The Jaigarh Fort and its cannon ...

[Philip]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

It also seems that a water tank was often placed near guns, particularly large ones, for gunners to literally dive into to avoid the shock wave and it seems the heat from the explosion. I would think more research would be necessary on the validity of that perspective.

With the huge gun, it would seem the very noise of firing it would be a profound declaration of power, and disconcerting to any potential attackers as well as the surrounding populace.

So true, Jim. Consider that when guns appeared at the close of the Middle Ages, their mechanical inefficiency, slow rate of fire, and general unreliability was more than offset by their psychological power. Think noise, smoke, flames, and the stink of sulphur -- just the way that the clergy had been describing Hell from the pulpit for centuries, to an impressionable and superstitious populace. It is not hard to imagine the poor Turkish women miscarrying their babies from sheer fright after a test shot from the bombard that Orban made for Sultan Mehmet II's assault on Constantinople.

The water tank idea is worth researching. I can imagine its utility for gun emplacements in confined quarters within a system of fortifications, such as covered casemates in bastions and towers, or from embrasures located at the base of adjoining ramparts that would confine the effects of muzzle blast on the gun crews. (Recalling, from previous posts, that cannons recoiled some distance when fired and black powder emits a tremendous amount of flame and smoke which open air can only partially dissipate)

Siege narratives from the period describe the hellish conditions to be expected. Especially graphic are the memoirs of knights and soldiers who defended Malta during the Ottoman siege of 1565, where the impact of incoming cannonballs and the detonations of return fire made it feel like the massive walls of Fort Sant' Angelo were rocking like a boat at sea. Losing one's hearing for days afterward was probably just the beginning of some men's misfortunes after enduring this and other privations, especially in a siege which lasted for many weeks, in the heat of a Mediterranean summer no less.

[fernando]

On the Mons Meg ...
I know you guys are more focused on why it cracked, but i find it also interesting to find when it cracked... as attached down below.

On the cannons recoil ...
A problematic issue with artillery aboard ships; even considering that their carriages were tied to the ship walls, to limit their course.
This fell into the complexity of bringing gross artillery aboard, as opposed to earlier conviction that ships could only carry relatively small guns, given to their structure, namely then vessels width (narrow breadth).
In order to achieve success in their sea adventures, the Portuguese invented or took advantage of previous inventions, upgrading their basics. For a start, the heavier guns (camelos) * were mounted aboard the lower board ships (caravels) thus avoiding the tilt caused by such guns on high board carracks (naus), those which were equipped with smaller ordnance for their defense purposes. This was the start of advantage in sea warfare.Then a new idea was to build watertight gunports ** in the ships hull by a lower deck level, thus gaining more fire power and the possibility to shoot fire at the waterline (ao lume d'água), an extraordinary asset, as the ball would take a horizontal trajectory, keeping to bounce off the water surface and hitting the enemy's more lightly built (Turc) ships at water level, causing their quick sinking.


On the water tank episodes ...
Not that this did not take place but, there would be a difference between shooting a gigantic gun in confined spaces, which dual occurrence is not the general rule, and shooting them in the open field, like in siege or beating situations where, apart from the environmental fuss ***, somehow the smoke burn and air dislocation find ways to escape. Notwithstanding that, during artillery primitive ages, all kinds of accidents would take place, where hardly gunners stood safe. For come reason the French used convicted men to operate them .

On the gunpowder quality, Alamo and all ...
It takes a few contextual reasons for gunpowder not being successfully effective; from early times where the invention still had an incipient condition, passing by the difficulty in acquiring the ideal ingredients ***, and ending wth the ineptitude of non specialized makers ... not forgetting climate conditions (humidity) most depending in the place where it is stored.

* As these guns shot stone projectiles (pelouros), their lower density, as opposed to iron, made thin barrels feasible, and the resultant pieces were remarkably light when compared to their destructive power.

** This revolutionary idea is attributed to a Descharges, but other nations started by declining it, with fears to weaken the ships hull structure. But the Portuguese, circa four years earlier, took the risk, by placing them in pondered hull spots, as it was fundamental to lower the artillery center of gravity.

*** Philip is right in that the Constantinople crowd ran for their lives over Mehmed's massive cannon firing endlessly on the walls, but maybe the effect from the assailants side was not so unbearable, specially spaced by the extremely slow rate of its reloading; adding by the way that (as i've read), its imprecision gave the besieged the opportunity to repair most of the damage after each shot, limiting the cannon's effect.
Is such story plausible, Philip ?
This being true, such cannon reloading procedure gave a chance for the Turcs to dry their bodies between each diving into water tank.

**** Such look for precious gunpowder raw materials may be observed in the third attached text.

So long ...


.

