Dating of chambers for breechloading cannon

E Farrell · 2nd February 2016, 07:19 PM

I am searching for information on how best to establish date and origins of chambers for breechloading cannon.

I am currently working with a breech block (divorced from its cannon), and I can date its last use to the first quarter of the 18th century (1700-1725) aboard a ship of either English or French crew with absolute certainty. In the absence of a corresponding breachloader, I cannot say if the use was with a swivel gun, or alone as a signal piece. It was recovered with tampion in place and gunpowder within, so there was some active use.

Given the date and possible usages, it seems at least moderately likely that the chamber itself is older than the context in which it was found, so I am attempting to determine an approximate date and country of manufacture (if this should prove possible).

Unfortunately, I am unable to post images of the piece in question. However, the chamber I am working with is virtually identical to one posted at http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showpo...45&postcount=3 (specifically the uppermost of two in the image at http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attach...id=35187&stc=1)

Overall proportion, handle attachment, touch-hole style and touch-hole placement are all identical. The one in image is attributed as 15th century German. I have contacted Bayerisches Armeemuseum Ingolstadt, and their attribution is without basis in comparison to knowns, but is simply a repetition of what the museum was told when they purchased the item. I am trying to find further evidence to confirm or deny that attribution.

To point, how would you all go about assigning a date to an object like this? I have the volume on artillery from Mary Rose, but have found no direct comparison. I am unaware of any other publications with a firm date range and a good selection of breechloading cannon and chambers. Are there other published sources that anyone knows of?

It is my general impression that earlier breech blocks are longer and narrower in proportion, but I am not sufficiently knowledgeable in this area to be even remotely sure of that. Is there any such definable progression of form through time? Has anyone written a typology of breech blocks?

And for anyone with a reasonable knowledge of and affection for breechloaders, what date would you assign the chamber in that image if there were no museum plaque to tell you?

Any information and opinions you all may have are welcome... I have been beating my head against this one for months now, and I need a fresh bit of thought on the matter.

fernando · 4th February 2016, 09:08 PM

A rather challenging question. It does need someone with significant knowledge to provide information on such subject. Until now i have gone myself as far as realizing that, the dimensions of chambers as well as their profile, only had to do with the caliber and type of the different breechloading pieces.
A forum member that could potentially explore such area (Matchlock) is now deceased; i wonder whether there are other members who are in possession of such data.
Meanwhile if you use the search button you could find further details on breechloaders, although not necessarily what you are looking for.

E Farrell · 9th February 2016, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

Meanwhile if you use the search button you could find further details on breechloaders, although not necessarily what you are looking for.

With this whole line of inquiry I am in the awkward situation of asking a question which I am not certain has an answer. In fact the further I look, the more I suspect I cannot definitively narrow the date range on form alone past late 15th-early 18th centuries.

But the worst that happens is that no one else has an answer either, I keep the wider date range, and nothing is lost by the attempt.

fernando · 11th February 2016, 12:20 PM

I regret that no sources show up to provide some information on this theme; perhaps because it is so specific and not so much explored.
I have to contact some local specialists in artillery but unfornutaley one has his email disabled, the other is deceased and for te other i dion't manage to ge his contact.
I here attach pictures of two early pieces; one a 'cão' (dog) from the end 14th beg.-15th century, in exhibition in the Portuguese Navy Museum and the other, his successor, a 'berço Manuelino' (so called cradle of King Dom Manuel) circa 1500, from the collection of Riner Daehnhardt.
Although they have not measurements notes, one can see that proportionaly their chambers are not that narrow nor that long.
I am not sure that the second chamber belongs in the berço but, if not, the period will be the same.

.

Jim McDougall · 13th February 2016, 05:52 PM

Fernando, thank for adding this excellent example!!
While I have little knowledge on this particular subject, it is fascinating to see what these actually looked like!!

Marcus den toom · 14th February 2016, 09:04 AM

Very little time nowadays to do some sound research on this subject, but Michl did extîensive work on this in his breech loading thread.

Dating these breech blocks has mostly to do with the same stylistic criteria as with normal cannons i think. Also the way they where made, wrought or cast? Cast blocks seem to appear at the 1480-1500. The handle on older specimens is also only fastened at the rear. And lastly the older breeches tapers at the mouth and later versions seem to have a socket for sealing it better into the barrel.

