would be to install governors answerable to Cesare alone.
Act 1 Cesare Borgia Part 8: The Cesare War part 2;
The Second Siege of Naples
‘ARE YOU GOING TO ACCEPT YOUR DUTY? OR WILL YOU HAVE A SMALL PLAQUE IN MADRID SQUARE STATING THAT YOU REFUSED TO FIGHT FOR YOUR PEOPLE, INSTEAD FOR A MONARCH HUNDREDS OF LEAGUES AWAY?’ Cesare Borgia-Palaiologos March 1504, trying to convince Pedro Navarro to aid him in the defence of Naples.
The Savoyard counts are advancing north, getting closer to the alpine ridges before Chamberlium. The loyalists, while devout, are unable to fully stop the advance of the better funded and more numerous army. However, due to the nature of Cesare’s infantry and with winter fast approaching, they were able to hold several passes at Susa, Donnes and Locana, preventing further passing.
Louis XII still has not joined the war on either side, as firstly he has to engage the Spanish in the pyrenees, and also he has technically not formed any alliances with either side, waiting for the perfect moment to strike. The Savoyard nobles are hoping that he will come for their aid, however with their recent successes against the loyalists, they don’t feel the need to bend the knee to the French. In an act of hubris with Louis XII, one Carlo III utterly refuses to allow French troops free access through Savoy to reach Milan, fearing French looting of the countryside and an overbearing French force in territory. This tips Louis XII over the age, and leaves the negotiations immediately, to the yelling and complaints of the counts. He immediately travels back to France at Lyon to create a large army to invade Savoy with. Louis responds to Cesare’s letter stating:
‘While I originally had my doubts about you, condottieri and conquerer, I see that you are my greatest ally in the land of Italy, and that I must work with you to achieve both your own and my goals in this rich and fertile kingdom. My armies will arrive next March to assist your loyalists in Savoy. Godspeed to you my brother in arms.’
However, Cesare’s position was deteriorating fast. Only 3 days after he had taken Naples, the Spanish troops arrived under viceroy Gonzalo Fernandes de Cordoba with his 15,000 men outside the walls. It had been an entire week, with Cesare’s last option being to persuade the garrison commander, Pedro Navarro to join him against the Spanish.
Cesare sat down at the commander's home, coming unarmed as a sign of good faith. Pedro Navarro looked down, not really wanting to look at Cesare.
‘Have I not shown you enough examples of my good faith? The people of this town, once pelting my troops with rocks, are now supplying them with food and water out of their own good nature! I have you remaining in one of the larger houses in Naples, not guarded and allowed to bear arms. If we do not work together, both of us will end up dead on the city streets, the Spanish again sacking this great city.’
He finally looked up, then his eyes falling back down ‘Cesare, while I cannot deny you have been good with the people of this city, my allegiance remains with the Spanish crown. I am sorry’
Cesare stood up, shouting ‘Your allegiance is as the commander of this garrison, and therefore protector of the city. I am offering you the chance of working together and keeping this city free. ARE YOU GOING TO ACCEPT YOUR DUTY? OR WILL YOU HAVE A SMALL PLAQUE IN MADRID SQUARE STATING THAT YOU REFUSED TO FIGHT FOR YOUR PEOPLE, INSTEAD FOR A MONARCH HUNDREDS OF LEAGUES AWAY?’
Pedro looked up at Cesare as he shouted, slightly shocked, then looked down and after several minutes of silence, he stated ‘I will regret this, but Cesare Borgia-Palaiologos, you’re right. The people of Naples deserve more than this.’
Cesare offered him a hand, shaking it. ‘Pedro, how many cannons can you bring to bear from the garrisons arsenal?’
‘There are about 6 remaining cannons, the rest are damaged’
Cesare’s face lit up. ‘Perfect! My fiveteen guns are on the walls, can you get yours on there too?’
‘Sure, what is your plan?’
Cesare’s face turned stern, stating ‘Siege’s are often carried out through the bombardment of the city by outside forces. What about the reverse?’
Pedro looked surprised, then grinned ‘You’re a mad man Cesare, but this might just work’. Barrels of gunpowder and shot were being moved towards the outer walls behind Cesare and Pedro.
