A tiny cannon for ID and coments
 

I wouldn't know on what tipology tis small cannon falls ... assuming i can call it a cannon.
We can say the previous owner didn't need to clean it so much ... despite most probably being full of rust.
Height 18 cms (7"). Diameter 7 cms (2 3/4"). Bore about 4 cms. (1 1/2").
Weight around 3,5 Kilos (7 pounds) ... the kitchen scale couldn't make it right.
A thin sleeve is lining the barrel, most probably a reinforcement (steel) to resist wear.
The seller says is portuguese, as he bought it in Portugal; i have no reason(or knowledge) not to beleive so. He also says it is from the 16/17th century, as it was the period this type was used, but i wouldn't know.
Coments on these particular assumptions and also in general will be so much welcome.
Fernando

Hi Fernando.

Do you think its a hand-cannon?

I've no experience of sleeved cannon barrels, but many barrels are made from a sheet which is rolled around a core (which is removed of course), I've only had experience of this on much later weapons, but the principal would be the same and oxidisation could certainly cause the inner layer to look similar to your piece.


BTW, I would think it was earlier if its a hand cannon.

Hi Fernando,
interesting item, this picture of a hand cannon seems to also have that 'inner lining'

David

Hi David,
Fascinating !!!
Where did you find this ?
I beg you to tell a zillion things about it.
... Like dimensions ... age ... link or book ... and so on ?
Fernando

As long as there has been gunpowder people have used it for both celebration and war ; d'you suppose this could be a signal cannon of some sort ?
Imagine a reusable firecracker . ;)

I would think so, Rick. I slightly remember reading somewhere that they used small cannons in fleet ships, to signal one another, like for transmiting or comanding tatic maneuvres ( as also for saluting ?), but i am not certain of the correct story and also if this is such specific thing. It appears they (mine)function/s on the upright position.
Let's see what David comes up with. The specimen he showed seems to be a similar implement ... providing, for a start, its dimensions are also reduced.
It certainly is also very old; we're talking centuries here, right ?
Fernando

Yes, centuries . :)

Hi again fernando,


Your cannon would have been in a long wooden handle.

Look at the swiss example about half way down this page:
hand cannon

I thought of a signalling cannon, but its too basic IMHO.

I don't think so Gene. Those are more primitive :shrug:
Fernando

What do you mean, too basic ? Sure these things were basic, right ?
But let's see what knowledged members tell us about it ... plus what David will reveal about that picture he posted ;)
Fernando

I'd have said yours was of this lineage?

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-...SHC_Berlin.jpg

I'm pretty sure its a signal cannon, as discussed. The time period mentioned seems right. Even some of the miniature cannons on carriages with wheels were signal devices for ships, as already pointed out. Nice piece, though!

Yeah I think you guys may be right, I think I'm too eagre to 'weaponise' it perhaps :-(
It does look very similar in size and shape to this one (albeit not bronze of coourse)

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-8/1060197/canon.jpg

Thank you Gene,
According to what i have observed in the mean time, there certainly are quite a few variations of these things, which makes a specific specimen be only identified against a rather similar item, or by someone who has seen ( or handled) so many of them, that he would feel safe to put a label on it.
In a way, the volume of this example seems not so distant from the ones of primitive hand cannons, like the Switz arquebus shown in your link. But then we would be talking 14th century, which decidedly is not the case here.
On the other hand, this to be a signal cannon, spreads within a family that gave the so called thunder mugs, which in implies in powder testers, saluting and also signal cannons. I have meanwhile seen pictures of "later" thunder mugs ( 1800's) and they were all more sophisticated, like some examples having a lip below the firehole for placing the charge ( no fuse in this case), other times a carrying handle and, most often a wider rimmed base, to keep the thing well upright.
So if in fact this is a signal (saluting) cannon, which untill contrary evidence i beleive it is, its rudimentary shape fits into the age atributed by the seller, XVI/XVII century.
By the way, where did you get the picture of this last example you showed ?
Fernando

