Come and Take It! The Gonzalez Cannon

[LouG]

Gentlemen---In reading your most interesting posts, I gather that what we call a "culverin" is termed in Spanish a "culebrina", and if so, these "culebrinas" (based on the Olesa Munido page posted by Midelburgo) were made in a range of sizes, small as well as large. I mention this because the books on artillery I have here all describe a culverin as a big gun; but a particular episode of 1590 concerning a Spanish military action in present-day New Mexico seems to preclude the possibility that the culverins involved were big, heavy pieces. So the specific question is: in Spanish military parlance of the late XVI Century, a "culebrina" could be as small as a falcon, correct?

[fernando]

Welcome to the forum, Lou . The section on the left of thr chart that encompasses culverins is more a generic for guns basic typology. In fact, and as you may see in the 'class' column, culverins and half culverins are long barreled pieces with a significant reach. Also you may see in the chart that a (legit) culverin is over four times heavier than a falcon.
As per the term, culverin in English, Colubrina in Spanish and Portuguese and Couleuvrine in French, derive from the Latin term for Cobra (snake). As you well know, in an early stage artillery pieces were given animal names.

[LouG]

Thanks for your note, Fernando. And yes, I see your point. But here's the story, and it presents a puzzle.

In 1590 a Spanish expedition made up of about 170 soldiers and civilians under Castano de Sosa worked its way north from Mexico well into present-day New Mexico. With the expedition were a number of wheeled vehicles---ox-drawn carretas, and two culverins. Much of the ground was rough, and the journalist repeatedly mentions the breaking of carreta wheels or axles (but nothing specific here about the culverins). When they reached the great multi-story Pueblo of Pecos (near present Santa Fe, New Mexico), there was a sharp battle with the occupants, during which the maese de campo ordered four men "...to climb to the top with one of the artillery pieces. The men did so, although with much difficulty, because the Indians were harrying them fiercely..."

So we see that these "culverins" were pulled a long way over rough ground with no special problem, and even hauled up the side of a pueblo during a battle. Therefore, I doubt that they were true full-size culverins, and were probably something considerably smaller. But.....quien sabe?

[Jim McDougall]

This is most interesting! and looking into these areas on cannon/guns, notably out of my range (pun intended) but fascinating to learn about.
What I found is that the De Sosa 'expedition' was anything but a sanctioned or official trek northward from Nuevo Leon in North Mexico to Pecos, near Santa Fe New Mexico.

He was actually a practitioner of a form of Judaism, and had been in trouble with officials in Nuevo Leon in 1589, so actually this was more of a diaspora to avoid further prosecution. His group was formed mostly of 'conversos' who perhaps were in similar denomination, whatever the case, this 'journey' would not have been equipped through official or military channels.

That being the case, I feel it unlikely he would have had access to the larger types of culverin, a term which seems to describe a scope of cannon in a range of sizes, all the way to what seems most like the 'deck or swivel/wall guns.

In this sense, the culverin, which is the ancestor of the arquebus (essentially hand held cannon), is indirectly (?) related to the small wall gun (esmeril) which the diminutive 'Gonzalez' "Come and Take It" cannon.

In this illustration of a culverin, relatively smaller in size to the larger carraige reminds me of the Gonzalez cannon. While small in size and manageable in weight, the idea was of course to provide a firing platform.

My thinking is that perhaps De Sosa, had these smaller versions of the culvern, mounted in makeshift carraiges in this manner. As smaller guns of less weight, they could have viably made the push up this challenging terrain with the carts. While larger artillery would obviously not be accessible to such an unofficial exodus, these smaller guns, much like weaponry in circulation among the population would be more easily obtained.

Illustrated, a smaller culverin mounted on carraige; the map of DeSosas journey into Nuevo Mexico; a demi-culvern, regarded as a 'medium' cannon ; the Gonzalez cannon as a comparative.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... This is most interesting! and looking into these areas on cannon/guns, notably out of my range (pun intended) but fascinating to learn about....

Jim, i will subscribe to your admiting your "out of range" knowledge in the subject; i know nothing of it too.
Could i however raise my doubts to the attribution of your first picture as being from the culverin type, as i see in it a relatively small breech loading piece.
Allow me to show you illustrations of culverins and half culverins of Portuguese origin in the museum of Angra do Heroismo (Portuguese Azores Islands).

Also some descriptions of the same type in the Lisbon Artillery Museum.

- Half (Bastard)Colubrine.
Description: Fire mouth used in site operations. Threw 6 kg iron balls.
Caliber 12.4 cms. Length 3.62 meters.
Casting date 1548-75.



- Half Colubrine Bastard.
Description: Fire mouth used in site and on-board operations.
Threw 4,5 Kg. iron balls.
Caliber 11,4 cms. Length 3 meters.
XVI century.

Last a report from the fortress of São Sebastião da Caparica, giving count of the local artillery and demanding reinforcements, where we may observe the robustness of culverins by their calibers.

There are six pieces of artillery in this fortress, namely: two 44-pound cannons; a 30 pound stone ball pedreiro; a 14-pound culverin; a 24-inch half-cannon and a two-inch falconet, with which gunners are trained on. We need two more 16 to 18 pound culverins. These piecrs are all mounted on carts. We need a spare cart for each of them.

If i am not wrong, all specs. described in all those examples are somehow related with the ones classified as culverins and half culverins in Olesa Muñido chart (post #10).


.

[LouG]

Yes, this is indeed a puzzle. By comparison, the standard, widely-used U.S. 6-pounder bronze Model 1841, with a bore diameter of 3.67" (9.3 cm.), and a barrel (tube) weight of 880 lbs. (400 KG.), would have been difficult enough to take along over the terrain that Castano de Sosa's expedition covered. Yet any gun of the XV! Century technically classified as a "culverin" would have been bigger and heaver than the U.S. M1841, as are the guns listed by Fernando. Again---quien sabe?

[Jim McDougall]

The point I was trying to make was that the terms used for these guns, in the period or by accounts, seem to have been rather nonspecific or perhaps more collectively used. I realize that the gun in the posted image looks like the esmeril's I have seen in other references, but in this case was included with a number of culverins.
as noted the term seems to have been used for quite a range of sizes, which they note as sizes least sized; ordinary or extra ordinary...much like shirt sizes :
The the 'demo culverin' (medijm cannon?) it looks pretty big.

So the thing I was noting is, how would this guy have access to not one but two military size cannon (culverins so they say) when he was basically a private group in exodus. The question was about the size of the 'culverins' being dragged up the side of the pueblo terrain? yes?

It is noted in the Gonzalez cannon matters, people describing cannon would sometimes referred to as bronze, when they were in fact iron etc. so it seems clearly that one persons account would be one description, another persons entirely different.
This is the dilemma of arms research, semantics, colloquial terms used collectively.