Cesare, looked over the walls. ‘The Spanish themselves only have around 12 guns, as the rest are being used in the Pyrenees campaign. If we can take those out…’
Pedro’s eyes lit up ‘Then we can attack out! With artillery support behind us! Perfect!’
Cesare grabbed Pedro’s shoulder and said ‘Grab as many men to lift cannons onto the walls and ramparts. I shall get equipped and meet you at the gate’.
As Cesare rushed to his camp in the city, he heard the first few cannons being fired out of the city, the smell of gunpowder overwhelming as he put on his plate armour and cloak.
He leapt onto his horse and galloped towards the gate. The Spanish had clearly not expected this much cannon-fire, as they had arrayed their cannons almost free of external protection and ahead of the rest of the army by several dozen yards. They soon realised their mistake.
As Cesare reached the wall, two cannons had already been destroyed, with many additional casualties from missed shots firing straight into the Spanish pikemen.
Eventually, several hours later, after all of the cannons were destroyed, the gates were opened and Cesare, Pedro, Frederick and their cavalry burst out of the gate, with swordsmen and gunmen hot on their trails. They crashed into the gunmen on the flank, devastating the lot of them and after this, with 6,000 men killed and 2,000 wounded, Cordoba decided to retreat. Cesare pursued them with their cavalry, killing off another thousand men as they fled into nearby woods.
‘Ha ha! Take that Cordoba! I never liked your mustache anyway! It looked like a slug on your face!' Pedro Navarro cheered as he pursued the General away.
After this, with Cordoba’s army devastated to the combination of efficient cannon fire and heavy cavalry charges, he resolved to flee to Sicily, reaching there in a few weeks to set up a defence of the isle for a monstrous attack. However, that attack never came.
Once Cesare was sure that he had taken full control of southern Italy, with another two weeks of campaigning around the boot, he finally could turn his eyes north by May, 1504. It was time to turn the tide.
Second Siege of Naples:
Heavy cannon fire from the combined Neapolitan and Cesare arsenals:
Destruction of the Spanish Artillery and Crew:
Cesare, Pedro, Frederick and the Heavy Cavalry charging out of the gate to attack the Spanish:
After the Cavalry Charge, the Pikemen advanced too:
The Cavalry Pursuing the enemy into the woods:
The Death toll of the battle on the Spanish and Cesare's forces:
Hope everyone enjoyed! This was indeed Cesare's darkest hour. Much more to look forward to in the next parts of the Cesare war! Personally I thought my pictures were on point this time.
Though I'm not sure of its veracity, I've heard that European translators when they got to Japan translated 'Emperor' into 'High Priest' and 'Shogun' into 'Emperor' because of how they observed the relations between them
Though I'm not sure of its veracity, I've heard that European translators when they got to Japan translated 'Emperor' into 'High Priest' and 'Shogun' into 'Emperor' because of how they observed the relations between them
Nice chapter, good use of voice in narration and particularly in the French letter
However, I question the plausibility of:
Converting the garrison commander. Given his occupation requires him to be trusty
Utility of guns of this time being used offensively, given they weren't even standardised at this point.
The complete rout of the enemy army
And some other stuff that's not so much of a big deal
I know there are explanations for this, like the Purple Company having standardised their guns while on campaign, but because this hasn't been specifically mentioned I remain skeptical
Nice chapter, good use of voice in narration and particularly in the French letter
However, I question the plausibility of:
Converting the garrison commander. Given his occupation requires him to be trusty
Utility of guns of this time being used offensively, given they weren't even standardised at this point.
The complete rout of the enemy army
And some other stuff that's not so much of a big deal
I know there are explanations for this, like the Purple Company having standardised their guns while on campaign, but because this hasn't been specifically mentioned I remain skeptical
I'll do heavier research into cannons. Also the character who was the Garrison after 1512 sided with the French, so its not surprising he sided with Borgia in the face of the population of naples agreeing with him. Also there was a high chance he'd get slaughtered in the fight to take Naples.
Well, with your entire artillery gone, the enemy having enough troops inside (remember Purple Company is 9,000 + atleast 4,000 remaining garrison as the city commander surrendered)
The reason the guns were so effective, was that the Spanish weren't expecting so many, along with the fact that many hadn't actually been destroyed in the first siege of Naples, just knocked out of action.