Hi Fernando,

Thats what confused me, the lack of wide base, swivels or mounting system and the priming hole seeming to indicate a horizontal firing position.
The picture is from a shipwreck.....

http://www.robcar.net/en/news/nd2.php

Regards
Gene

Hi Gene,
Thanks a lot for the link.
For a start, i would say that cannon looks most similar to mine in shape and size. Mine being in iron, only contributes for it being from the discussed period.
It also seems to have the same kind of priming hole; all such similarity pleases me a lot, for it makes me more firm on the signal cannon assumption.
Concerning the firing position, i don't know, but you can load and plug the fuse holding it partly inclined and after bring it upright, when the hole is already sealed by the burning fuse :shrug:
Fernando

Hi Fernando,
My knowledge of older firearms is limited but I am of the opinion that this must be a signaling mortar of some sort. A cannon that would be used to fire a projectile in any way effectively would have a much smaller diameter touchhole, even taking into account wear and tear and corrosion over the years, and probably a longer barrel to bore ratio. The size of the touchhole on this example would be more suited to, as you say, a fuse e.g. hemp impregnated with saltpetre or a thin tube filled with black powder. Hope this is of some assistance.
Regards,
Norman.

Wise words, Norman :)
You must be quite right. I have just come to observe that the recipee for signal cannons (mortars) is powder, plug (no ball) and fuse cord.

Thenk ye ... or Moran taing ... or Tapadh leat ... or Gun robh math agad :o
... What a wide offer from the translating website :cool:
Fernando

Hi Fernando,
You're most welcome, I'm a Lowland Scot and although I have old Irish and Western Isles ancestry ( Ulster, Isle of Mull and the Isle of Barra ) I don't, as they say, 'have the Gaelic'. I really appreciate your time and effort in digging up the Gaelic phrases but I too had to revert to an online dictionary for a translation from Gaelic to English!!!! In Scotland, as I suspect in many countries, the people in the North, South, East and West are separated by a common language, English in many varieties, except for the Gaels of course who are united by a common language. Anyhow it is nice when ones post is acknowledged in whatever language. My regards, Norman. :o :)

Hi Fernando,
I think Atlantia may be right about your piece. It may be an 'optical illusion' but there appears to be evidence (on the surface of the iron) that bands once held the cannon to a handle (see pictures below). I know the general agreement is that this is a signalling 'device' (and it probably is) but if a 'maritime' item ..this would 'double-up' nicely as a grape shot/ 'shrapnal' hand cannon ...useful for clearing the 'decks'. Most Navys of the time, would not want to laden their sailing ships unnecessarily (little space and the excess weight would impede speed and manoeuvrability) so items tended to have a 'dual purpose' ....or in your cannon's case a 'duel purpose' ;)

Kind Regards David

David does have a good point about dual usage as both a signal mortar and mounted hand cannon. Ships did, as mentioned, have space issues when it came to armament. Small mounted swivel guns (miniature deck cannons) were popular for this purpose and likewise, some literature supports the fact that even larger mortars (the portable Coehorn, which fired an exploding shell filled with little grapeshot) made it on board ships. The reason I had initially questioned it as a hand-cannon was due to its short length. However, for shipboard use and "clearing the deck", it wouldn't need to be very long (same reason blunderbus were so popular; close-range spread of projectiles). One last comment, though. Is there any possibility that the band-pattern we are seeing might have been bands encircling the cannon to strengthen it? As items on a ship became worn, repairs were done to naturally extend their working life, if possible.

Thank you David and Mark
I take good note of your considerations, and will digest them whilst learning more about these interesting pieces. This particular one has suddenly appeared in a street market and caught me with an entire ignorance in this field. However it fascinated me at the first glance and i felt i couldn't leave without buying it ... after a little bargaining ;) . I can't say how many portions of fish and ships it cost me, as i am not updated with such dish price; the last time i bought it "in situ" was back in 1968 :eek: .
I will for the meantime register it in my collection inventory files as a signal cannon (canhão de sinais), but i will keep in my mind the door open for the hipothesis of it being a hand cannon (canhão de mão), or even a dual (or duel :cool: ) purpose implement.
While i was "composing" this post, i made a couple browsings on signal cannons and found that, until the XVI century navy signs were made by hoisting the sails in determined positions, or firing cannons. The system used by Vasco da Gama happens to be known: one shot was the order to carry on, two shots for turning, three shots for hoisting the "moneta" ( extra speed sail) and four shots for slowing down.
They just don't say whether Vasco da Gama used small pluged cannons, like my example, or the real combat pieces :shrug:
Further material will be most wellcome.
Fernando

