Come and Take It! The Gonzalez Cannon

[Jim McDougall]

The 'Spirit of 76' is well known in the United States of course as essentially the beginning of our nation from the fight for independence. There are many icons of that rebellion which are held dearly as symbolic of our fight for freedom.

In the 1830s, Texas (then Tejas) was a northern region belonging to Mexico, now independent from Spain since 1821, yet there was ongoing turbulence on the nature and control of its governing. There were opposing contenders either for or against Mexico's constitution of 1824.There had been numbers of American settlers from across the young United States 'going to Mexico' where they sought to find new lives and/or 'make their fortunes. These people became known as Texians.

This was the setting that became the Texian 'war' for independence in which the Alamo in March of 1836 became an icon of Texas heritage. There are of course many perspectives on this history, and as with most history, there is naturally a good deal of 'lore' amidst the commonly held knowledge.

Another of the iconic symbols of these events, and thus Texas itself, is the famed 'Come and Take It' flag of the town of Gonzalez near San Antonio.
This represents the flag that symbolized the defiance of its settlers in refusal to return a cannon provided by Mexico for its defense. When Mexico demanded its return, Gonzalez defiantly said, "come and take it" !
When Mexico tried on October 2,1835 unsuccessfully, the flag was created and became the banner of the Texians of the time just before the Alamo.

The question however has become, what became of the cannon of the dispute

While in one view, the actual cannon actually ended up at the Alamo with the sundry collection of cannon that were captured and added to those already there when the Alamo was taken by the Texians in December, 1835.
It was said to be a bronze six pounder of about 6 ft. length weighing about 100 lbs. After the fall of the Alamo, it was removed by the Mexicans and buried just after the Battle of San Jacinto.

This was dug up by a farmer on his property in the 1870s where it was donated and melted down to make a bell for St. Marks church.

However in a controversial rebuttal to this, is the story of a small cannon of 21.5" length, weighing about 69 pounds and of iron which was dug up neat the old Gonzalez-Bexar road in July, 1936. It seems that this interesting gun ended up unceremoniously held in the old Gonzalez post office where it remained virtually unnoticed for over 32 yrs until a new post office was being built. It was taken to a gun show where it began a certain consternation that it might be the famed 'Gonzalez' cannon. While it was in the dimensional range of a six pounder, its character was notably different, and unusually small bore only fired a half pound shot.

When it was declared to 'probably' be the famed cannon, it was placed on display in Gonzalez, where it remains today.
One of the rebuttals toward this being the cannon claims it was likely present at the battle there in 1835, however it is obviously NOT the cannon that the Mexicans were intent on retrieving, which was the more substantial bronze cannon previously described.

It is claimed this is actually a Spanish 'ESMERIL' and has characteristics of a gun reworked by local smiths in Gonzalez in some records regarding the famed cannon.

From all I can find, the 'esmeril' seems to be a small 'deck gun' similar to Spanish naval breech loaders (see attached) but there is little other reference as found yet. The example on display seems too small for a gun used in a pitched siege. It is of iron, but it is claimed that period descriptions by settlers would typically not differentiate between iron or bronze categorically but simply by familiar terms.

My question is, what exactly is an esmeril? what sort of term is this?
What kind of gun would this small dug up example be, and why would it have sat unnoticed for generations then suddenly be declared the missing cannon of Gonzalez?

[fernando]

Esmeril is an artillery piece a little bigger than the falconet. Basicaly a bronze breech loader, its class name, in english emery (grinder) might be metaphoric ... or not. Remember that, in the beginning of artillery, in view of lacking typology standardized classification, names of beasts, birds and other were used to defined their dimension/caliber. When you talk 'actual' cannons, the esmeril is small stuff. In action during the XVI century, it is rather problematic to admit that esmeris were still in use during the Alamo saga, let alone a COME AND TAKE IT symbol.
Here are two versions, one (less usual) stocked and the other entire, the first 6 foot long and the other 5 foot. Calibers 3 cms. (just over 1") and 4,6 cms. (less than 2")

(Courtesy Armaria do Palacio dos Duques de Bragança)

.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you Fernando, I knew you would have the answer, and I agree this must have been a metaphoric term long outdated but simply referring to a 'small gun'.
Naturally these swivel guns were relatively small, but effective in the close quarters of decks.