No good evidence to back up any of this but it seems logical to me when looking at the pictures in the breech loading thread.

E Farrell · 15th February 2016, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

I regret that no sources show up to provide some information on this theme; perhaps because it is so specific and not so much explored.
I have to contact some local specialists in artillery but unfornutaley one has his email disabled, the other is deceased and for te other i dion't manage to ge his contact.
I here attach pictures of two early pieces; one a 'cão' (dog) from the end 14th beg.-15th century, in exhibition in the Portuguese Navy Museum and the other, his successor, a 'berço Manuelino' (so called cradle of King Dom Manuel) circa 1500, from the collection of Riner Daehnhardt.
Although they have not measurements notes, one can see that proportionaly their chambers are not that narrow nor that long.
I am not sure that the second chamber belongs in the berço but, if not, the period will be the same.

Thank for fernando! If these are 15th cCE or earlier, then that is a pretty firm 'no' to the question of whether a typological date is possible. The more I (and others) have searched, the more evidence has come up for this conclusion.

It is not what I had hoped, but I think I will have to settle for a broader 15th-late 17th century sort of time frame. I have learned more than if I had not asked though, so I will count things as a win regardless.

fernando · 16th February 2016, 03:03 PM

Rather complex subject indeed, taking into account a vast range of considerations like time line between different nations being distinct, with some adopting certain types and others not, and each one in its own period. The universe of typologies is huge and so are the locking systems, handles and all that.
See how slim is a "Esmerilhão" of the beg. 167h century, exhibited in the armoury of the Ducal Palace of Vila Viçosa, with a 3 cms. caliber, total length 186 cms. with a breech of 44 cms.
Then we have two of the seven bombard chambers used in the siege of Baza by the Spanish Catholic Kings in 1489. These have a caliber of 20,5 cms and a length of 142 cms.
An at last we have a chamber from the end 14th - beg. 15th century, in exhibition in the Portuguese Navy Museum. With a weight of 1450 Kilos, a length of 1,5 mts. and an exterior diameter of 42 cms. (38 cms. at the muzzle), it would have served a gross bombard or "Trom" of some 4 to 5 mts. length and a muzzle diameter of circa 1,5 mts.

.

Philip · 1st March 2016, 07:53 AM

Hi, Fernando
Thanks for posting these pics. The swivel rampart gun is most interesting, when I saw the image, something told me "I may have seen that before" and lo, there is a photo of its Far Eastern equivalent in a reference book on Chinese arms. A rather fuzzy black-and-white image, not worth reproducing here, but it shows something very similar to the Vila Viçosa example except for the length (2.2 m) and caliber (2.6 cm). The substantial points of difference on the Chinese gun are the fact that it is mounted on a wheeled 4-footed support, and that it is equipped with an actual matchlock mechanism with a trigger. It is dated 1727, making it about a century younger than the Portuguese counterpart in your photo.

In a prior post you use the term berço (cradle) to describe the breechloaders under discussion. The Chinese name for this type of gun is "zimujiang" or child-and-mother gun, the chamber piece corresponding to the baby in a cradle.

Lastly, the "scroll" shape at the end of the buttstock is almost identical to that seen on a type of Japanese matchlock "horse pistol" called a bajou-zutsu.

fernando · 1st March 2016, 07:22 PM

Yes Philip, a peculiar buttstock indeed.
I would not reject the possibility of this esmerilhão having a different origin, as so often museum personal fails, if it weren't for the fact that the legend states that, there is an identical example in the palace armoury and another one in the Lisbon Military Museum. It does not mention that identical also comprehends the sock shape but, let us believe so.
Curious analogy of the Berço with the Chinese "zimujiang" I was already aware that such connotation is not (only) of Portuguese inspiration. Also the Castillians call it 'verso', but i think i heard the attribution is French. But no doubt the term increased its popularity with King Dom Manuel personal development of this typology by having them forged in one only piece and prepaired for severe endurance; thus the name Berço Manuelino.

