The Mexican gunpowder dilemma

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

How many of the following reasons were valid; education on its use inherited from ancients, simplicity (no need to resource other components to make it functional); the cost of firearms acquisition and continuous ammunition maintenance) ... and reliability !


As also occurred (and still occur) in other continents; in a certain extent, colonized locals were not allowed to possess firearms above a determined grade.

It appears I have reversed the use of the lance in suggesting the Spaniards learned from the Indians, actually it was the other way around. The Comanches actually acquired horse as well as the use of that weapon from the Spanish.
While the lance was certainly brought to the New World by the Spanish in the early incursions in 16th c. its long standing use was a preference which was maintained in later years over other weapons due to the reasons mentioned.

"..owing to the scarcity of firearms and perennial shortage of lead and gunpowder, the lance remained an important weapon in the Spanish colonies long after it had fallen into disuse elsewhere".
"Spanish Colonial Ironwork"
Frank Turley & Marc Simmons
2007, p.177

In the late 1590s, soldiers in New Mexico were seen with lances with triple bladed lance head (runka), and later inspections of troops in New Mexico (1684) noted lances. So the lance had remained a weapon of choice since the 'conquest' as noted (reminded Fernando and simply remained so despite the advance of firearms in most other contexts.

It would seem this favor reigned mostly in the frontier regions where these shortages prevailed, while firearms supply was abundant to the south in Mexico City and ports.
"...the lance was the favorite weapon of the presidial soldiers in the northern frontiers of New Spain".
"Spanish Military Weapons in Colonial America 1700-1821"
Pierce Chamberlain & Sidney Brinckerhoff, 1972, p.108

The adoption of the lance had nothing to do with the weapons of ancients who had used a projectile weapon called atlatl and kinds of obsidian bladed swords of a kind with pieces of this razor sharp rock imbedded in a shaft.

Returning once again to gunpowder availability and production.

With the science of chemistry only in rudimentary state, the properties of the components of the potassium nitrate were not accurately understood even by early 1800s, and known primarily by the long known element of nitre.
This was typically obtained in natural state from bat guano, which found in caves retained its favored properties for its use as oxidant in gun powder.
It would seem that naturally found nitre (saltpeter) found in other means such as bird droppings or uric composed material were subject to certain deficiencies in cases due to absence or excesses of other natural processes.

Thus it would seem that the physical properties of the saltpeter obtained from natural resources might mitigate the effective outcome of the powder produced. Apparently Europe, specifically France and England, had far more advanced the creation of higher quality powder, and France had Antoine Lavoisier the famed chemist as head of gunpowder organization officially .

While Mexico by the 1830s seems to have been trying to adequately supply its forces, it would seem that inadequate supply of powder as well as the poor result of local production may have come from deficiencies in supply of adequate components. This seems to have been the case in America during the Revolution as well, as recounted in "Arming America", M. Bellesiles, 2000.
It is noted that even with the colonists and the fledgling military, the poor marksmanship and lack of proper training with firearms were due to the same shortages of ammunition and powder restricting practice as Mexico faced.

I would note here that the Bellesiles work is highly controversial due primarily to apparent flaws in mostly statistical and legal records research, but the historical data and overview is in my opinion sound.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

In the late 1590s, soldiers in New Mexico were seen with lances with triple bladed lance head (runka), and later inspections of troops in New Mexico (1684) noted lances. So the lance had remained a weapon of choice since the 'conquest' as noted (reminded Fernando and simply remained so despite the advance of firearms in most other contexts.


.

We tend to associate late-medieval and Renaissance Spain with the art of the sword, first the broadsword and then the rapier. An interesting 15th cent. series of books by a Spanish professional soldier with literary talents, Pietro Monte, sheds much light on individual combat, horsemanship, military organization, and the martial qualities of men and nations as they were understood in Spain and Italy when Europe was taking its first steps into modernity.

One of his works in particular, Petri Montii exercitorum atque artis militaris collectanea in III libros distincta (Milan, 1509) explains the importance of shaft weapons in the fighting techniques of the era. What we tend to lump into a large category of "lances" are actually a variety of long weapons of specific design and purpose.

The lanza, strictly speaking, was a long spear used on horseback (similar weapons are still used for equestrian boar hunting in Spain). Infantrymen were equipped with an even longer spear, known as a lanzón or pica which is familiar to us as the pike. This weapon, fearsome in the hands of well-drilled Spanish mercenary pikemen, became an essential adjunct to musketeers who were vulnerable while reloading their weapons (prior to the invention of the bayonet). Pikes, due to their length and weight, were best deployed in tight formation to create impenetrable hedges against enemy assaults.