The dilemma remains, was this tiny cannon the one the Mexicans were so intent on retrieving? Why? If the dispute pertained to the larger bronze six pounder with more viable battle potential it would be understandable, but even in case of principle, this little gun does not seem likely.

However, the cannon depicted on the flag does have similarity to the small one noted, with oversize cascabel. It is believed the original flag did not have a star.
According to the story, the small cannon was abandoned and buried when the makeshift wooden wheels failed. It was not as if it was a huge item, only 2 ft. long and 69 pounds.

The only advantage to its credibility is that it was a cannon believed to have been at Gonzalez, and the place it was buried is in the right proximity, and the other larger cannon no longer exists. All that remains there is the apocryphal story of being found in a field and donated to church where it was melted down and cast into a bell.

[fernando]

Jim, it appears you have a long way to go to untangle this knot. Like the virtual COME AND TAKE IT cannon is not that small piece arguably called esmeril* but a six pounder which, according to period parameters, should measure 66 inches, weighing some 750 pounds, with a 3,5 " bore. To the extent that the COME AND TAKE IT piece exhibited in the Gonzales museum is the other vpiece of the puzzle.

*
As established, the esmeril is completely another thing, a breach loader with a distinct (slimmer) shape. Notwithstanging such 'practical' name attributed may not be serious obstacle; only a detail to help confusing things.



.

[Jim McDougall]

Well noted Fernando, and I have had some luck in finding a reference with more information "Cannons of the Texas Revolution" , James V. Woodrick, 2015.
Apparently at Gonzalez on October 2, 1835.

The actual cannon being contested was indeed a bronze 6 pounder which was loaned to the Gonzalez village in 1831 by the Mexicans. When it was ordered to be returned in 1835, the settlers buried it, and refused to give it up.
One of the wives created the now legendary flag which remains proudly flown across Texas with the cannon and the words "Come and Take It".

By September 29th other Texians were arriving in Gonzalez as the Mexicans had sent dragoons to retrieve the gun. The Texians then dug up the gun to prepare for battle.
At this time, a small iron artillery piece also arrived, it was the 'Esmeril' of 69 pounds , 21.5 " long and bore that fired 1/4 pound shot. It was not mounted until Oct 2nd. This gun had been captured by Brazoria volunteers at the Battle of Velasco in 1832.

It is noted that these small guns were made in Mexico until late 1700s.

It would seem that the term 'esmeril' was basically archaic and of course had become colloquial for a small gun of the swivel or deck gun form from the much earlier types. It seems some of these had been mounted as swivel guns in several fortifications, so more of a general term.

Mexican records note that the emeril was shot first and only once, the six pounder then shot twice.

In the march to San Antonio, apparently the esmeril had been mounted on a makeshift carraige which finally failed due to friction on the wheels and issues with the two oxen pulling it. It was abandoned along the road.

Meanwhile the bronze six pounder did make it to San Antonio, and to the Alamo. This brought the number of cannon at the Alamo to 24.
It is ironic that originally, Bowie was ordered to remove the guns from the Alamo, and destroy it.

However Bowie and Neill, the officer then in command there, decided that the Alamo was indeed strategic and that with all these guns it would be well able to be defended. Unfortunately, they could not know that they would not have adequate manpower to handle these guns; nor the ammunition and that there would be severe issues with faulty powder.

After the fall of the Alamo, the Mexicans removed the bronze guns (4) with the others buried, except 8 which were apparently dumped into the San Antonio river (these have never been found).
Of the four bronze guns ...the six pounder from Gonzalez was made into a church bell, the other three into commemorative small guns.

[midelburgo]

In this book,

La organización naval de los estados mediterráneos y en especial de España durante los siglos XVI y XVII. By Francisco-Felipe Olesa Muñido.

There is a artillery compilatory table at page 318 of the first volume,

where an "esmeril" is described as a bronze minor weapon without servers firing lead ammunition (or lead with an iron core) of 1/2 to 1 pound of weight, 2-3cm diameter, 40 calibers in length.

Data comes from Jorge Vigon, History of the Spanish Artillery, first volume around page 118. I have it as well, but the table is easier to check.

