Wrought (!) and cast iron cannon balls, 16th century

[fernando]

Hi Jim,
Glad you are aware and came in .

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... I am really looking forward to hear from Michael, and I am really curious on how the ordnance made by Pogl is identified...in there a marking so indicating?

Michl has already posted his conclusions on this issue; take a look to the last paragraph of post #3 .

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks so much Fernando. I hadnt reread (obviously but appreciate the direction. It is hard to realize the difficulty in producing these, but when reviewing the dynamics and 'technology' at hand it becomes understandable.
So basically, though unmarked, only these two makers were producing at this time so other subtle characteristics must lead to differentiation.

Best,
Jim

[Matchlock]

Hi 'Nando,


Congrats, and I'm so glad it finally arrived!

Personally I don't believe we'll ever find out what exactly that bowl shaped iron item originally was. As I told you before I don't think it has anything to do with the process of casting iron as the object itself seems to be cast, telling from the porous surface and the relative thickness of the iron. I would expect such an item to be of thin wrought iron. Even if it were so, and the long handle were missing, it would not belong to a wrought iron cannon ball.

As I stated when authoring this thread I own the only other sample known so far. We only know of their existence and their makers, the Pögl workshop in Thörl near Innsbruck/The Tyrol, where the Maximilian main armory was 500 years ago, by written sources when the - then king - Maximilian I ordered thousands of these wrought balls because he believed in their greater effect as compared to cast balls.

Though I am not much of an ordnance expert, I think calling it a three pounder ball would fit. In this case I would attribute it to one of the smaller types of Maximilian artillery, e.g. a wroughht iron falconet.


Best,
Michl

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Thanks so much Fernando. I hadnt reread (obviously but appreciate the direction. It is hard to realize the difficulty in producing these, but when reviewing the dynamics and 'technology' at hand it becomes understandable.
So basically, though unmarked, only these two makers were producing at this time so other subtle characteristics must lead to differentiation.

Best,
Jim

Hi Jim,

I should like to point out the obviously visible main difference between cast and wrought iron in that cast iron items usually have a relatively regular and porous surface and, when 500 years old, tend to losses, while wrought iron has a quite irregular but smooth surface, and the traces of the hammering process can be identified. As the iron is much harder and very compact, it will grow less rust and is more stable.

I repost my sample by Peter Pögl, 1490's, for easier comparison.

Just imagine the tremendous amount of muscular toil when three or four smiths had to hammer a white or red hot iron lump to a more or less round shape ...

Best,
Michael

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Michael,
Thank you so much for your patient and explicitly explained response, and for posting again this example. Now I understand perfectly! As always, you're a great professor!!!

All the best,
Jim

[Matchlock]

Hi Jim,

I much prefer being called an avid student!

Thank you so much,
and with all my very best wishes,
Michael

[Lars Klaksson]

There is an important message from 1618 Bohemia which speaks about marking on cannon balls.

.. Trćka – bohemian nobleman and owner of several iron foundries (“Hammern”) on Sazava river, which was on the line between Habsburg army and Bohemian rebel army in 1618, is accused by nobles that he is making and selling cannon balls to the enemy Habsburg army.. and even that he marks them with his mark ... (cited from Skála ze Zhoře: Historie česká, 1626, version published 1984 by Jos. Janacek)

Unfortunately there are no known balls survived with such a marks..

[fernando]

Interesting information, Lars.
and ... welcome to the forum .