Come and Take It! The Gonzalez Cannon

[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.

[LouG]

After reading these posts, and re-reading the entries made by Castano de Sosa's diarist, I went back to my library. Harold L. Peterson's book "Round Shot and Rammers", p. 17, states that in 1570 the Spanish fort of St. Elena, Florida, lists two cannon, one demi-culverin, and "culverins of small bore." Peterson's bibliography is pretty impressive, and he was known to be a careful researcher; so, lacking information to the contrary, I'll agree with Jim's opinion above---that to some users, the term "culverin" could apply to a wide range of guns, small as well as large.

Our research never really ends, does it?

[fernando]

Gentlemen, the images and spec. descriptions of culverins i have posted were not selected among "other" specimens "just to make point".
I wonder whether Castano de Sosa is a specialist in artillery, but i realize that the term culverin or cannon, for the matter, is a coloquial means to name artillery guns in a general manner. A culverin of small calibre is not necessarily a gun of such classified type, as a small cannon or a large cannon are not necessarily guns of the cannon class.
You take he cannon yard of the Lisbon artillery museum, one of the the greatest bronze gun collections in the world, where over a hundred examples are exhibited, visibly of all types, and yet this place is officially called the "Cannon Patio".
Having said that, i won't carry on with my trying to compete with those potentially more knowledged on the subject .


.

[Jim McDougall]

The 'CANNON PATIO"! Now THERE is an idea for redecorating my patio!

Fernando, there is no competition here of course, just sharing ideas and information and you have always been an intrepid researcher with resources typically unknown to most of us. So stay with us, and 'fire at will' !

What was meant in my suggestion is that De Sosa's 'expedition' was hardly an officially sponsored venture, and more of a planned exodus to 'get out of Dodge' as he was in trouble with the officials in Nuevo Leon.

In my reading on the 'culverin' as a 'type' of cannon, there seem to be three (at least) sizes, and one was the 'LEAST' sized. Now that category would certainly include a number of small types which probably might have at least been the same size as 'esmeril' .
The 'point' was that these smaller pieces would have been more 'available' to an assembled group outside the auspices of the 'government' and as such more mobile for such a foray into the unknown.

The large cannons would obviously require much more organization and effort with the particulars and specialized crews needed, which would be available only through military overseeing.

The other two types of 'culverin' listed were the ORDINARY , which implies standard, or the more regularly sized cannon of the day, and more the type as noted requiring militarily trained gun crews.

and the EXTRAORDINARY, which I presume were the huge siege cannon which would be positioned (with great effort) in pitched fortifications well established.....hardly the kind of 'Big Bertha' one would take on an ad hoc venture into unknown territory with expedience the key factor.

All three of these are listed in the culverin category, which suggests that the term was widely used in a general sense for 'cannon', and was probably a prevalent term used somewhat colloquially. With that the case, someone such as DeSosa, not necessarily experienced in the specific classifications or categories of cannon, and grabbed that term as most familiar.

In many accounts of the wild west etc. the descriptions use general terms, such as 'he went for his gun', completely avoiding that the 'gun' was a Smith & Wesson #2 in .44 caliber, or a revolver (often the term pistol is used for many of these, which could have been a single shot breech loader like a Remington Navy).

Lou, Peterson of course is one of the best sources for these kinds of historic details. As noted the DEMI CULVERIN seems to be a pretty good sized piece, and the qualifying note of 'culverins' of small bore, well illustrates the broad use of the term.

As mentioned, often descriptions of cannon (and often most specific details in period accounts) will use terms not necessarily 'correct' specifically, for example saying a cannon was bronze, when in fact it was iron. For many years with the 'Gonzalez' cannon, people thought the small 'esmeril' (or whatever it might be called) was THE cannon the big fight was over.
Actually it was the much larger SIX pounder the Mexicans were after, and the one the Texians actually used with some effect.
This one ended up at the Alamo later, and along with others being buried by the Mexicans after the battle.

Years later it was found and later was melted down into a church bell, for its bronze!!
The tiny gun (esmeril?) also found many years later remained symbolically in place for the key events and the brave defenders at Gonzalez, and its legacy remained despite the disparity in historic descriptions.