Ethnographic Arms & Armour - An iron hand grenade ca 1700

Ethnographic Arms & Armour (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/index.php)

- European Armoury (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=12)

- - An iron hand grenade ca 1700 (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=30893)

An iron hand grenade ca 1700

One of my latest purchases from a while back, said to have come from the Latvian border and retrieved from a swampy area. The Great Northern War ravaged this area in the early 18th century.

This grenade is a whopper, measuring approximately 4" in diameter. At first, I thought 'she' was a mortar shell, but then I began to do some research. I have a much smaller grenade, just about 2" in diameter and I wondered how could there be such a difference in sizes in these. It turns out that there were. Typically, the 'army' models of grenade were indeed small, measuring between 2 to 3" in diameter. Naval examples, on the other hand, were much larger. In Gilkerson's "Borders Away II", on page 38 and 161, we see an example brought up from the wreck of the HMS Invincible (which it obviously wasn't!:D) dating to 1757. These grenades were found intact with the original fuse and cap and measured 5 1/2" in diameter! I have likewise seen similar naval examples in the 3" to 6" diameter range.

It turns out that there is a valid reason why the grenades were different sizes. If you were a foot soldier, you were already weighed down with your fusil and powder horn, pack and other supplies. A smaller bombard/grenade was much better for weight issues, could be cast at an enemy much further and you could carry more of them in a small sack.

Naval ordenance grenades, on the other hand, would be used in a much smaller space, the distance between two ships grapppled together, for instance. They would have been placed in a 'budge' barrel long before the actual engagement and carried by several sailors up into the tops for the coming battle. They would likewise be thrown DOWN onto the deck of an enemy ship and not far across some field. Indeed, the effectiveness of these bombs could turn the very tide of a naval battle, as it did for John Paul Jones during his historic naval battle off of Flamborough Head in 1779. They were deadly missiles, filled nearly to the top with powder and lead shot. Long after their land cousins fell out of favor, these large hand grenades remained a favorite aboard ships.

More pics and info-

So, how does one differenciate between a 'grenade' and a mortar shell? Bother were made of iron, were spherical and had a plug of wood in the hole to keep the powder from running out. The differences betwen them starts with the sizes. Although there were some smller mortar rounds of 4" diameter, most were much larger specimens, many so heavy that they had cast 'hangles' near the powder hole for lifting with a pulley or lever. Mortar shells had to be nearly perfectly round, whereas grenades didn't need to be, as they were typically not fired out of a smooth bore coehorn or cannon. A lop-sided mortar shell could easily get stuck in the barrel and explode, thus they were very smooth. Finally, many examples of grenades would have either a concave indentation (called a dimple) or a slightly rounded bump that allowed the grenade to be set down and not roll away! On the deck of of ship, this was most important! The examples brought up from many shipwrecks have this interesting feature. Mine has a small bump to the base that keeps it sitting upright. As you can see from the pics that my example is very irregular and about the size of a softball or grapefruit. I carved a wood plug for mine based on the existing examples I've seen.

It is also the size, weight and has smallish hole diameter of many shot-put. These had molten lead poured in to bring them to the correct weight and the hole was then plugged with wood or lead - modern shotput having a screw-plug. Shotput today, unfortunately, generally outnumber surviving shells/grenades making positive identification, without reasonable provenance, such as the subject object has, quite challenging.

Below is a stack I have on display alongside my gunnade. These were acquired from a scrap merchant who had bought them from a local school that closed. These have a similar 'battered' look about them from decades of use. The holes on these particular examples are smaller than the holes I have seen on a number of other shotput.

Hello Adrian and thanks for the information. Usually, I get all depressed and automatically assume I've made a mistake (as I have many times before), but on this one, I'm going to stick to my guns. The outer surface on this one is old, ragged and the patina is spot-on. the hole is actually rather large, about the size of an American penny. There is no signs of molten lead inside when I shine a light down the hole, it still has a lingering odor of gunpowder and it is mis-shapen and not round at all. The seller had much larger examples of mortar shot, many stamped with military arms, artillary markings, or had the molded 'handles' for lifting into the mortar. I knwo, though, that there are many look-alikes for all ordenance (shot-puts, mill balls, counter-weights, fence knobs, etc). Very nice carronade, BTW!!!

A few references-