Spears of medium length, jinetas, were ideal for individual combat since their size and lighter weight made them far more maneuverable. These were the counterpart to the Roman hasta, designed for use in the hand as opposed to the javelin or pilum which was intended to be a missile.

The runka which you mention was known as the spetum in Southern Europe, and Monte attaches considerable importance to it. Its design and usage can be best stated in a short quote from the Collectanea:

"The spetum usually attacks with the point, although it has a pair of sharp ears, each curving forward like a half-bow, and able to slice with a reverse or a cut. It is a strong weapon, for it can parry any long or short weapon with the ears, both high and low, and to the side. The spetum should sit in the hands such that one ear stands upward and the other downward, so that a small rotation brings it crosswise to trap the opponent's weapon...The spetum can easily fight against any weapon. In opposing it we should wear mail gauntlets...since the ears can slice..."

[yulzari]

Not quite relevant to the use of the lance in mid 19th century Mexico but I was issued a lance for formal guards whilst in the British army in the 1970's and my local gun shop in France has a small line in modern boar spears in shiny stainless steel with synthetic shafts and handles which are used by the more athletic members of some local chasses but on foot.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... "..owing to the scarcity of firearms and perennial shortage of lead and gunpowder, the lance remained an important weapon in the Spanish colonies long after it had fallen into disuse elsewhere".
"Spanish Colonial Ironwork"
Frank Turley & Marc Simmons
2007, p.177.,.

Jim, was i a documented historian and would question the "long after it had fallen into disuse elsewhere" statement .

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...In the late 1590s, soldiers in New Mexico were seen with lances with triple bladed lance head (runka)...

Yes indeed; an Iberian resource ... for one.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...The adoption of the lance had nothing to do with the weapons of ancients who had used a projectile weapon called atlatl and kinds of obsidian bladed swords of a kind with pieces of this razor sharp rock imbedded in a shaft.

I hope it was not my mentioning 'ancient' inheritances that went misunderstood; i was surely meaning by ancient, early Spanish with their gear. Surely no atlatls .

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

.. That was the key, saltpeter. In that time, it was known that gunpowder was a mixture of sulfur, charcoal and potassium nitrate (saltpeter), however the compound of potassium nitrate was not chemically understood. Chemistry itself was only a rudimentary science then with that compound not properly identified...
With the science of chemistry only in rudimentary state, the properties of the components of the potassium nitrate were not accurately understood even by early 1800s... Apparently Europe, specifically France and England, had far more advanced the creation of higher quality powder, and France had Antoine Lavoisier the famed chemist as head of gunpowder organization officially ...

Ah, the academic perspective. What bout empirics ? Lavoisier was not even thinking of being brought to this world and bunches of dudes were engaging into battle stirruped on the gunpowder as a vital resource. If you have a strong willing to win and the laboratories were yet not invented, you test and test different mixtures and different 'cooking' times until you achieve something capable. You don't go to war without knowing how reliable is your powder; neither you surrender to the fact that your ingredients are not satisfactory. For some reason XVI century King João II imported reliable saltpeter from Venice, or in the XVIII the century the Portuguese set up saltpeter mines in colonized Brazil. Indeed the French were good at making gunpowder; nevertheless when they invaded Portugal they chased local University researchers who were highly skilled in the gunpowder field.
And speaking of how to make it, guano and all, there are 'many ways to kill a flee', meaning that there are various processes to make, or 'grow', saltpeter.
However too exhaustive to translate and not vital for the discussion.
But let me cite three passages of "Memorias de la Revolucion Mexicana, including a report of the expedition by General Xavier Mina, when about the siege of the Los Remedios fortress; re-translated to Spanish by William Robinson ... and now tre-translated by my humble self:

"Despite the vigilance made by the enemy, some brave peasants entered the fortress almost daily with gunpowder and other articles; the provision of ammunition was abundant, meat abounded and the best fresh bread was served daily. On the contrary the situation of the Royalist forces presented a strong contrast".

Again:

"the ammunition provision was also considerable, added that we counted with enough nitrate, sulphur, iron and lead"

Later as things seemed to worsen:

"We have previously mentioned the considerable amounts of saltpeter, sulphur and coal existed in the fortress, whith which the necessary gunpowder could be elaborated but, be it the bad administration of those in command or for depending on the supplies from Juajill, as only as one person was employed in the fabrication of this indispensable article. The operation was realized by the patriots in a rather tedious manner, using metates (mealing stones). The ingredients are milled in these stones and are after granulated by passing through them cedazos (sieves). This process is so slow that a man elaborates in a day what an official specialist can do in a hour. When preparing without ability or scientific knowledge the necessary proportions, its grain is bad, frequently not sustained and rarely you can rely on it. Hence bad, as it was, the gunpowder quality, in any case a sufficient quantity could have been made if the opportune precautions had taken place".