[kronckew]

Cannons were usually fired with the muzzles outside their embrasures, and the heat, smoke and pressure waves were mostly (but not all) directed forward away from the crew, who learned quickly not to stand forward of the muzzle, or behind the carriage. A 'loose cannon' was a danger to all.

Any excess powder un-burnt outside the barrel is essentially wasted as it has no effect on propelling the projectile, just in making noise and heat. Establishing the correct charge would require a few firings of it or a close 'standard'relative and would also depend on the quality of the powder. Originally the overly hygroscopic powder was rather finely ground before mechanically mixing and tended not only to absorb moisture, but would rapidly separate if shaken during transport or storage. It also had a nasty habit of exploding and killing the mixers. Early Cannon masters on average were not old men as they had their own secret and personal recipes as to it's constituents and how to grind and mix the stuff. They learned not to use any iron/steel fittings, tool, nails, just brass or bronze, which is non-sparking. (felt slippers, as iron boot nails were also a no-no.)

Wet mixing and extrusion into known sized strings of known lengths along with sieving, corning, was not only more consistent, but less hygroscopic, and did not settle out. standardising the grains into the F system resulted in standard and consistent results. As did sealing it into tins rather than wood barrels. Even ww2 Iowa class battleships stored their bagged powder in non-sparking sealed tins in their magazines.

Now on to the mystery behind the letter 'F'. The letter 'F' stands for "Fine" and dates back to the time when the grains were designated F or C (for "coarse" grains). The number of times the letter F occurs in the powder grade shows the average size of the powder grains. The more times the letter F occurs in the name, the smaller the grains. What this means is that the size of "FFFg" grains are smaller than "FFg" grains, and "FFFFg" is even smaller than these two. When black powder is manufactured, the grains are sorted through sieves of standard sizes and classified that way.


Powder-Grade----Mesh-Size----Average-Size-in-mm.

Whaling------------4-mesh-------4.750-mm.-(0.187-in.)
Cannon-------------6-mesh-------3.35-mm.-(0.132-in.)
Saluting-(A-1)----10-mesh------2.0-mm.-(0.079-in.)
Fg-------------------12-mesh------1.7-mm.-(0.0661-in.)
FFg-----------------16-mesh------1.18-mm.-(0.0469-in.)
FFFg---------------20-mesh------0.85-mm.-(0.0331-in.)
FFFFg-------------40-mesh------0.47-mm.
FFFFFg-----------75-mesh------0.149-mm.

Note that the first 3 grades are intended for use with cannon. The A-1 grade is generally used for artillery blanks used for firing gun salutes. Fg is made for using in large bore rifles and shotguns (8-gauge and larger). FFg powder is used for historical small arms such as muskets, fusils, rifles and large pistols. FFFg powder is for smaller caliber rifles (below .45 caliber), pistols, cap-and-ball revolvers, derringers etc. FFFFg and FFFFFg are mostly used as priming powder for flintlocks. In the image above, the two grades of powder were intended to be used in a historical re-enactment and the FFg powder was meant for the main powder charge of a flintlock rifle, while the FFFFg powder was intended to be used in the pan of the flintlock as a priming powder.

[Jim McDougall]

Guys, these are amazing and powerfully informational entries, thank you so much! I have been hitting the books for it seems countless hours of every day trying to augment the thorough detail and insight you have both been adding here. As someone who has studied weapons most of my life, it is amazing to finally have growing understanding of these dynamics.
Fernando, your post of 'interest' in an unusual cannon has led this thread to develop into a diverse discussion on artillery which I think will warrant intriguing discussions on separate threads on these diverse topics.
Gratefully, may I say,well done...again it is exciting to learn from you guys which bolsters the research I am doing as well.

Philip, thank you for your detailed response!
As you note, the psychological effect of these huge guns must have been powerful, as the dramatic effect of gunpowder from its early development in China to the advance of firearms eventually in Europe are well known.

From what I have learned on gunpowder (I know that technically it was 'black powder' ironically not really black but grayish)..this compound of varied components was often termed 'serpentine'.
This goes to the nicknaming of many cannon using that term, and perhaps allusion to fire breathing dragons etc.
With that, the curious gun terms we have discussed brings to mind, the 'dragon' a term for a cavalry (?) firearm, hence the term 'dragoons' for mounted soldiers.

As you have described, it must have been hellish in confined spaces no matter in what degree with the expulsion not only of heat, but the debilitating if not deadly gasses discharged with firing. The shock wave and deafening noise had to have been equally threatening.

In early times and in cultures even into the Middle Ages, the susceptible nature of people to superstition, myth and lore must have brought to mind the same 'hellish' associations as with blacksmiths who worked with fire and mysterious materials in their craft. These aspects of warfare and weaponry are fascinating historically, and certainly come to mind with these huge cannons.

