Bombards ... they call them
 

These two are taged as bombards, said to be mounted in articulated devices, but i guess they are more fit to be upright signal mortars, specially because those well defined bases.
One is in bronze, the other in iron. They have similar reduced dimensions, less than 10X10 centimeters.
The one in bronze, dated XV century, has that traditional lip on the fire hole, so often seen in vertical signal mortars.
The one in iron is dated XVI century. It has a much narrower bore.
Bore measure not mentioned in either example, though.
What do you Gentlemen make of the bombard definition, as well as the date atribution ?
Coments will be apreciated.
Fernando

Hi Fernando,

Let me please thank you for posting that really important thread.:) :cool:

I must admit that I have almost never encountered any more detailed differentiation than the one you gave us to tell "bombards" from "handguns": the first are usually identified by their traditionally added lips or priming pans, as well as by their notably swamped rear ends which so to speak seem to have predestined them for standing upright when being fired. That may also account for their more familiar names, such as "little noisemakers" and Böller (German alpine regions). On this basis I should suggest a date of 16th-18th century for your copper alloy cast piece.

The second sample illustrated by you may even come from the Aljubarrrota battle field (Portugal, August 14, 1385). I should like to back up that assumed provenance as, like in on the example in my collection, the small touch hole is placed near the rear end and the overall appearance of the little barrel is apt for being fixed to an iron stick stock by iron bands.

Any more comments on these forms are highly welcome by anybody out there! Those items are quite commonly around, most of them never actually having been disposed of.

Michael

I think the following thread on early igniting devices would make a perfect addition to this group of small barrels:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=10029

Michael

Thanks a lot for your kind words and wise considerations, Michael ... may i say Master Trömner ? :) .
To be more precise and trying to 'upgrade' my first introduction, besides the different age and historic/geographic active life given to the two different pieces by such website, their purpose is similarly described, as having both been mounted as cannons (so to say); the way the mounting is described is quite intrincate (in castillian) and, if i well understand, is not far from the attached illustration, that i stole from Pope's work ... rather than trying to technically describe it myself.
Obviously and as you well confirm, this attribution is incorrect, at least on what refers the bronze example, whether called signal mortar (or cannon), thunder mug or böller, as you expertly name it.
Actually and within my limitations i feared that, the later iron example, having its rear end also a bit swamped, wide enough for an upright posture, and also considering its 'cubic' volumetry (no barrel assumed length), might also be a böller, but you have far much better eyes than me for apreciating these things, so i follow your diagnosis.
On what concerns the Aljubarrota attribution to the discussed (real) hand canons, like yours and my example, i confess i am presently facing a dilemma which, for as much as i investigate, can't manage to solve.
It is known that, what period chroniclers (witnesses or not) and contemporaneous specialists discuss, is the use of 'stationary' artillery (bombards and trons), never mentioning or aproaching the existance of portable firearms (hand cannons) in this battle. I have recently had such same statement from a Portuguese early artillery scholar, whom i have contacted for such purpose. Eventually he added that, up to nowadays, hand artillery in Portugal is documentally recorded to have appeared at a later period (mid XV century).
The attribution of Aljubarrota 'earth finding' to the example you have once kindly posted in my hand cannon thread, which made part of a Liege exhibition, was apparently given by Rainer Daehnhardt, who was involved in this exhibition and contributed for the catalogue composition. If nothing appears in contrary, next Saturday i will visit him at his Lisbon (Cascais) shop, and will directly put him the question, to hear what evidence he has that denies the inumerous historians narrations and conclusions.
In the meantime, if you dear Michael have some material towards the evidence of hand cannons in the Aljubarrota battle, i would humbly beg you to share it; as i will surely come back here to post what Rainer has to say about this subject.

Danksche.

Fernando

.

Hi Fernando,

The photo from Dudley Pope's Guns depicts a heavy wrought iron gun barrel from the former Robert Forrer collection which is now at the Historic Museum Berne, Switzerland. All the wooden parts are late 19th century reconstructions but in correct historic shape.

I should say that the barrel with is pronouncedly reinforced muzzle and almost no staging present is really a very early piece, late 14th century. The sectional drawing shows the bore of very early form, and the measurements are taken from the Berne 1948 inventory. Forrer noted that the barrel was still loaded with powder and a lead ball, so he called the piece Bleibüchse (lead gun), in differentiation from contemporary stone firing barrels.

I am afraid that I could not find anything else about the weapons used at Aljubarrota but Rainer Daehnhardt might have some additional information.

Muito agradecida,
Miguel

I forgot to add that the central reinforment of the Forrer/Berne barrel bears a fragment of an iron ring which is now missing. The original use of that ring is left to speculation.

Michael

De nada, Miguel.
It's me who is agradecido for the (usual) opening of your fountain of knowledge.
Danksche.
Fernando

De nada, Fernando,

I also forgot to mention that - highly curiously - this Berne barrel actually consists of two wrought iron tubes, the thinner one placed inside of and copper soldered to an outer one about one which is centimeter thick (0.40 in.).

Isn't that cute?

Michael

So cute it is.
This reminds me that my hand cannon is also made in two parts; only in such case the inner part is a thin sleeve.
I will take it with me to Lisbon this weekend, to try and find out whether this was a regular procedure or, in the best probability, define its provenance by that particular detail.
Fernando

It's pity that my humble, inferior Aljubarrota barrel consists of only one single layer ... :( :o :shrug:

Sad regards from a dreary Lower Bavarian night,
Miguel