Philip · 2nd March 2016, 01:49 AM

Fernando,
The similarity between the Portuguese and the Chinese examples of the breechloading guns can be explained by the fact that this type of gun with a chamber-piece retained by a "cradle" integral with the barrel is an introduction to the Far East by Europeans. Of course, the Portuguese were there first (although we must admit that the Dutch brought the same technology with them, later). Another name that the Chinese applied to the cradle breechloader was "folangji" or Frankish device. The Portuguese were the first Europeans to reach China in any numbers, and initially they were called Franks, after the Indian and Near Eastern habit of referring to Europeans as "firangi".

Portuguese breechloading cannon of the 16th cent. have a remarkable stylistic similarity to their Chinese and Korean counterparts of that period and later. The swiveling "lantaka" cannons of the Malay Archipelago no doubt have a similar origin, also noting that a few rare examples of those are breechloaders as well. You may have seen a few of those in private collections in Portugal as well.

2nd February 2016, 07:19 PM	#1
E Farrell Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 22	Dating of chambers for breechloading cannon I am searching for information on how best to establish date and origins of chambers for breechloading cannon. I am currently working with a breech block (divorced from its cannon), and I can date its last use to the first quarter of the 18th century (1700-1725) aboard a ship of either English or French crew with absolute certainty. In the absence of a corresponding breachloader, I cannot say if the use was with a swivel gun, or alone as a signal piece. It was recovered with tampion in place and gunpowder within, so there was some active use. Given the date and possible usages, it seems at least moderately likely that the chamber itself is older than the context in which it was found, so I am attempting to determine an approximate date and country of manufacture (if this should prove possible). Unfortunately, I am unable to post images of the piece in question. However, the chamber I am working with is virtually identical to one posted at http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showpo...45&postcount=3 (specifically the uppermost of two in the image at http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attach...id=35187&stc=1) Overall proportion, handle attachment, touch-hole style and touch-hole placement are all identical. The one in image is attributed as 15th century German. I have contacted Bayerisches Armeemuseum Ingolstadt, and their attribution is without basis in comparison to knowns, but is simply a repetition of what the museum was told when they purchased the item. I am trying to find further evidence to confirm or deny that attribution. To point, how would you all go about assigning a date to an object like this? I have the volume on artillery from Mary Rose, but have found no direct comparison. I am unaware of any other publications with a firm date range and a good selection of breechloading cannon and chambers. Are there other published sources that anyone knows of? It is my general impression that earlier breech blocks are longer and narrower in proportion, but I am not sufficiently knowledgeable in this area to be even remotely sure of that. Is there any such definable progression of form through time? Has anyone written a typology of breech blocks? And for anyone with a reasonable knowledge of and affection for breechloaders, what date would you assign the chamber in that image if there were no museum plaque to tell you? Any information and opinions you all may have are welcome... I have been beating my head against this one for months now, and I need a fresh bit of thought on the matter.

11th February 2016, 12:20 PM	#4
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	I regret that no sources show up to provide some information on this theme; perhaps because it is so specific and not so much explored. I have to contact some local specialists in artillery but unfornutaley one has his email disabled, the other is deceased and for te other i dion't manage to ge his contact. I here attach pictures of two early pieces; one a 'cão' (dog) from the end 14th beg.-15th century, in exhibition in the Portuguese Navy Museum and the other, his successor, a 'berço Manuelino' (so called cradle of King Dom Manuel) circa 1500, from the collection of Riner Daehnhardt. Although they have not measurements notes, one can see that proportionaly their chambers are not that narrow nor that long. I am not sure that the second chamber belongs in the berço but, if not, the period will be the same. . Attached Images Last edited by fernando; 11th February 2016 at 12:33 PM.

16th February 2016, 03:03 PM	#8
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Rather complex subject indeed, taking into account a vast range of considerations like time line between different nations being distinct, with some adopting certain types and others not, and each one in its own period. The universe of typologies is huge and so are the locking systems, handles and all that. See how slim is a "Esmerilhão" of the beg. 167h century, exhibited in the armoury of the Ducal Palace of Vila Viçosa, with a 3 cms. caliber, total length 186 cms. with a breech of 44 cms. Then we have two of the seven bombard chambers used in the siege of Baza by the Spanish Catholic Kings in 1489. These have a caliber of 20,5 cms and a length of 142 cms. An at last we have a chamber from the end 14th - beg. 15th century, in exhibition in the Portuguese Navy Museum. With a weight of 1450 Kilos, a length of 1,5 mts. and an exterior diameter of 42 cms. (38 cms. at the muzzle), it would have served a gross bombard or "Trom" of some 4 to 5 mts. length and a muzzle diameter of circa 1,5 mts. . Attached Images Last edited by fernando; 16th February 2016 at 03:14 PM.