Fernando, absolutely intriguing synopsis of the elements of this discussion and its diverse topics featured. I especially very much appreciate learning more on the appropriate placement of the cannon aboard ships, which is something I don't think is often thought of in the study of naval warfare.
I think the Portuguese were way ahead of the game in these considerations as it seems ships like the 'Vasa' in Sweden toppled over due to improper distribution of weight, most likely the abundance of cannon.
I believe I once read that the curious numbers marked on naval cannon (besides weight) were indicating what position on the ship the guns were to be placed.
Lowering the CG (center of gravity.....I well learned in the airline business with weight and balance for aircraft) is brilliantly noted as well as its additional purpose in hitting the target at the water level ).

I agree that the numbers and sorts of accidents taking place with the firing of artillery must have been many, as the volatility and conditions involved were pretty much the recipe for disaster with the slightest oversight. I think that accidental explosion with too fast reloading and possibility of residual embers sparking ignition was probably a problem. It makes sense that a certain and timely procedure was prudent if not essential to complete the protocols of loading properly.

With the considerations of powder, as has been noted in the Alamo context, the production of gunpowder is a curiously overlooked figment of history as far as many military situations. Saltpeter, an essential component, was a tightly controlled commodity, and while it can feasibly be processed 'naturally' using handy and openly available materials, it takes skill and knowledge to compose it effectively.

I have noted that in the positioning of the Texian forces in the Alamo compound, ironically there were numbers of weapons, guns, and materials captured from General Cos who had previously held the Alamo earlier. Again, ironically, the Texian forces had captured it from him, and in their assault had pummeled the structure with their cannon.

When the decision came to defend the Alamo came months later, the order was to remove the guns and destroy the remaining structure. When Neill, the commander of Texian troops realized he had insufficient means to transport the guns, that bolstered the decision to stay.

Unfortunately , the pummeling of much of the Alamo structures by the Texians had weakened them so they were difficult to fortify when the decision to stand was made. In actuality, the consistent bombardment of Santa Annas weak artillery contingent was more of an annoyance than effective barrage. The guns were antiquated, insufficient in size and the miserable powder (as discussed) was entirely inadequate. Only minimal damage was caused mostly in already weakened sections.

I had though that perhaps General Cos, in his departure from the Alamo, might have purposely 'fouled' the powder stores left there as he had a penchant for disabling abandoned material. However it sounds as if the Mexican powder was so bad that it was hardly necessary to try to make it worse. This store of powder was unfortunately the stock that the Texians had left to use, and one of the reasons the idea of abundant artillery as a factor in a potential siege in this case was pure folly.

On that note, I hope to start another thread on the Alamo topic, pending further research, as has been suggested to keep the focus here on the original topic, which as I say is a fascinating foray into the subject of artillery.

Thank you again guys!!!


Wayne, we crossed posts and I just saw yours. Outstanding!! This is just the kind of information I was up half the night trying to find on powder grade and composition...thank you!!!

[fernando]

Wayne, interesting entry and wise words on what concerns risks involving proximity to cannon discharges and fabrication of gunpowder. Let me guess however that your last paragraph/s on powder classification and those 'FF' specs skip over a few centuries to a fresh context ... re-enactment purposes and all .
On the saluting and warning salvos, i wouldn't know whether (Portuguese) gunners used weaker powder for those or, even if that used with the warning discharges was 'convincingly' accompanied by ammo; i have read about both salvos in chronicles, but it would be such a task to go looking for such details in bulky books.
Still we can not forget that gunners in such (discoveries) period would not leave home without doing their home work. To add that they would be competent enough to empirically deal with the necessary components they had to resource in wherever location with whatever quality out there, when running out of the stocks they took with, at departure ... something i know for sure did happen. We also know that eventually they also taught locals here and there how to mix the stuff; no secrets resist a fair price .

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by fernando

Wayne, interesting entry and wise words on what concerns risks involving proximity to cannon discharges and fabrication of gunpowder. Let me guess however that your last paragraph/s on powder classification and those 'FF' specs skip over a few centuries to a fresh context ... re-enactment purposes and all . ...

Picky, Picky,Picky.

the "F" classification was a US thing from the latter half of the 19c & still in use for 'modern' Black powder weapons which are still very popular for target shooting and hunting,
...and re-enactments.

Earlier gradations can be found in the US Ordinance manual. See below, handy thing to keep a copy of, you can download a 20 mb pdf version from the link I enclose below. (too big to attach here)

UK designations:

For larger cannon, a powder designated as "Large Grain" or L.G. was used, until the advent of rifled cannon, at which point a powder called R.L.G (Rifled Large Grain) was introduced. This powder worked well for cannon of smaller calibre, but when guns of 7 inches and larger calibres were introduced, it was found advisable to use a slower burning powder than R.L.G, at which point, Pebble powders (P and P2) were introduced. These were larger grain powders of cubical-shaped grains. P powder grains were about 5/8 inch per side and P2 powder grains were 1.5 inch cubes.