So Jim, i would not view the whole Mexican 'bad' powder saga as properly a dilemma per se, but a circumstance like many that occur here and there; only that this one, in the context, is more publicized than (many ?) others.

.

[fernando]

As a matter of fact a few days ago i was compelled to figure out what kind of pole arm those guys in the Benin bronze plaques (last picture my post #64 ) was holding. I have consulted my micro resources and none of the findings satisfied me. Interesting that, for two 'basic' styles shown in books, there are 'at least' four different names (Runka, Ranseur, Corseque, Spetum), with respective descriptions tangled between both, depending on the author. It seems as in one case the wings curve towards the butt and in the other towards the tip. But my dissatisfaction goes for the fact that in both cases the blades are rather long, specially the middle one, whereas the weapon of the soldiers in the plaques have a head composed of short blades, in a trident posture, which in my fantasy is more in consonance with the weapons used at that stage (XV-XVI centuries) by both Spanish and Portuguese. But of course, only in my imagination, as i wouldn't know the name of these things in my lingo, to allow me to search into period chronicles.


.

[Jim McDougall]

Philip, thank you so much for the excellent insights and references on the use of shafted weapons in Spain and Italy in 15th century. As you well note it seems that Italy and Spain were indeed the leaders in the development of weapons and their use in these times, but the sword is first thought of.
Horsemanship and the use of shafted weapons often seem overshadowed by the profound attention to the sword.

The attention to the character and terminology of these varied forms and their use is extremely helpful and important, and helps understand the use of such weapons in the colonies which were better suited for the kinds of situations the forces faced. Brilliantly written and detailed as is your hallmark, and much appreciated here as the thread develops deeply in the broad scope of factors surrounding the topic at hand.

Yulzari thank you for the note on use of the lance in the British army, while of course not directly associated with Mexico is interesting perspective which has its own pertinence here. Also interesting on the boar spears. Here in Texas and the southwest wild boars are hunted, but these days of course with high power rifles.

Fernando, as always very much appreciate your elucidation and qualification of my ramblings. Using that quote from the writers of the book I cited regarding the use of the lance in the colonies of course was perhaps in need of closer scrutiny. Your skills at critique always lend to better understanding of these kinds of statements and prevent broad assumptions, which I clearly failed to elaborate in my inclusion. Well done.

Good information and use of cited resources toward the gunpowder situations in Mexico, which indicate that the circumstances of poor grade powder was more incidental than chronically present. You really have done your homework and really appreciate you sharing these details .
As you remind, the 'empirical' (that was a word I overlooked) application of making and testing components of powder would benefit its quality accordingly. However the production was only as good as the skill of those making it, clearly, so as noted, much of it turned out badly.

[fernando]

Wile i take the opportunity to show a third plaque with a soldier holding a weapon (now) admittedly called a Trident, as per description in a Catalog of the ENCOMPASSING THE GLOBE, Portugal and the World in the 16th & 17th centuries, an exhibition held in the Smithsonian Museum, i concur with the idea that the sword is the 'star', while in fact was the 'humble' lance the weapon that prevailed in statistic terms. Have a look to the famous Pastrana tapestries, picturing the fall of Tangier by the Portuguese (1471), and watch how many lances are there for a sword.

.

[David R]

A western Runka is less a trident and more a side bladed weapon... Unable to load a picture, which is annoying.

[Jim McDougall]

I agree with David, the trident is more a shorter hafted stabbing weapon, mindful of course of its use with gladiators (and recalling its symbolism with mythical figures like Poseidon)…..while these versions (runka) tri bladed polearms are variations of multi bladed weapons on long shafts.

Fernando, I often reread these posts and just realized in the reference to 'ancients' toward the use of older types of weapons, including the lance, I had been thinking the Indians were what was meant. I honestly had not even thought of the Conquistadors as 'ancients', and turned to the early indigenous inhabitants of these regions.....thinking of the atlatl.

Pretty far down the rabbit hole from gunpowder mea culpa.

In again returning to the Mexican gunpowder 'dilemma', which I believe was in fact a proper term given the consistent reports of the terrible nature of the Mexican gunpowder in most of the resources I have consulted, it is most interesting to see less negative reports as you have entered here.

I would point out that the period described here was much earlier than the time of Santa Annas campaigns against the Texians, and for that matter the later development of the Mexican war. Much as the circumstances in the American Revolution I previously mentioned, there were considerable quantities of materials necessary for mixing gunpowder left over from the regular supplies of the previously dominant nations.

