Bombardier stilettos

[Jim McDougall]

Does anyone out there have an example of the so called 'bombardier' stilettos, with graduated lines and numerics presumed to measure charges?

[kisak]

Hessink had one for sale a while ago: http://hessink.nl/Webalbum/thor/wapens/1396_frame.htm

There's also one on display in the Army Museum in Stockholm. I'm not sure if I forgot to take a picture of the museum's description, or if it might have been lacking altogether. Either way, I'm afraid I can't provide any information beyond the picture itself there. It's displayed in a manner suggesting it was a gunner's item though.

[celtan]

It is most certainly an 17th-18thC. gunner's stiletto. A friend of mine has one. I never understood what the numbers meant: Bore?

How was it used? Was it stuck in the charge, to adjust it for reach by removing excess?

M

Originally Posted by kisak

Hessink had one for sale a while ago: http://hessink.nl/Webalbum/thor/wapens/1396_frame.htm

There's also one on display in the Army Museum in Stockholm. I'm not sure if I forgot to take a picture of the museum's description, or if it might have been lacking altogether. Either way, I'm afraid I can't provide any information beyond the picture itself there. It's displayed in a manner suggesting it was a gunner's item though.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you guys, I'm not sure what made me think of these, but I'm trying to find an article on them around here somewhere.
I cant figure the numbers either...it seems if to measure an amount of powder, the number near the hilt must represent a huge charge.

All the best,
Jim

[broadaxe]

Here is a nice one from Oriental-Arms, bought by a good friend of mine.
http://www.oriental-arms.com/photos.php?id=2314
We had this dagger replicated by a knifemaker, with interchanging blades (they were taken from fencing foils therefore have square cross section rather triangle one): one has a sharp point and the other has a safety button for training. Here is a photo, and another photo of a similar one from an old booklet in Italian, dealing exclusively with gunner's stiletto.

[Rick]

Blade possibly maked with bore sizes and shot weight for each bore ??

[katana]

Hi Jim ,
I believe that the 'gunners stiletto' was issued as a last ditch weapon in case the artillary positions were over-run. I also know that the markings on the blades had various meanings and were not necessailly 'standardised'.
and were often used to clear cannon-fuse touch holes.

Many were scribed with marks indicating levels of powder charges (think car engine dip stick)

Some were marked off with a scale for converting the bore of the gun into the weight of the shot required

Others also had scales to calculated trajectory angles

http://webprojects.prm.ox.ac.uk/arms...n/1884.24.216/

Regards David

[broadaxe]

The gunner's stiletto was used to measure bore & shot diameter in conjunction with a compass/dividers (rare version opens up to be a compass for itself). Powder charge was measured by sticking the blade into a known volume charge cup.

Interesting note, since the "regular" stiletto was often forbidden to carry by civilians, as being an assassin's weapon, the gunner's stiletts has been regarded as a legit tool of the trade. Some researchers suspect that a relatively large amount of marked blade stilettos exist to these days because this was an attempt to surpass the rule.

[celtan]

So...

Gunner Stilettos had different sets of markings? Perhaps even more than one type?

ie. One for the bore, another for the charge?

Were specific stilettos made for individual guns?

I say this, because same depth of a packed charge means different explosive loads with different diameter charges (calibers).

Same caliber shells required different loads according to the desired reach. I understand that sometimes the barrel was loaded with BP up to half its length, for maximun ability "to reach out and touch someone..."

Regarding the stiletto being used to clean vents, those vents would have needed to be rather large. The one my friend has wouldn't fit in the 17-18th C cannons we have preserved here...

Did vents increase in width according to the gun calibers and lenghts?

Best

Manuel Luis

[Jim McDougall]

Outstanding observations everybody, and very informative, as being a complete novice at artillery and firearms dynamics and nomenclature the things noted here really add perspective.

I noted I had been trying to find a long forgotten article on this esoteric topic, and after considerable excavation here in the bookmobile, I found it!
It is titled "Gunners Daggers" Marcello Terenzi, in 'The Arms and Armor Annual' ed. Robt. Held, 1973.