For small arms, a more rapidly burning powder is required, and therefore these are much smaller grains on average than the ones above. In England, there were four grades of powder produced for small arms:

Fine Grain (F.G.) powder to be used by smooth-bore firearms (e.g.) the Brown Bess musket. This powder was also used for the charge of 7 pounder muzzle loading cannon and for the bursting charge of shrapnel shells.
Rifle Fine Grain (R.F.G.) powder, to be used by most rifled small arms, except the Martini-Henry rifle and pistols.
Rifle Fine Grain 2 (R.F.G.2) powder, to be used by the Martini-Henry cartridge.
Pistol powder, to be used by pistols and revolvers such as the Colt Single Action revolver and the Deane-Adams revolvers. This is a quick burning powder and is suitable for shorter barrels, where a slower burning powder would not finish burning within the barrel completely. Since it is a very quick burning powder, it was also used for shrapnel shells.

These powders were classified based on grain size and density and were separated by passing the grains of powder through sieves. Sieves are designated according to the number of divisions per linear inch. Therefore, a 4-mesh sieve has 16 holes per square inch, an 8-mesh sieve has 64 holes per square inch and so on. R.F.G. powder should pass through a 12-mesh sieve, but not through a 20-mesh sieve, and have a density of about 1.6. R.F.G.2 powder should also pass through a 12-mesh sieve, but not through a 20-mesh sieve, however the density is higher than R.F.G. powder at 1.72. F.G. powder should pass through a 16-mesh, but not through a 36-mesh, while pistol powder should pass through a 44-mesh, but not a 72-mesh.

In addition to these powders designated for service small arms, there were also powders classed as "Blank powders", used for training purposes. As with the above powders, these were also made in different grain sizes, (e.g. Blank R.L.G., Blank R.F.G., Blank F.G. and so on). These were made from recycled gunpowder from old shells and broken ammunition boxes and only used for firing salutes and training rounds, where the full power of ammunition was not considered critical.

Serpentine Powder charge table for various bore sizes is attached.

The US Army 1862 Ordinance Manual can be downloaded from:
https://books.google.co.uk/books/dow...w1ENDvkigVCrZA

It contains the American seive sizings from the period. It also has an extensive section on formulation, chemicals used, actually making black powder from scratch, both dry mix 'serpentine' used thru the 17c into the 18th, and corned.

Serpentine powder charge chart for naval cannon sizes:

[fernando]

Originally Posted by kronckew

... Picky, Picky,Picky...

Sorry old chum; just trying to keep things from flying away from the topic context .

This is how gunpowder was typified circa 1500's:
"I left in Goa fifty pipas (barrels) of Bombard gunpowder and two of espingarda (musket), In Chaul i left fifteen pipas of bombard gunpowder and two of espingarda, In Cochim three hundred quintais (hundredweights) of gunpowder. In Cananor twenty pipas for bombard and two for espingarda".
(Lopo Vaz de Sampaio, Governor of India 1526-29)

Potentially repeating what has been said, 'serpentine' gunpowder was by far more susceptible of accidents, due to spontaneous combustion, than that more stabilized powder in grain, which was implemented by Portuguese (for one, of course ), in the first half XVI century, where from then, accidents mostly occurred due to users carelessness.
Probably also said that Sulphur, easily inflammable, caused the alteration of saltpeter properties, accelerating its combustion. Climate action could also be a culprit for powder components alteration.
In the siege of Arzila (1509) while wandering to find an adequate place to 'plant' their artillery, the Camel (cannon) ignited and shot itself.
Things were more critical (as already approached by Philip, for one ) in confined spaces. In Santa Cruz do Cabo Guer (Morocco), fire started in a little of gunpowder, which bursted the tower with the whole artillery, where Rodrigo de Carvalhal, his brother and other thirty seven men have died..
According to D. Jerónimo de Mascarenhas (1611-71), a gunner carelessness caused that the gunpowder kept at the (fortification) wall caught fire, which could have caused a serious accident.

On a different note and back to India, attached a new picture of the Jaivana, this time with the advantage of having Mr. Narendra Singh under it, which gives us a more realistic idea of its dimensions. Note that this is/was tagged, not as the largest cannon out there but, the largest wheeled cannon out there ... which makes a 'little' difference.


.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... I especially very much appreciate learning more on the appropriate placement of the cannon aboard ships, which is something I don't think is often thought of in the study of naval warfare...

Professor John F. Guilmartin Jr. (deceased) is one that weaved comprehensive considerations about these issues, having eventually present them in congresses. However he is himself the one surprised for such basic historical stuff not being more widespread

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... I think the Portuguese were way ahead of the game in these considerations ...