Gentlemen,
I am about to "swallow some frogs" and take my hat to those who have sugested that this would be part of a hand cannon.
Just look at the following input, posted by a kind member from the Traditional Muzzleloading Forum:

By the size of it, it appears to be a barrel from a handcannon, I have 2 replica's of one's that were copied from a German example from the 1450's. This was mounted on a short pole 1' to 4' depending on the length of the barrel, mine has a 10" barrel on an 16" pole. The pole has a shallow groove cut in one side about 2" shorter than the barrel, it was then bound to the pole with 3 iron bands, The touchhole on top, you would then fire it with a length of slowmatch. The pole was generaly tucked under the arm to hold it. The metal appears to be cast iron, the thin metal liner was made to create a smoother bore and the iron was cast around it.I would suspect that it was made very early 16th century. I hope this is helpfull. .

It all sugests that i can now follow the right track, don't you Gentlemen think so ?
Fernando

LOL, I've never heard that expression before!! As a vegan I wouldn't encourage anyone to 'swallow a frog' ;-)

If it's a handcannon, it would have been a stubby fearsome little beast. I'd love to see one of the replicas the chap mentions being fired!!!

A proper little 'boom stick'!!

Nice find Fernando, great addition to your collection, very very unusual.

Regards
Gene

I agree-very nice find and especially for the age! It's nice to finally get confirmation on these from someone more knowledgible on them. These are always being listed as ships signal cannons. Pretty cool!

signal cannon
 

I'd say this is probably a signal cannon. These small ones were often used to make noise to alert other ships in the dark or fog etc.

bbjw

Now you caught me, BBJW :confused:
I feel a bit dizzy with this sudden turning back to square one :eek: .
You mean you don't find consistence in the aproach made by the guy from Traditional Muzzleloading Forum ? (my post #24). Also the example shown by Gene in post #12, plus the fact that this particularly cilindrical barrel doesn't have a wider base to sustain it upright, as usually seen in signal cannons (thunder mugs and so), made me (and others) think this was a hand cannon (or mortar).
But of course this issue is still open for further coments and new evidence.
Could you BBJW, extend a bit your point of view ? Are you familiar with some of these things?
Thanks a lot.
Fernando

Some more examples of hand cannons.

i feel it's a hand cannon myself, the rough bore would not be unusual after all these years of relative neglect and corrosion, probably was a bit more regular when 1st made & used.

they'd use pretty crude powder, grass wadding and convenient sized rocks for ammo, iron and lead shot is a much later application for sophisticated matchlock and later wheel locks when bores could be controlled better during mfg to reduce windage...

additionally, it was expected that the odd hand cannon or two would blow up (variance in powder quality, payload, corrosion due to poor cleaning, poor craftsmanship techniques, double loading*, etc. one reason fro a LONG stick. the bands not only held it to the stick, but kept some of the chunks of a burst barrel from zapping the shooter or those alongside.

the short barrel while not allowing maximum velocity, would give less chance of a shot sticking or jamming and blowing up the device, while still producing a satisfactory BOOM, smoke and such to frighten the horses, and if really lucky actually have the projectile hit and damage an armoured man.

of course my muzzle loading experience started with cap and ball rifled muskets & pistols, a much more modern approach.


*- one rather embarrassed yankee pvt. in the civil war was noted to have loaded his musket about a dozen times without actually firing it, each load rammed down on the previous one. luckily he DIDN'T remember to cap it before he pulled the trigger or it might have been less humorous... of course the confederates would never do such a thing :) , wastes ammo.