The information in the article pretty much corresponds to all of the observations and notes shared here, but I did find an interesting angle adding to the mystery. Apparantly, just as noted, the stiletto was indeed outlawed as an insidious weapon, and numerous examples of these seem to prevail with numbers seeming nonsensical in comparison to known numerics applying to artillery of the times. These are considered to be stilettos marked in this way to circumvent the law.....but it is noted that the calibers of guns changed over time with use, and the casting of ammunition was anything but standard. While that would seem to explain the variation in scales, but according to the article, measurement was accomplished through a mid point at the barrel, and other 'back to back' means.

What was interesting is that these stilettos were typically noted as Venetian, as they do indeed seem N. Italian weapons of 17th-18th century, but more curious is the 1661 edict that actually granted permission to wear these to 'certain persons'..who were stated 'bonified artillerymen'. This edict was pronounced by the considerably mysterious Council of Ten, while of course a governing body in Venice, believed to have had covert methods of administrating and controlling certain issues.
( the well known schiavona swords of the Dalmatian forces here who served are often marked CX -Council of Ten).....I wonder if any of these 'fusetti' (as termed in the article) might have had that numeric secretly incorporated into the numbers?

Another incredibly bizarre note...to add to the fantasy of early studies of arms, on p.175;
Apparantly there was once an 'absurd notion' that the numbering served to prove to the client of an assassin the depth of penetration into the victims body by telltale blood marks!!! This nonsense must be added to the many myths of weapons lore as surely one of the most ridiculous

I think the information on the more insidious use of these as insidious weapons is completely intriguing, especially with the Council of Ten entry.

It would be interesting to find early methods employed to measure the powder etc on cannon...
did these multipurpose weapons actually serve this purpose with artillery crews, as they are only known from the 17th and 18th centuries, and it is noted that the 1661 edict in Venice, later used again in 1728 in specific granting of permission to someone named Antonio Spadone , and after this these daggers seem to virtually fall out of appearance.

The name sounds suspiciously like 'Andrea Ferara' (spadone=sword).
It is stated than many examples have the numerics almost obliterated (presumably repeated usings and the corrosive powder), but is this sufficient to suggest actual use as stated?

I really appreciate the great input and am always amazed at the knowledge out there! Perhaps we could look further into the mystery of these ?

All the best,
Jim

[fearn]

So Jim,

You're saying that this is a blade you could count on?

F

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fearn

So Jim,

You're saying that this is a blade you could count on?

F

Yup! If one was on the wrong end they'd get the point!!
Just wondering exactly how much measuring these were really used for. Most references seem to suggest they were to clear touch holes or spike the weapon in last resort, also to use if emplacement overrun.
I'm just curious why the markings never appeared before the 17th century, at least according to known literature.

Or was the alleged marking on blades, as suggested, to circumvent the 'stiletto control law' ?

The emphasis on these seems to center in Northern Italy.....are there any references or examples showing use of these with artillery in other countries.

There are references suggesting these are calculation numbers to set trajectory. How were elevations determined and set before the 17th century on artillery....were there tools or special settings for calculation before they were applied to stilettos ?

It seems that if an artllery emplacement was overrun, it would be by either cavalry or infantry with long muskets and bayonets. How effective would a close quarters stiletto be against such opposition?

Mythbusters, here we go

All the best,
Jim

[broadaxe]

My idea regarding the figures & intervals on the blade: since all the examples brought here show numbers from 1 to 120, I think they stand for Venetian military ounces. Venice had a military weight system, different from the civil sustem.

As for using the stiletto for elevation measure - sorry, I don't think so. First, one must use additional tools to the the stiletto and the whole procedure is cumbersome. Second, for elevation taking & aiming there was a very simple yet innovative, precise instrument: the gunner's quadrant.
http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/museum/esim.asp?c=100379
http://www.mhs.ox.ac.uk/geometry/fig11m.htm

A very good little book Artillery Trough the Ages can be found entirely here:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20483...-h/20483-h.htm

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by broadaxe

My idea regarding the figures & intervals on the blade: since all the examples brought here show numbers from 1 to 120, I think they stand for Venetian military ounces. Venice had a military weight system, different from the civil sustem.