Indeed the Portuguese experienced naval hegemony with such advanced gains ... but for no more than two short centuries. Still, what could they do, coming from a nation the side of a backyard, having to provide for human and material means for the zillion places they were in, at the same time.
Still, they had their moments of glory ... even if ephemeral.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I agree that the numbers and sorts of accidents taking place with the firing of artillery must have been many, as the volatility and conditions involved were pretty much the recipe for disaster with the slightest oversight. I think that accidental explosion with too fast reloading and possibility of residual embers sparking ignition was probably a problem. It makes sense that a certain and timely procedure was prudent if not essential to complete the protocols of loading properly.

Yes, Jim, gunnery drill was a pretty intensive exercise requiring a high degree of coordination and teamwork on the part of the crew, with requisite attention to sequence and detail. Elements of the process that modern gun crews are free of include loading and seating the powder, wads, and projectile separately and in correct order from the muzzle, and (due to the lack of recoil-dampening mechanisms) rolling the piece back "to battery" before firing.

Black powder combustion creates not only a thick cloud of smoke, but also deposits a lot of residue in the bore and touchhole, which build up noticeably with each shot. If not properly addressed at prescribed intervals, this can lead to some undesirable effects. Seating the projectile and the wads with the rammer can be impeded; ideally the components should be in contact, without excessive tamping nor (more seriously) air spaces in between which could result in a dangerous rise in internal pressures causing the barrel to burst. A clogged touchhole is a recipe for a misfire.

The residue, being largely carbonaceous, can also harbor hot spots or embers left after firing, creating the hazard that you mention.

The proper and timely use of some important tools made this problem manageable. The cannonier, in addition to his quadrant, firing tables, and other aiming equipment, carried a pricker to clear out the touchhole between shots. The crew needed several long-handled implements besides the linstock, rammer and powder scoop -- these included a stiff-bristled bore brush, a cylindrical swab surfaced with sheeps-wool, and a barrel scraper consisting of opposed semi-circular blades spring-mounted on a staff. Old military prints also show a bucket swinging under the axle-tree of a caisson (the two wheeled ammo and equipment cart hitched to the gun carriage for transport). Water was essential for washing out the bore after use, and also to cool down a barrel which became too hot from firing in succession.

(The messy nature of the propellant made frequent cleaning necessary on users of small arms as well. Since we started out on the subject of India, I'd like to close by mentioning the common appearance of touchhole pricks on little chains attached to the stocks of Indian matchlocks or toradors. On specimens where these are missing, you can often see the eyebolt which held the chain as well as the slender conical metal pocket to hold the pick when not in use.)

[kronckew]

The most common way to clean a BP weapon was with water. In battle, if a soldier's weapon gets fouled & hard to load/fire, they would, if no water was available, urinate into it to flush out the residue. The use of the clever Minie bullet rather than a tightly patched ball not only increased range and accuracy, but it's loose fit made it easier to ram down a fouled musket, increasing the number of rounds you could fire between cleanings.

Touch holes evolved from match locks thru flintlock and percussion locks into using friction primer tubes that cleared the vent as well as poked thru a cloth cartridge into the powder charge for more reliable ignition. The gun captain would insert the primer, clip his firing line to the ring on the primer and, after stepping clear and ensuring the rest of the crew was clear, a tug fired the cannon.

Cannon Rounds were, in the latter years of muzzle loading artillery, frequently made up ahead of time into caseless cartridges with the bagged powder topped with an attached ball strapped to a wooden sabot that could be rammed down as a unit to save time. They also helped avoid the embarrassment of the ball rolling out if you had to depress the muzzle for close range shots.

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks Philip!
I had wondered why so many crew were needed, but with all the steps and protocols it is completely understandable. Thinking of it, even musket drill was pretty complex.

Regarding tools I think of the notorious 'bombardiers stilettos' of Venice, and the mysterious scales of numbers on their blades. The gunners were a select group, and when the stiletto (used as an assassins weapon) was outlawed, allegedly these scales were spuriously placed on blades to warrant the legitimacy of the holders carrying of it. Thus, anyone could carry one as long as they claimed to be a 'gunner'.

The claim was these numbers were to gauge powder amounts, and the pitted state of some of the blades suggests plausibility due to the corrosive effects of powder. However, others say it was to gauge caliber for ammunition .
In any case, the 'gunner' had a certain mystique and was afforded a level of regard for his skills as I have understood. It seems that in other cases, these guys firing guns were deemed expendable, as the guns and powder were so antiquated, powder compromised and subject to focused attack.

With the prickers you mention, in India many of the officers of the native cavalry regiments had elaborate silver brocade cross belts with plates having regimental devices. On these, I have seen arrow shaped prickers on chains to be used on the flintlock pistols they carried. Whether these were actually used or vestigial like their shoulder chains I dont know.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Regarding tools I think of the notorious 'bombardiers stilettos' of Venice, and the mysterious scales of numbers on their blades. The gunners were a select group, and when the stiletto (used as an assassins weapon) was outlawed, allegedly these scales were spuriously placed on blades to warrant the legitimacy of the holders carrying of it. Thus, anyone could carry one as long as they claimed to be a 'gunner'.