All of those guns with no guns to fire back with several thousand causalities in a 15,000 person army is already a call to fall back to a safer position. A large cavalry charge into your gunmen, killing huge amounts of your remaining ranged units? Ok thats game over pull out.
Cannon wise, yeah can we start a discussion on that? What would be effective cannons/standardised size of cannon/cannons for this?
Well, I've drawn a map for the current political situation.
Red = Borgia loyalists/Borgia allies
Greyish Blue = Anti-Borgia powers
Grey = HRE neutral
Dark Blue = France
Regular blue = Haafsid Emirate
Light Green = Ottoman Empire
Brown = Kingdom of Hungary
Orange = Austrian Realm
Yellow = Genoa and Siena (Neutrality League)
Also need to add a paragraph about the situation in Romagna/Ancona.
Also the character who was the Garrison after 1512 sided with the French, so its not surprising he sided with Borgia in the face of the population of naples agreeing with him. Also there was a high chance he'd get slaughtered in the fight to take Naples.
Well, with your entire artillery gone, the enemy having enough troops inside (remember Purple Company is 9,000 + atleast 4,000 remaining garrison as the city commander surrendered)
The reason the guns were so effective, was that the Spanish weren't expecting so many, along with the fact that many hadn't actually been destroyed in the first siege of Naples, just knocked out of action.
Delaborde, L’exp6dition de Charles VIII, 400-8; Pieri, Il Rinascimento e la crisi militare italiana, 327-8, and Labande-Mailfert, Charles VIII, 279 (and see there note 395 for a view opposed to Pieri regarding the importance of cannon fire)
It is equally understandable why the FrancoMilanese refused the challenge to battle, remaining behind entrenchments protected by cannons
From the siege of Constantinople
Having done all this, the Sultan summoned the cannon-makers and spoke to them about the cannon and the walls, and about how the wall could most easily be demolished. They assured him it would be easy to demolish it if, in addition to the guns they already had (for they already had some others, made earlier), they should construct one more, which, they believed, would be strong enough to batter down and destroy the wall. For this, heavy expense was needed, to purchase both a large amount of brass and many other materials.
After this, having pointed the cannon toward whatever it was intended to hit, and having leveled it by certain technical means and calculations toward the target, they brought up great beams of wood and laid them underneath and fitted them carefully. On these they placed immense stones, weighting it down and making it secure above and below and behind and everywhere, lest by the force of the velocity and by the shock of the movement of its own emplacement, it should be displaced and shoot wide of its mark.
Having set up some cannon, he battered down and destroyed the greater part of it. Of the men within many died from the stone cannon-balls,
And from the other side:
On the eleventh of April the Sultan had his cannon placed near the walls, by the weakest part of the city, the sooner to gain his objective. These cannon were planted in four places: first of all, three cannon were placed near the palace of the Most Serene Emperor, and three other cannon were placed near the Pigi gate, and two at the Cressu gate, and another four at the gate of San Romano, the weakest part of the whole city. One of these four cannon which were at the gate of San Romano threw a ball weighing about twelve hundred pounds, more or less, and thirteen quarte in circumference, which will show the terrible damage it inflicted where it landed. The second cannon threw a ball weighing eight hundred pounds, and nine quarte in circumference. These two cannon were the largest that the Turkish Khan had, the other cannon being of various sizes, from five hundred pounds to two hundred pounds, and smaller still.
They could not have seen [the ship] sink, because there was so much smoke from the cannon and from the guns that it was impossible to see anything, and the air was full of cries from one side or the other, so that they could not believe what had happened
On the third of May a plan was made to plant two fairly large cannon by one of the water gates near the cannon of the fleet in the basin, the same ones that sank the fusta, and so our cannon bombarded the Turkish fuste and gave them some discomfort by their fire. When the Turks saw that our cannon were sinking their fuste, and also that many of their men were being killed by our shots, they decided to prevent our cannon from being able to harm them; they placed three large cannon near their fleet of fuste, which were near ours, and kept up a continuous bombardment day and night, and caused much damage here because the cannon were so close to each other. This cannon fire on both sides lasted about ten days both day and night continuously, but neither side could be put out of action, because our cannon were within the walls, and theirs were well protected with breastworks, and the distance the cannon had to carry was half a mile.
