“By the way his features were distorted, My lady understood that a shot was about to be heard."
"The Three Musketeers" by A. Dumas
Military history of countries and peoples. We continue our acquaintance with the Tudor era and the Wallace Collection at the same time. Last time we stopped at the fact that the main weapon of the rider of the middle of the XVI century was the wheel pistol and armor. His armor was "three-quarter", that is, the top - up to the knees - is, as before, armor, but below the knees - already boots. And such equipment has been characteristic of riders for a century. That's even how! Although the armor has certainly changed, which is reflected in the collection of armor in the Wallace collection.
Well, the military history of England for the aforementioned 100 years, accordingly, also changed. But the very nature of the change was surprisingly slow.
For example, every now and then there were clashes with the Scots, in which English archers continued to participate. Moreover, they inflicted defeat mainly on lightly armed Scots, but soldiers in armor suffered from their arrows much less. The steadfastness and courage of the English columns caused great difficulties for the Scots, for they always showed a tendency to lose their fighting enthusiasm, as soon as the first onslaught was unsuccessful. The Scottish spearmen could still hold back the cavalry attacks, but as soon as the English halberdists entered the business, chopping off the tips of their long and uncomfortable spears with ax blades, the spearmen threw them and turned to flight.
The Battle of Pinky Kluch in 1547 is called the first battle in Britain in which both sides used large numbers of spearmen and soldiers with handguns. The British also supported their army with the forces of a naval squadron, which shelled the left flank of the Scottish positions from the Firth of Forth. Archers, as well as musketeers with arquebusiers and artillery, jointly stopped and reversed the attacking formations of the Scottish spearmen after they were able to repel the attack of the English cavalry.
The defeat was quite impressive: the losses of the Scots, for example, reached 6,000 people, while the British lost only 800. The victory allowed the British to place their garrisons in many places, but the costs of their maintenance were too high, and the presence of soldiers caused hostility from the local population. As a result, in 1549 they were taken out of Scotland.
At Pinky, the first blow to the Scots was dealt by the English heavy and light cavalry, attacking the Scottish pikemen. The commander of the cavalry, Lord Arthur Gray of Wilton, was wounded with a lance in the mouth and throat, which suggests that the helmet on it did not have a chin and a gorget. That is, even such a noble knight did not wear full equipment in this battle. And then what to say about all the other horsemen?
During the reign of Henry VIII in England itself, here and there rebellions broke out due to the dissolution of monasteries. In 1549, the Earl of Warwick ordered the massacre of John Keth's rebels in Dassindale. Whereas the first decade of Elizabeth's reign was marked by an uprising in the north in 1569.
At the same time, hostilities during the reign of Elizabeth were to a certain extent complicated by the queen's inclination to resort to the use of troops with great reluctance, and even after the order to move. The reason was the empress's fear of losing at least one battle, which, in her opinion, could entail bad consequences for the crown and worsen the situation in the country. This tendency tied the hands of the commanders, not allowing to properly take advantage of the advantageous situation when a good chance turned up. At the same time, Elizabeth cannot be entirely blamed for the mediocre results of the hostilities: indecision and inconsistency were characteristic of the entire command hierarchy of the British officers, although some British generals showed true talents in warfare.
One such episode relates to the invasion of Scotland in 1560, which was postponed for three months, although everyone understood that the Scots would gain strength during this time. During the siege of Diet, French troops (and they fought on the side of the Scots, since France patronized them) left the fortress and rushed at the British during the armistice negotiations, but were driven back first by artillery and then by heavy cavalry.
At the same time, Lord Gray, who commanded the British troops, made no attempt to lure the entire enemy army out of the walls, in order to then impose a battle on him and cut off the path to retreat. Only part of the French infantry was caught in the field and surrounded due to excessive fervor, which lured them too far in pursuit of the enemy. But the attack on the defensive positions of the Scots and the French was organized even worse: for example, the artillery was unable to punch wide enough gaps for the assault columns, and many enemy batteries remained unsuppressed.
In addition, the British made a mistake (!) In assessing the height of the fortifications, so that the stairs for the assault on the undamaged sections of the walls turned out to be too short. As a result, the two British commanders quarreled among themselves, although both were to blame for what happened.
The Scottish revolts took place in 1569 and in 1570. And every time it was necessary to equip the troops, buy gunpowder, smoked meat and beer, in a word, on the one hand, the war with the Scots enriched someone, and on the other hand, to fight in the north, in the wilderness, and even with such an enemy … it was not interesting. It was more interesting to help "friends" outside England. But we'll talk about this next time …