The claim was these numbers were to gauge powder amounts, and the pitted state of some of the blades suggests plausibility due to the corrosive effects of powder. However, others say it was to gauge caliber for ammunition .

Oh, here we go on yet another digression, I'm sure the Topic Police / Relevance Constabulary will be raiding this thread soon...

May I refer you to a wonderful little article, one of few focusing on gunners' fusetti (and in English, thankfully) -- "Gunner's Daggers" by Marcello Terenzi, published in the anthology Arms and Armor Annual, Vol. I (and may I add, the only volume) ed. Robert Held, 1973, pp 170-79 Just about everything you wanted to know about these things is there. The author was a renowned expert on Italian firearms in general. This article on the daggers is especially instructive because he includes examples of fake fusetti from various periods, a great resource for collectors because the majority of these in the marketplace are spurious, in ways that are obvious to anyone who really understands them.

Given your interest in Spanish firearms and the importance of Cataluña in arming the Spain's New World colonies, the book also contains Eudaldo Graells' "A Primer of Ripoll Gunlocks" in English translation which is most welcome since most of this author's writing has been published in Spanish or Catalan and are difficult to locate on the antiquarian book market.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Philip

Oh, here we go on yet another digression, I'm sure the Topic Police / Relevance Constabulary will be raiding this thread soon...

May I refer you to a wonderful little article, one of few focusing on gunners' fusetti (and in English, thankfully) -- "Gunner's Daggers" by Marcello Terenzi, published in the anthology Arms and Armor Annual, Vol. I (and may I add, the only volume) ed. Robert Held, 1973, pp 170-79 Just about everything you wanted to know about these things is there. The author was a renowned expert on Italian firearms in general. This article on the daggers is especially instructive because he includes examples of fake fusetti from various periods, a great resource for collectors because the majority of these in the marketplace are spurious, in ways that are obvious to anyone who really understands them.

Given your interest in Spanish firearms and the importance of Cataluña in arming the Spain's New World colonies, the book also contains Eudaldo Graells' "A Primer of Ripoll Gunlocks" in English translation which is most welcome since most of this author's writing has been published in Spanish or Catalan and are difficult to locate on the antiquarian book market.

PERFECT analogy Philip!!!
Actually long ago I learned that very good discussions may often meander off their course with sometimes even tenuously connected subjects, but that is the powerful learning aspect of such interaction. I have often made many key discoveries through pure serendipity, which led to other searches while giving the topic at hand far broader perspective .
While the 'curiouser and curiouser' quote (also from Alice) was of course playful linguistic use in Carroll's book, it has become the defined as 'eagerness to learn or know something'. ….exactly as being one here

Having said that, thank you very much for the references on the 'gunners daggers', and as always for providing such detail on these important sources.
The reason I had brought these 'stilettos' up was due to the more mundane use of these thin bladed daggers to 'spike' the touchhole of cannon in case of abandonment. As we had been discussing the 'tools' used by these gun crews I thought of this action along with all the measuring, positioning, calculating range etc. required as part of the duties of these gun crews.

Turning again to the comparison I mentioned in my earlier post of the huge cannon used in the 1957 movie, "The Pride and the Passion", I have found that the Jaivana cannon was actually the inspiration for the 1933 novel "The Gun" by E F Forester which the movie was based on.

Fernando thank you again for the resounding detail and information on the Mons Meg phenomenon, and especially the images associated. I had neglected to thank you for the important perspective suggesting the probable 'political' nature of the unfortunate bursting of the gun in 1680. This discussion had brought forth key insights into the nature of this huge gun with the construction using iron staves...which seems to be the manner of construction of the breech loader deck or swivel guns of 16th-18th c.
I found it interesting that the term 'murderer' was used for Mons Meg, and one form of the deck guns (with stave construction) was also termed 'the murderer'.
Wonder if any connection?

To colloquial nicknames for guns, the 'Baselisk' again falls into the serpentine simile as this is a legendary snakelike creature in medieval lore, so deadly even its glance can cause death.

The photos attached from the 1957 movie.

Fernando and Wayne, well observed on the sectioning of the Mons Meg is indeed logistically advantageous, but with possible issues as Fernando notes with escape of gasses etc.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...In any case, the 'gunner' had a certain mystique and was afforded a level of regard for his skills as I have understood...