And with the English:
The cannon of the early fourteenth century were both small and inexpensive. A gun, probably weighing forty pounds, was purchased for just 13s 4d in 1353, when a springald cost 66s 8d.77 At this point, gunpowder artillery had no more power than traditional siege engines (and, indeed, far less than some), but this cost advantage, combined with the psychological impact of a new and frighteningly loud weapon, ensured that its use would grow rapidly. Edward III had at his disposal for the siege of Calais in 1346 at least 10 cannon (including two “grossa”) and materials for over 5,000 lb. worth of gunpowder.78 The French had 24 iron cannon made in 1345 at Cahors for the siege of Aiguillon, and at least 32 cannon were provided for the siege of Saint–Saveur-le-Vicomte in 1374-75.79 Froissart claimed that the English had 400 guns at the siege of St. Malo in 1378, though most were probably handguns.80 Over the six years from 1382-88, the English Privy Wardrobe purchased 87 cannon.81 By 1409, Christine de Pisan could argue that no less than 248 guns were needed to take a strong place, including 32 firing shot of 200 lb. or more.82
Even as the number of cannon employed increased, so too did their size. The early guns were very small, and shot pellets of lead or iron, or sometimes iron “lances” feathered with bronze. A much larger cannon prepared for the siege of Saint-Saveur-le-Vicomte in 1375 fired stone shot of a hundredweight, and Froissart records the use of a gun firing 200-pound stones two years later. The Count of Holland purchased 400-pound stones for his “grooten donrebusse” in 1378.83 Two bombards purchased by the Duke of Burgundy in 1409 hurled stones of 700-750 and 800-950 pounds.84 Faule Mette, cast circa 1411, fired stones of over half a ton. The massive Pumhart von Steyr, forged e. 1420, fired an 80-cm stone weighing over fifteen hundred pounds.85
How did this increase in the size and quantity of gunpowder artillery affect actual campaigns? At first, not much. The English managed to destroy the strongpoint of Romorantin in 1356 by using cannon to send “Greek fire” into the courtyard, but gunpowder artillery could prove equally useful to the defense. At Breteuil in the same year, for instance, the besieged English used cannon to destroy a French assault tower.86 Furthermore, the guns were simply not powerful enough to do much damage to castle walls. Even at the end of the fourteenth century, siege guns could do little more than knock in the roofs of towers.87 The balance between offense and defense remained firmly tilted towards the latter; as late as c. 1420, a German author held that the defender of a well-equipped castle, provided with artillery and good gunners, “what–ever his enemy may attempt, will be able to hold off the enemy . . . until he is relieved or the enemy is given a good thrashing and departs the siege.” 88
So, as I've quoted above, there's loads of stuff on cannons about at this time. Some of it contradicts other bits, but you tend to get that with history. To give a very general summary:
Cannons in this time were still a relatively new weapon. Bombards, a sort of horizontal mortar, gave way to more specialised cannons, which became serpentine and other even more specialised guns. Bombards were just on the floor, Serpentines had proper wheels and stuff.
Lots of ammo was stone. I think people were just experimenting with casting iron into balls.
Most of an army's guns would have been of different gauges and calibers, meaning your logistics train is a mess. The standardisation of cannons size helps a lot with this.
Cannons generally were fairly slow, and ineffective against infantry, they simply weren't accurate or fast enough that they would be able to effectively damage the enemy before they were ridden down by cavalry or the enemy army got too close or something. Artillery duels were largely unknown I think, but there weren't that many cannons about
That being said, we know they were used at famous battles like Agincourt (though we don't know how effective they were). There is also more creative use of gunpowder weapons, like the Knights of Rhodes using a sort of mortar, really a pit filled with rocks, oil and powder, against an invading Turkish army, to great affect.
As such I didn't think Cesare's unstandardized guns, with crews mainly experienced in shooting down walls, would be able to target the Spanish gun crews properly as to be able to silence them.
I understand morale is a thing, and being under fire, whilst also being charged by the Purple Company might be enough to break them.
I also wouldn't mind if Cesare said something like 'its a good thing we standardised those guns' in the next chapter. He's going to know that the Romans made extensive use of artillery, for instance their scorpions being highly feared for their accuracy. Cesare might have a battery of heavier guns for walls, and another of lighter ones for enemy formations.