With Mexico, after independence, and after these battles such as Los Remedios, over time these 'abundant' supplies began to dwindle and the now independent Mexicans needed to rely on their own resources to produce renewable supplies. While these forts (in 1817) were well supplied at first, Fuerto del Sombereo was abandoned by the peasantry after lack of provisions rendered the position untenable. Martin Javier Mina y Larrea (1789-1817) went to defend Fuerto de los Remedios after the fall of Sombrero but that too fell, and he was executed Nov. 11, 1817.
I knew an archaeologist who has long worked regions in Mexico, and who believed he had found the site of the execution. Mina was a brilliant officer and revolutionary who was also a lawyer and was known as el Mozo (the student).


Naturally there are many processes to produce the essential saltpeter which is the key ingredient in gunpowder (comprising 75% of the mixture) however most of these are somewhat time consuming and often less effective. In essence, there is far more room for failure or inadequately functioning compound.
That was why I was focused on the availability of 'natural' resources , primarily bat guano, which provided an already combined source which was typically inherently ready to be included in gunpowder after relatively simple processing.

What my thoughts were toward the use of these natural sources of saltpeter was that there surely must have been quantities of this resource which were perhaps inadequately leached or improperly prepared for mixing. With this, possibly that was the cause of the poor powder the Mexicans had apparently become burdened with.

The wonderful wealth of supply enjoyed at the time of Los Remedios had in effect, petered out (no pun intended) by the time of the 1830s campaigns, and the notorious 'terrible' powder of the Mexican forces had become well known. In many resources I checked, it was noted that it had too much charcoal and sulfur, not enough saltpeter. In one reference, one writer described it as 'charcoal' derisively.

That there must have been 'some' good powder was illustrated by a note that General Cos, when marched out of the Alamo after surrender, took the 'good' powder in supplying his men (though only limited quantity was allowed).
This falls in place with the comments of Susana Dickinson (the wife of Texian gunner) who survived and noted the powder left by Mexicans was 'damaged'.
Perhaps he deliberately adulterated the powder just as he spiked and disables cannon left there.

There are of course many possibilities, but the recurrent theme of most of the many accounts I have read, describe 'poor quality Mexican powder'.
With that critical assessment being so prevalent......it WAS a dilemma.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by David R

A western Runka is less a trident and more a side bladed weapon....

I agree, a trident's lateral tines extend forward more, their tips are not far to the rear of the central spike. The images in Fernando's post above depict several examples of weapons that fit this description -- the one with sheathed tips is Siamese, and the assemblage of tridents in outdoor display reminds me of a votive array at a Hindu temple. The trident has a long symbolic history in the East (called a trisula in Sanskrit, it is the emblem of mendicant holy men or sadhus and is also a part of Buddhist iconography as well. We in the West know it as the symbol of Neptune.

Monte's description of the runka / spetum which I quoted in my prior post matches the examples to be seen in the Real Armeria in Madrid, the Metropolitan Museum, and elsewhere. The crescentic ears do not extend forward nearly as far as the tines of a trident. Furthermore, the spetum is edged on all its contours and is thus capable of cutting in a number of directions in addition to stabbing and grappling. This is not the rule on a typical trident.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by fernando

Interesting that, for two 'basic' styles shown in books, there are 'at least' four different names (Runka, Ranseur, Corseque, Spetum), with respective descriptions tangled between both, depending on the author. It seems as in one case the wings curve towards the butt and in the other towards the tip. But my dissatisfaction goes for the fact that in both cases the blades are rather long, specially the middle one,


.

Nando, the problem is that in the literature, a weapon can be called different things depending on the language of the writer. Back when these things were in current use, there must have been numerous regional names, and even what we would call slang terms for objects (what would arms historians of the 22nd cent. think of the Italian term mazzagatto (cat beater) applied to a pocket pistol?)

Just for fun I looked up the terms you mentioned in Stone's Glossary... keeping in mind that his understanding was based on the writings of those late-Victorian kernoozers of antique arms such as Dean, ffoulkes, et al). Be that as it may, runka / rhonca / ranson / ranseur are listed as variant terms for the spetum described by Monte; the five illustrated examples all corroborate this (one has straight narrow ears, another has tiny subsidiary earlets pointing backwards under the main ones but the rest are of "classic" form).

The corseque / corsesca has a wider, markedly tapering central blade, and the ears are correspondingly wider at their bases, and straight, and taper to triangular tips. There is a beautiful Italian variant called the corsesca a pipistrello, on which the ears have the contour of bat wings, hence the name.

Linguistic differences may cause confusion as far as the term rhonca, above. It's not to be confused with the Italian term ronca or roncone which derived from a pruning knife with hook, with a spear point attached -- what the English called a "bill" .

For any fans of polearms, who wants to get a firmer grasp on the subject AND who reads Italian, I can recommend a book by Mario Troso, Le Armi in Asta delle Fanterie Europee 1000-1500. He classifies all the various types with numerous profile diagrams and photos.