They were a selective bunch indeed; even sometimes considered wizards, due to their extreme importance. A master gunner or, in determined circumstances, a 'simple' gunner, would have to be able to use the pendulum, the square and the quadrant, for the calculation of projectiles trajectory. Knowledgements like how to use fireworks and artillery foundry processes were also required. They also would have to be able to read, write ad count, as well as to make gunpowder, scorch saltpeter, fabricate charcoal and other powder components and know about weights and measurements.
Eventually they were not considered as military but as artisans (at least in Portugal in early times), although they were prized by their superiors, materially and with privileges, to make them do a good job.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by fernando

. A master gunner or, in determined circumstances, a 'simple' gunner, would have to be able to use the pendulum, the square and the quadrant, for the calculation of projectiles trajectory. Knowledgements like how to use fireworks and artillery foundry processes were also required. They also would have to be able to read, write ad count...

Yes, Nando, it's true that the first gunners were looked at with a mixture of awe and fear, for having this powerful and frightening thing in their hands, whose noise, fire, and sulphurous stench suggested ties to the Devil. But it wasn't long before modern science began to take over and thus we see the huge advances in artillery design and practice during the 16th cent. all over Europe. We must look to Renaissance Italy as the starting point:

1. Metallurgy and metal fabrication -- Vanoccio Biringuccio's Pirotecnica (1540) is a lucid and detailed compendium of 10 books, over 400 pages' worth in a modern English translation, of the state of the art as of the first half of the century. Book VI, of 10 chapters, covers gun- and bell-founding with tables of standard sizes and weights, and Book VII covers furnaces and molds, and also the making of cannon-balls and the designs of cannon carriages. The author (born 1480) who devoted his adult life to working in the metals industry, including the casting of large cannon. This book is a landmark in technical writing, standing out for its just-the-facts prose, avoiding the inclusion of lore and superstition, as well as flowery allusions to classical mythology, which characterised the literature of the era. The work has seen several editions through the centuries, including partial translations into other languages including Latin and Spanish.

2, Mathematics: Gunners had to do more than just be able to count. During the first half of the 16th cent., the practice became more science than art with the development of powerful tools created by the Venetian mathematician Niccolò Fontana "il Tartaglia" (his nickname The Stammerer came from a speech impediment caused when a French soldier cut his head with a sword when as a kid he had the misfortune of being in a war zone). Tartaglia revolutionized the study of ballistics when he, an avid student of the Greek thinkers, was able to prove mathematically that a projectile traveled in a parabolic trajectory. Not, as Aristotle posited, going straight through the air and then dropping abruptly to earth when its inertia was spent and gravity took over. From this, he was able to calculate the correlation of projectile range to barrel elevation, all else being equal. The figures were compiled into books of tables which became must-have field references for gunners all over the Western world and were disseminated to Eastern armies whose artillery corps were coached by mercenary trainers from Portugal and elsewhere. Tartaglia's studies were also the bases for the invention of several devices for the accurate aiming of cannon, the most important being the gunner's quadrant, which had a service life of over 3 centuries, and which is depicted in military manuals and art from as far away as India and China.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by fernando

*** Philip is right in that the Constantinople crowd ran for their lives over Mehmed's massive cannon firing endlessly on the walls, but maybe the effect from the assailants side was not so unbearable, specially spaced by the extremely slow rate of its reloading; adding by the way that (as i've read), its imprecision gave the besieged the opportunity to repair most of the damage after each shot, limiting the cannon's effect.
Is such story plausible, Philip ?

.

Nando, the incident with Mehmet's cannon that I summarized in the earlier post was taken from Turkish chronicles much-quoted by historians such as Runciman, Babinger, and Lord Kinross writing about Mehmet the Conqueror and his career. The description was not from a siege memoir, but rather focuses on the pre-siege test-firing of the largest gun (named Basilisc) that the renegade Hungarian Orban made for Mehmet at the foundry at Edirne (former Greek Adrianople, by then in Ottoman hands). The populace had been warned of the test shot in advance and told not to panic, but apparently the noise (said to be audible for 100 stadia or 10 miles) and the massive amount of smoke did cause a lot of consternation. Measurements in the chronicle allow us to picture a 26.5 foot barrel with a bore roughly 30 in. in diameter, shooting a stone ball weighing 12 hundredweight (over half a ton). Fifteen yoked pair of oxen and 700 men were required to shlep this thing from foundry to test site and ready it for firing. The first shot was said to propel the huge sphere for about a mile, and it buried itself six feet into the earth on impact.

It is believed that the guns used to batter Constantinople's Theodosian ramparts (visible in restored condition today) were not mounted in carriages as we know them, but rather propped on earthen berms to provide the requisite elevation. As such, accuracy was nil but Orban was not idly boasting when he told the Sultan that his creations could batter the walls of Babylon into ruin. The projectiles did tremendous damage when they did connect. A slow rate of fire and susceptibility to damage (such as bursting) also compromised the effectiveness of these cannon. Basilisc only managed three shots daily, and became inoperative after several weeks.