@jeandebueil is writing about this issue now in his TL, you could ask him, or find the bit in his TL where Jean Bureau is doing some cannon stuff to take Calais
Thought it would be something like that
Same as above, in this case though the Spanish should have had more men, considering they were besieging.
Side point, this has pretty clear memories of Caesar at Alesia. Could be used for propaganda purposes
Its not that really, see below
spoilered for length
From the 1494 French campaign in Naples
Delaborde, L’exp6dition de Charles VIII, 400-8; Pieri, Il Rinascimento e la crisi militare italiana, 327-8, and Labande-Mailfert, Charles VIII, 279 (and see there note 395 for a view opposed to Pieri regarding the importance of cannon fire)
It is equally understandable why the FrancoMilanese refused the challenge to battle, remaining behind entrenchments protected by cannons
From the siege of Constantinople
Having done all this, the Sultan summoned the cannon-makers and spoke to them about the cannon and the walls, and about how the wall could most easily be demolished. They assured him it would be easy to demolish it if, in addition to the guns they already had (for they already had some others, made earlier), they should construct one more, which, they believed, would be strong enough to batter down and destroy the wall. For this, heavy expense was needed, to purchase both a large amount of brass and many other materials.
After this, having pointed the cannon toward whatever it was intended to hit, and having leveled it by certain technical means and calculations toward the target, they brought up great beams of wood and laid them underneath and fitted them carefully. On these they placed immense stones, weighting it down and making it secure above and below and behind and everywhere, lest by the force of the velocity and by the shock of the movement of its own emplacement, it should be displaced and shoot wide of its mark.
Having set up some cannon, he battered down and destroyed the greater part of it. Of the men within many died from the stone cannon-balls,
And from the other side:
On the eleventh of April the Sultan had his cannon placed near the walls, by the weakest part of the city, the sooner to gain his objective. These cannon were planted in four places: first of all, three cannon were placed near the palace of the Most Serene Emperor, and three other cannon were placed near the Pigi gate, and two at the Cressu gate, and another four at the gate of San Romano, the weakest part of the whole city. One of these four cannon which were at the gate of San Romano threw a ball weighing about twelve hundred pounds, more or less, and thirteen quarte in circumference, which will show the terrible damage it inflicted where it landed. The second cannon threw a ball weighing eight hundred pounds, and nine quarte in circumference. These two cannon were the largest that the Turkish Khan had, the other cannon being of various sizes, from five hundred pounds to two hundred pounds, and smaller still.
They could not have seen [the ship] sink, because there was so much smoke from the cannon and from the guns that it was impossible to see anything, and the air was full of cries from one side or the other, so that they could not believe what had happened
On the third of May a plan was made to plant two fairly large cannon by one of the water gates near the cannon of the fleet in the basin, the same ones that sank the fusta, and so our cannon bombarded the Turkish fuste and gave them some discomfort by their fire. When the Turks saw that our cannon were sinking their fuste, and also that many of their men were being killed by our shots, they decided to prevent our cannon from being able to harm them; they placed three large cannon near their fleet of fuste, which were near ours, and kept up a continuous bombardment day and night, and caused much damage here because the cannon were so close to each other. This cannon fire on both sides lasted about ten days both day and night continuously, but neither side could be put out of action, because our cannon were within the walls, and theirs were well protected with breastworks, and the distance the cannon had to carry was half a mile.