As for using the stiletto for elevation measure - sorry, I don't think so. First, one must use additional tools to the the stiletto and the whole procedure is cumbersome. Second, for elevation taking & aiming there was a very simple yet innovative, precise instrument: the gunner's quadrant.
http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/museum/esim.asp?c=100379
http://www.mhs.ox.ac.uk/geometry/fig11m.htm

A very good little book Artillery Trough the Ages can be found entirely here:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20483...-h/20483-h.htm

That makes good sense, and as I think was mentioned, many of these known seem to have the numbering considerably affected by the corrosive and abrasive effects of presumably the powder. Thank you for the great links,
and I can see that as an elevation tool, these single scales would not be able to provide the geometric latitude of adjustable quadrant and graduated arc.

So these geometric instruments, quadrants, that were used c.1530's were seemingly pretty well established for artillery gunners.......any information on what they used in those days to guage the charge and measure the powder? We know that by 1661, the gunners stiletto's had the numeric scales on them....maybe the function of measuring simply was a ruler or graduated stick?

It would seem that these marked stilettos were probably genuinely used for the purpose suggested, of measuring powder, and it was suggested that they were possibly a mark of specialist elite, or possibly rank (chief cannonneer). Perhaps, the spurious marking of stilettos resulted because of these effectively outlawed weapons, thus the numbers of them known. Apparantly the fusetti "'gunners stiletto') was so well known it was called colloquially 'un centoventi' (Ital.=one hundred twenty) for the high number on the scale on them.

All the best,
Jim

[fearn]

I agree with all this. One thing I'm wondering is whether these knives were also used to measure off fuse lengths.

F

[katana]

I have a problem believing the stilleto would be any use if a 'gun' enplacement was 'over-run'. Cannons would be a strategic target....and its 'capture' would add to your fire power against the enemy.

Thinking 'laterally' I wonder if the stilleto had another use.....if you quenched the blade ...without tempering it, the blade would be very hard...but brittle. Still functional as a stabbing weapon but could be used to incapacitate a cannon.... Your position is over-run, the enemy are about to capture your guns ...you stick the stilleto in the fuse hole (perhaps even 'hammer it in ) hardened steel would 'bite' into the softer iron,....grab the hilt and snap the (brittle) blade ...which would likely snap 'flush' with the cannons outer surface. This would be very difficult to remove, especially in 'battle' conditions.
Voila...a cannon without a useable fuse hole ......a cannon that cannot be 'turned' on your comrades..

Regards David

PS the 'graduation' marks ...if deep enough ....would make good 'snapping' points

[Matchlock]

With about all having been said and considered, I am afraid that I will not be able to contribute substantially. Artillery is just not sufficiently covered by my expertise but I finally did manage to find some more illustrations.

Unfortunately they cannot shed new light either on the discussion whether the numeric scales on gunners' stilettoes etc. refer to caliber or cannon adjustment. Literature seems to be very vague on these issues. About all I could find seems to prove that Jim is absolutely right in postulating an Italian provenance for gunners' stilettoes in general.

The caption to the stiletto below just notes 'stiletto with artillery scale, Venice, ca. 1670'.

I add some original illustrative sources on the use of artillery quadrants and other measuring methods, though.

Best,
Michael

[Matchlock]

A combined fighting axe and artillery quadrant made for Duke Julius of Brunswick in about 1585, and a combined gunner's calipers and dagger, Italian, ca. 1630.

m

[Matchlock]

Some historic sources of illustration, ca. 1560 to late 17th c.

m

[Matchlock]

Adjusting a cannon for firing stone balls of varying weight, 16th c.

m

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Michael,
Once again you amaze me at your ability to find exactly what supporting medieval art, iconography, museum pieces or catalogued items are needed for the topic at hand!
The combination axe and gunners quadrant of c.1585 is what I was looking for, what type of weapon/instrument devices might have led up to the application of numeric scales on these stilettos.
It would seem that the geometric computation of trajectory was a key focus in the instruments used prior to the mid 17th century appearance of these gunners stilettos, and I had wondered why these did not have the caliper feature in addition to the numeric scales.

It would seem that as we have agreed, there is little at all published on these esoteric weapons. The only reference I could find was an article apparantly published in 1931 by Sir James Mann. Finding this I thought that perhaps, since he catalogued the Wallace Collection in 1962, there might be notes there. I was right, there are three of these catalogued, all Italian, all c.1650.
In this he cites an Italian reference for bombardiers from Brescia in 1571, which states the scale was for converting the measurement of the diameter of the bore of a gun to corresponding weight of shot.
The reference does not state the scale was used on a stiletto, only that the graduation corresponds to the scale noted in 1571.