What I find interesting to mention is that an "esmeril" is a flint. I thought this was related to a stone ammunition, but probably that was not clever because of the wasting of the tube. If it is related to a spark system, Rainier Daenhardt says Portuguese were using those already in the 1530s.

I understand that a gun with the characteristics of the first gun with servers in Fernando post, will fall in the mentioned table under "cerbatana".

About the original brass buried gun, there is something wrong. I believe a six pounder of 6 feet will weight much more than 100lbs. The iron cannon resembles a Scottish carronade. Maybe something from a barge.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by midelburgo

In this book,

La organización naval de los estados mediterráneos y en especial de España durante los siglos XVI y XVII. By Francisco-Felipe Olesa Muñido.

There is a artillery compilatory table at page 318 of the first volume,

where an "esmeril" is described as a bronze minor weapon without servers firing lead ammunition (or lead with an iron core) of 1/2 to 1 pound of weight, 2-3cm diameter, 40 calibers in length.

Data comes from Jorge Vigon, History of the Spanish Artillery, first volume around page 118. I have it as well, but the table is easier to check.

What I find interesting to mention is that an "esmeril" is a flint. I thought this was related to a stone ammunition, but probably that was not clever because of the wasting of the tube. If it is related to a spark system, Rainier Daenhardt says Portuguese were using those already in the 1530s.

I understand that a gun with the characteristics of the first gun with servers in Fernando post, will fall in the mentioned table under "cerbatana".

About the original brass buried gun, there is something wrong. I believe a six pounder of 6 feet will weight much more than 100lbs. The iron cannon resembles a Scottish carronade. Maybe something from a barge.

Thank you so much! this further detailed information on these guns is so valuable as these are insights from resources far from access here.
Very well noted on this curious term, which seems to be a colloquially used reference to these small guns of Mexican origin.

I had seen esmeril translated as 'emery' which seemed odd, then Fernando noted the loosely applied term 'grinder' which added to conundrum. Adding the 'flint' description of course adds another facet.

With all of this and now realizing there were two cannons at Gonzalez on October 2, 1835 in the notable conflict with Mexican dragoons who were there to retrieve their loaned gun.
The gun they were after was a SIX pounder, of 6 foot length weighing 700 pounds, and of bronze (often the term brass is used incorrectly).

What has completely fouled the mix is the small esmeril which arrived in Gonzalez that day, and was indeed fired in the brief conflict.
Actually this gun had been captured in a battle in 1832 and had been spiked so a new touch hole was drilled.
This gun was of such small size and bore (1/4 pound) it would be inconsequential in any sort of siege or notable combat.

It was noticeably uncharacteristic as far as cannons go, the cascabel was oversized, its shape was more of tube. It seems remarkable that it seems to be the likeness shown on this fabled flag, which is claimed to have been fashioned from the wedding dress of one of the wives. This was then termed the 'old cannon flag' and seems to have been confined to Gonzalez.

When the makeshift carriage was made using handmade boards from local trees to transport it, the 'tube' seemed unusually small in such large mounts and was rather laughed at. Why such an elaborate rig was needed to transport a 70 pound gun being pulled by two oxen seems odd. To make matters worse, the friction from the wheels and final failure of the rig, along with the two oxen being spent rendered the effort useless. With this the gun was buried, as per it seems a standard practice with guns being put out of service in these contexts.

This gun, found in 1936, was placed unceremoniously in the post office in Gonzalez where it was perhaps literally used as a doorstop until the 1960s. At this point local gun collectors began to associate it with the 1835 'battle' and that it may be the famed 'cannon' of Gonzalez.

There is no doubt of the conflict in Gonzales over 'a cannon' in 1835, but the fact that there were apparently TWO cannon, not just one has confused the matter. To compound this, according to the accounts of the actual full sized six pounder of bronze which was one of four later used for metal content thus no longer extant eliminates actual examination possibility.
What remains is the apocryphal history of the small cannon now on display in Gonzalez, which seems logistically improbable as a combat weapon, but profoundly powerful symbolically.

It would seem that the confusion from the misunderstanding of the term esmeril as applied to the cannon in Gonzalez is the issue, as there is no way this term would be applied to a full size 700 pound cannon, six pounder.