And with the English:
The cannon of the early fourteenth century were both small and inexpensive. A gun, probably weighing forty pounds, was purchased for just 13s 4d in 1353, when a springald cost 66s 8d.77 At this point, gunpowder artillery had no more power than traditional siege engines (and, indeed, far less than some), but this cost advantage, combined with the psychological impact of a new and frighteningly loud weapon, ensured that its use would grow rapidly. Edward III had at his disposal for the siege of Calais in 1346 at least 10 cannon (including two “grossa”) and materials for over 5,000 lb. worth of gunpowder.78 The French had 24 iron cannon made in 1345 at Cahors for the siege of Aiguillon, and at least 32 cannon were provided for the siege of Saint–Saveur-le-Vicomte in 1374-75.79 Froissart claimed that the English had 400 guns at the siege of St. Malo in 1378, though most were probably handguns.80 Over the six years from 1382-88, the English Privy Wardrobe purchased 87 cannon.81 By 1409, Christine de Pisan could argue that no less than 248 guns were needed to take a strong place, including 32 firing shot of 200 lb. or more.82
Even as the number of cannon employed increased, so too did their size. The early guns were very small, and shot pellets of lead or iron, or sometimes iron “lances” feathered with bronze. A much larger cannon prepared for the siege of Saint-Saveur-le-Vicomte in 1375 fired stone shot of a hundredweight, and Froissart records the use of a gun firing 200-pound stones two years later. The Count of Holland purchased 400-pound stones for his “grooten donrebusse” in 1378.83 Two bombards purchased by the Duke of Burgundy in 1409 hurled stones of 700-750 and 800-950 pounds.84 Faule Mette, cast circa 1411, fired stones of over half a ton. The massive Pumhart von Steyr, forged e. 1420, fired an 80-cm stone weighing over fifteen hundred pounds.85
How did this increase in the size and quantity of gunpowder artillery affect actual campaigns? At first, not much. The English managed to destroy the strongpoint of Romorantin in 1356 by using cannon to send “Greek fire” into the courtyard, but gunpowder artillery could prove equally useful to the defense. At Breteuil in the same year, for instance, the besieged English used cannon to destroy a French assault tower.86 Furthermore, the guns were simply not powerful enough to do much damage to castle walls. Even at the end of the fourteenth century, siege guns could do little more than knock in the roofs of towers.87 The balance between offense and defense remained firmly tilted towards the latter; as late as c. 1420, a German author held that the defender of a well-equipped castle, provided with artillery and good gunners, “what–ever his enemy may attempt, will be able to hold off the enemy . . . until he is relieved or the enemy is given a good thrashing and departs the siege.” 88
So, as I've quoted above, there's loads of stuff on cannons about at this time. Some of it contradicts other bits, but you tend to get that with history. To give a very general summary:
Cannons in this time were still a relatively new weapon. Bombards, a sort of horizontal mortar, gave way to more specialised cannons, which became serpentine and other even more specialised guns. Bombards were just on the floor, Serpentines had proper wheels and stuff.
Lots of ammo was stone. I think people were just experimenting with casting iron into balls.
Most of an army's guns would have been of different gauges and calibers, meaning your logistics train is a mess. The standardisation of cannons size helps a lot with this.
Cannons generally were fairly slow, and ineffective against infantry, they simply weren't accurate or fast enough that they would be able to effectively damage the enemy before they were ridden down by cavalry or the enemy army got too close or something. Artillery duels were largely unknown I think, but there weren't that many cannons about
That being said, we know they were used at famous battles like Agincourt (though we don't know how effective they were). There is also more creative use of gunpowder weapons, like the Knights of Rhodes using a sort of mortar, really a pit filled with rocks, oil and powder, against an invading Turkish army, to great affect.
As such I didn't think Cesare's unstandardized guns, with crews mainly experienced in shooting down walls, would be able to target the Spanish gun crews properly as to be able to silence them.
I understand morale is a thing, and being under fire, whilst also being charged by the Purple Company might be enough to break them.
I also wouldn't mind if Cesare said something like 'its a good thing we standardised those guns' in the next chapter. He's going to know that the Romans made extensive use of artillery, for instance their scorpions being highly feared for their accuracy. Cesare might have a battery of heavier guns for walls, and another of lighter ones for enemy formations.
@jeandebueil is writing about this issue now in his TL, you could ask him, or find the bit in his TL where Jean Bureau is doing some cannon stuff to take Calais
Well, even if it didn't completely silence them, it could neuter their artillery enough for the sort of things we saw as they broke out of the city right? Also with the quantity of cannons being that much, after all they used both the original garrison cannons plus Cesare's own cannons gave them overwhelming firepower.
Any recommendations on actual sizes for their use on infantry on smaller cannons or larger ones on siege cannons?
) - but to get that to happen properly (i.e. actually owning Rome), the Pope would have to declare against Cesare. I could see Julius II doing it, but not anyone else, as it'd be suicide. That could legitimately lead to a Pope in Rome under Borgia rule, which is... different. (In fact, that would be a hilarious factor in the current chaos, I kinda want to see it). That would be legit Caesaropapism if the Pope recognises Cesare of Vice Gerent of Christ - Or more accurately "God's Vicegerent on Earth" - which was a Byzantine Imperial Title. *byzantine weeaboo nature intensifying*