Nando, your observations are spot on. The effect on defenders' morale, not to mention that of the civilian non-combatants within the walls, must have been horrendous. Weapons of this size and power were a relative novelty to most people of the era, even seasoned soldiers. It's true that a very slow rate of fire allowed the defenders to shore up the breeches to help repel infantry assaults, but repeated exposure must have been wearing. Considering that...

...According to historian Steven Runciman, under 7000 Byzantine soldiers and foreign Christian volunteers and mercenaries had to defend 14 miles of walls and gates(counting both landward and seaward defenses) against some 80,000 Turks (inclusive of elite troops, regular troops, and irregulars) who attacked on land and water, with the help of cannon. Guns which Orban originally offered to the Byzantine emperor, who refused to pay his asking price!

One would imagine that the Turkish rank and file got used to the presence of these monsters especially the infantry who saw how they could make the job of taking a massively-walled city somewhat easier on them. However, as in Europe, guns and the men who served them must have engendered fear and mistrust for reasons given in prior posts. Another history of the siege which I have read states that Basilisc actually exploded at one point -- reinforcing the idea that the dicey metallurgy and design of early cannon could make them as dangerous to shooters as to the intended targets.

Which brings me to admit an oversight that I made earlier -- in that the bombards used in Europe, with their forged wrought iron stave-and-hoop construction, were quite a different breed of cat from Orban's creations. The period documentation indicates that Mehmet's siege cannon were cast -- in the case of Basilisc, in a foundry at the Ottoman capital. Although Basilisc has not survived, a huge Turkish cannon made just a decade or so later has -- the so-called Dardanelles Gun which can be seen today at Ft. Nelson, above Portsmouth. It's safe to conclude that its construction mirrors that of Orban's designs (he didn't live beyond the year of the siege). Even more remarkable is the fact that this gun, and smaller ones of the era still existing in Turkey, are of two -piece construction, the chamber section is screw-threaded into the barrel proper with remarkable precision for the day. Amazing!

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Philip

...The description was not from a siege memoir, but rather focuses on the pre-siege test-firing of the largest gun (named Basilisc...

News for me: i realized that Basilisc was a type of large cannon and not the name of Mehmet's beast. The famous "Tiro de Diu" kept in the Lisbon Military museum (to revisit) is equally tagged as a basilisc.

Originally Posted by Philip

... only managed three shots daily, and became inoperative after several weeks...

Oh boy, given all troubles managing this monster, cited above and under, it takes a lot of determination to include it in the operations. If only the Sultan had to maneuver it himself .

Originally Posted by Philip

...Which brings me to admit an oversight that I made earlier -- in that the bombards used in Europe, with their forged wrought iron stave-and-hoop construction, were quite a different breed of cat from Orban's creations. The period documentation indicates that Mehmet's siege cannon were cast -- in the case of Basilisc, in a foundry at the Ottoman capital...

Timelines are more or less coincidental. Around this period the Duchy of Burgundy, the greatest military power around, engaged in relations with the Portuguese Kingdom and great numbers of material were received, namely 134 fire mouths (cannons), from which some were in bronze. It is evident that this material was used in the North African campaigns, when looking at the Pastrana tapisseries. It is natural, quoting General Barata that, soon after, between end Dom Afonso V realm and beg. that of Dom Manuel I (1480-95) bronze cannon manufacture was initiated in Portugal.

Originally Posted by Philip

... Although Basilisc has not survived, a huge Turkish cannon made just a decade or so later has -- the so-called Dardanelles Gun which can be seen today at Ft. Nelson, above Portsmouth. It's safe to conclude that its construction mirrors that of Orban's designs (he didn't live beyond the year of the siege)...

I was reading about this one the other day; among some confusion over both being 'allocated' to the Constantinople siege episode, the Dardanelles one would have being cast by Munir Ali in 1464, notwithstanding in an Orban's fashion. Also its weight is impressive; when coming to comparisons like that with the Mons Meg, we are talking about more than the double weight, despite their other specs being (almost) similar. Alright, the Mons Meg is in iron and this one is bronze, but the difference, i guess, resides more in its massive (thickness) construction.

Originally Posted by Philip

... Even more remarkable is the fact that this gun, and smaller ones of the era still existing in Turkey, are of two -piece construction, the chamber section is screw-threaded into the barrel proper with remarkable precision for the day. Amazing! ...

Yes, this idea to build it in two halves, apparently to facilitate its transport, is genius ... screwing cog rings and all. What one may be not so sure of is if, while this was a rather smart logistic asset, its susceptibility to gases escaping would not be a serious issue.


.

[kronckew]

Mons Meg: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mons_Meg

Another Photo broadside, and of the section that failed, retiring the weapon (It's just a flesh wound). Looks like a hoop failure. Apparently range was around 2 miles, balls have been found that far away from it's firing point. note the holes for tools used in re-assembling the screwed parts. Probably a slightly bigger set like the coupling tool also below.