[Jim McDougall]

In looking further at this small artillery piece from Gonzalez termed the esmeril, I looked into the Battle of Velasco June 25,1832. In this the Texians defeated a Mexican force who had built a small log stockade on the Brazos river. It mentions a small 'swivel' gun, and this seems to be the gun brought to Gonzalez by the Texian militia.

I was wondering why this was mounted on a relatively large wheeled carraige, and it would seem likely it might have been for better position in aiming as it was to be mobile and not fixed in position.

Why would such a small gun have been such a deterrent? As the Texians did not have ammunition, they cut up horseshoes, nails etc. to be fired a langrage, which can do terrible damage fired into a mass of men. That followed by musket fire would have had notable effect. The OTHER gun, a six pounder was fired twice, and also it would seem with langrage.

I found that three other esmerils were from the Alamo (again the Gonzalez one never made it). Apparently one of the Alamo esmerils was British made.

In the march to San Antonio and the Alamo, a conflict along the way became the Concepcion battle, where a six pounder known as the 'Gonzalez cannon' was fired. The imprecise references often used in these accounts note a 'four' pounder when referring to the Gonzalez cannon, but the evidence shows it was indeed a six pounder. There is a record of 121 balls , six pounder made for this gun in late October 1835.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by midelburgo

... I understand that a gun with the characteristics of the first gun with servers in Fernando post, will fall in the mentioned table under "cerbatana"...

The caption in the previously posted example clearly define it as an esmeril. Perhaps the author was wrong ... or not. Maybe not so easy to figure out which is which among the universe of early gun variations. On the other hand, cerbatana, in Portuguese zarabatana, is basically a blowgun; go figure.
Easier to take into account is the difference in size betweeen a 1/4 pound shot and a six pound... for what matters.


.

[midelburgo]

I took a shot of the table at the Olesa Muñido book. This is only for XVI and XVIIth centuries.

[fernando]

Excelent material; will safe to my files.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by midelburgo

I took a shot of the table at the Olesa Muñido book. This is only for XVI and XVIIth centuries.

Im with Fernando! very valuable material! Thank you so much! will also add to my files!
While 16th and 17th c. these guns were often in use far longer than just generations, which was why they were so valued.

[fernando]

Not to forget that, Portuguese typologies of this period (and not only) had plenty (most) gun types coinciding with those from Spain but also had different ones, both only with a different name and others with different characteristics. A pity i don't know of a source where they are all listed in one table.
There was the 48 pounder bronze LEÃO (lion), the IV century stone shot CÃO (dog) larger than the Berço and no curved tail, the CAMELO (camel) and the CAMELETE, equivalent to a 1/3 stone shot Cannon, the stone shot ÁSPIDE, equivalent to half bastard culverin, the ESPERA (wait) equivalent to 1/3 cannon, the impressive ESPALHAFATO (great fuss) also denomitaded TOURO (wild bull) that threw a 92 Kilos (over 200 pouds) stone ball. And so on ...
Despite the of Portuguese arsenals patrimony was devastated by Acts of God (1755 earthquake), and 'borrowed' by dominating powers, one of the greatest bronze cannon collections in the world is kept in the pateo of the Lisbon Military Museum and also in its galeries.

[fernando]

If i may still assault Jim's thread, this is the Vasco da Gama room in the Lisbon Military Museum, where all the types mentioned in my previous post (and more) are exhibited.


.

[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.

[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.

[LouG]

Fernando---Many thanks for posting these cannon photos. Most impressive, and a valuable addition to this thread.

[Jim McDougall]

In support of what Fernando notes in #23;
From Tartaglio, "The Arte of Shooting" (1588),
"....through the intolerable fault of careless or unskillful gunfounders all of our great pieces of one name are not of one length, nor of one weight, nor of one height in their mouths, and therefore the gunners books and tables which do show that all of our pieces are of one name...are of equal length, and of one equal weight and are of an equal height in their mouths, are erroneous".

Cited in "Armouries of the Tower Of London: the Ordnance".
H.L.Blackmore, HMSO, 1976, p.391

As we are discussing the term culverin in 1590 as used in accounts of the DeSosa 'expedition' and what size gun probably referred to considering the transport and movement in terrain of said gun, it would seem the dilemma of terms used broadly for varying size guns was notably present in those times.