1st March 2016, 07:53 AM	#9
Philip Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: California Posts: 1,036	esmerilhão Hi, Fernando Thanks for posting these pics. The swivel rampart gun is most interesting, when I saw the image, something told me "I may have seen that before" and lo, there is a photo of its Far Eastern equivalent in a reference book on Chinese arms. A rather fuzzy black-and-white image, not worth reproducing here, but it shows something very similar to the Vila Viçosa example except for the length (2.2 m) and caliber (2.6 cm). The substantial points of difference on the Chinese gun are the fact that it is mounted on a wheeled 4-footed support, and that it is equipped with an actual matchlock mechanism with a trigger. It is dated 1727, making it about a century younger than the Portuguese counterpart in your photo. In a prior post you use the term berço (cradle) to describe the breechloaders under discussion. The Chinese name for this type of gun is "zimujiang" or child-and-mother gun, the chamber piece corresponding to the baby in a cradle. Lastly, the "scroll" shape at the end of the buttstock is almost identical to that seen on a type of Japanese matchlock "horse pistol" called a bajou-zutsu.

2nd March 2016, 01:49 AM	#11
Philip Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: California Posts: 1,036	Another gift of the Portuguese Fernando, The similarity between the Portuguese and the Chinese examples of the breechloading guns can be explained by the fact that this type of gun with a chamber-piece retained by a "cradle" integral with the barrel is an introduction to the Far East by Europeans. Of course, the Portuguese were there first (although we must admit that the Dutch brought the same technology with them, later). Another name that the Chinese applied to the cradle breechloader was "folangji" or Frankish device. The Portuguese were the first Europeans to reach China in any numbers, and initially they were called Franks, after the Indian and Near Eastern habit of referring to Europeans as "firangi". Portuguese breechloading cannon of the 16th cent. have a remarkable stylistic similarity to their Chinese and Korean counterparts of that period and later. The swiveling "lantaka" cannons of the Malay Archipelago no doubt have a similar origin, also noting that a few rare examples of those are breechloaders as well. You may have seen a few of those in private collections in Portugal as well.

4th February 2016, 09:08 PM	#2
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	A rather challenging question. It does need someone with significant knowledge to provide information on such subject. Until now i have gone myself as far as realizing that, the dimensions of chambers as well as their profile, only had to do with the caliber and type of the different breechloading pieces. A forum member that could potentially explore such area (Matchlock) is now deceased; i wonder whether there are other members who are in possession of such data. Meanwhile if you use the search button you could find further details on breechloaders, although not necessarily what you are looking for.

13th February 2016, 05:52 PM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,942	Fernando, thank for adding this excellent example!! While I have little knowledge on this particular subject, it is fascinating to see what these actually looked like!!

14th February 2016, 09:04 AM	#6
Marcus den toom Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Netherlands Posts: 525	Very little time nowadays to do some sound research on this subject, but Michl did extîensive work on this in his breech loading thread. Dating these breech blocks has mostly to do with the same stylistic criteria as with normal cannons i think. Also the way they where made, wrought or cast? Cast blocks seem to appear at the 1480-1500. The handle on older specimens is also only fastened at the rear. And lastly the older breeches tapers at the mouth and later versions seem to have a socket for sealing it better into the barrel. No good evidence to back up any of this but it seems logical to me when looking at the pictures in the breech loading thread.

1st March 2016, 07:22 PM	#10
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Yes Philip, a peculiar buttstock indeed. I would not reject the possibility of this esmerilhão having a different origin, as so often museum personal fails, if it weren't for the fact that the legend states that, there is an identical example in the palace armoury and another one in the Lisbon Military Museum. It does not mention that identical also comprehends the sock shape but, let us believe so. Curious analogy of the Berço with the Chinese "zimujiang" I was already aware that such connotation is not (only) of Portuguese inspiration. Also the Castillians call it 'verso', but i think i heard the attribution is French. But no doubt the term increased its popularity with King Dom Manuel personal development of this typology by having them forged in one only piece and prepaired for severe endurance; thus the name Berço Manuelino.