[fernando]

Concerning de Sosa and his adventures, we can read out there about his artillery, with some contradictions, but none mentioning the cannons as being of the culverin type. Or still i am missing further sources.
For the record, as you guys are most probably aware, de Sosa real name was Gaspar Castanho de Sousa, born in Portugal circa 1550.
From the Spanish 'Miguel de Cervantes Virtual Library', we can read the "Memory of the discovery that Gaspar Castaño de Sosa made in New Mexico, being lieutenant governor and captain general of the New Kingdom of León (July 27, 1590)"

"He ordered the Field Master to have the Royal box kept within short distance from the town, in that part where the town seemed to be strongest; And they did so, and he ordered two bronze shots* to be fired, and for this he ordered Joan Rodríguez Nieto, to be with the said guns and with their fuse ready, and he ordered Joan Rodríguez Nieto to fire one of the shots high *and so it was fired, and with it the harquebus, to see if this would scare them ... and for our safety the said Lieutenant told the Field Master to go to one side of the town, to a barracks that was there without people, and made Diego de Viruega, Francisco de Mancha, Diego Díaz de Berlanga, Joan Rodríguez Nieto go up to the top, with one of the said artillery pieces; And so they went up, although with a lot of work, because the Indians gave them a lot of war from behind a sleeve and trenches".

* I infer this was his bronze artillery; old idiomatic Castilian with no available translation.
So these pieces had to have some carrying or stand devices, but certainly not of big heavy dimensions; whether of a determined class or even local atypical casting ?

[fernando]

From the Spanish Royal Academy ... Historical dictionary of the Spanish language.

" The culevrina is documented for the first time, with the meaning 'artillery weapon with a barrel longer than 30 muzzle diameters * that throws projectiles, generally metallic, at a great distance', in the 15th century, in an anonymous Sales Letter (1451) and with the culubrine variant. It is recorded for the first time in the Recveil de dictionaires francoys, espaignolz et latins (1599), by H. Hornkens; In addition, it is collected in the Dictionary of Authorities of 1729. There are a large number of testimonies of the various types of culverin that have existed; among them, the most common is the medium (half) culverin. Like other ancient artillery weapons, they could be legitimate or bastard, depending on whether or not they met the established standards for their length and caliber. These standards have varied over time, so the characteristics of each piece must always be considered in context."

*
A typical way to determine artillery dimensions. Culverin barrels being equivalent to (also called) 30 calibers, their lengths, as already mentioned, measure circa 3 meters.

[fernando]

From Investigation Concerning Gaspar Castaño de Sosa’s
Unauthorized Expedition to New Mexico in 1590-1591,
Conducted by Captain Juan Morlete in 1591

Finally an exhaustive mention of de Sosa's artillery. I will not bore you to death with transcription of all details over this issue. I will just say that, the number of times that his artillery is mentioned in this paper, is countless. No typologies approached, only that he had at least three "artillery pieces", defined as (two) small and (one) gross. Whether they were of this or that specific type, it will be up to our imagination. I seem to understand that they were transported in the carts.
According to what is recorded, he either used them to assault natives and also to set defence from his national oppositors.

[Jim McDougall]

Masterfully researched and explained Fernando.

While understanding that trying to elaborate on the extraordinarily recorded details of this expedition, your summarizing them is much appreciated.
Lou brought to my attention the recent discovery of a Spanish gun found in southern Arizona which was referred to as a hackbus (haakbus, Dutch=hook gun). This was the root word for arquebus, basically the ancestor of the culverin, as I understand (corrections welcomed).

These haakbus were rampart guns (wall guns) and the hook was the feature extending in a hook or lug to steady the gun when firing by securing on a wall or battlement. In the field tripods or other makeshift devices worked as well.

Apparently Coronado in his 1541 expedition northward through Arizona had 6 of these guns, and archaeologists are confident this is one of them. These 40 pound pieces it notes were called 'versillos' (linguist assist plz), and it is noted such items had to be carried by horse or mule as larger equipment like carraiges or wagons would be impractical through unknown terrain.
Surely DeCosa had similar thinking, but it is noted he did have wagons of some sort.

The article noted was from "American Rifleman" , April 2023 by William Mapoles and Deni Seymour, as are the photos attached noting this gun is the earliest example of one forged in the New World (as shown in period woodcut).