Since it seems that weapons and instruments, both important to the gunners, were in some degree combined, with the axe from 1585 in Brunswick. Also that in Italy by c.1630, a stiletto that opened into calipers was known. Naturally calipers may have been used in other calculation such as architecture, navigation etc. byt clearly artillery as well. Therefore it would seem a natural progression for the numeric scale to be added to the distinctly predominant Italian stiletto.

I suppose the numeric scale circumventing the 'stiletto control' law is reminiscent of many instances where insidious weapons are concealed in various items. There are of course the sword canes, and the well known 'jackknife' which developed from the navaja with folded blade which did not fall into the rigid blade laws forbidding ordinary civilians from carrying swords.

Perhaps these stilettos ceased being used for measuring powder at least, with the premeasured powder containers that preceded cartridges?

All the best Michael, and thank you so much!!!!
Jim

[katana]

Originally Posted by katana

Thinking 'laterally' I wonder if the stilleto had another use.....if you quenched the blade ...without tempering it, the blade would be very hard...but brittle. Still functional as a stabbing weapon but could be used to incapacitate a cannon.... Your position is over-run, the enemy are about to capture your guns ...you stick the stilleto in the fuse hole (perhaps even 'hammer it in ) hardened steel would 'bite' into the softer iron,....grab the hilt and snap the (brittle) blade ...which would likely snap 'flush' with the cannons outer surface. This would be very difficult to remove, especially in 'battle' conditions.
Voila...a cannon without a useable fuse hole ......a cannon that cannot be 'turned' on your comrades..

Regards David

PS the 'graduation' marks ...if deep enough ....would make good 'snapping' points

Hi
It seems 'plugging' the touch hole was a common procedure when necessary. I still think that the stilleto, carried by the gunners, would be quickly and easily accessible and if the 'point' thin enough would make an ideal spike.

".....When a cannon had to be abandoned such as in a retreat or surrender, the touch hole of the cannon would be plugged flush with a iron spike, disabling the cannon (at least until metal boring tools could be used to remove the plug). This was called "spiking the cannon"...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon

Regards David

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by katana

Hi
It seems 'plugging' the touch hole was a common procedure when necessary. I still think that the stilleto, carried by the gunners, would be quickly and easily accessible and if the 'point' thin enough would make an ideal spike.

".....When a cannon had to be abandoned such as in a retreat or surrender, the touch hole of the cannon would be plugged flush with a iron spike, disabling the cannon (at least until metal boring tools could be used to remove the plug). This was called "spiking the cannon"...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon




Regards David

This is a very interesting aspect of artillery, and as I have noted before, not having great familiarity with this topic, had not really 'struck home' as it were.

In rethinking the plausibility of these actually quite attractive and fascinating daggers being sacrificed to this clearly basic necessity, I returned to the original article to recheck the note on this. Terenzi does state that these 'fusetto' were likely used, if such be the case, to foul the touchhole as described.

It is noted as well that the author was 'uncomfortable' with the position that these gunners stilettos were exclusive to the artillerymen of Venice, though it was well known that the Venetian 'fire mouths' were the best organized and proficient in the world. With this, it seems odd that only 6 examples of these exist in Venetian museums.
With this apparantly well established elitism, Angelucci (Turin, 1890, cited by Terenzi) accepted the thesis that these daggers were issued to Venetian cannoneers as 'badges of corps' without any function as either tools or weapons. He suggested further (and questionably) that the scales were applied without order or meaning. This presumption seems well disproven, but is included here as worthy of note.

It would seem to me that with the Venetian artillery, an elite corps considered the best organized in the world of the time, would have a 'tapered steel pin' fashioned as a round device specifically for this reluctant but necessary action. Surely, one of these gunners would not sacrifice what seem to be rather valued weapons in this manner, except as a last resort. The practice of 'spiking' cannon, or otherwise disabling them, seems well known as a standard military practice throughout the history of these weapons. With this being the case, certainly such spikes must have been part of the accoutrements accompanying the gun crews, and I wonder if such items exist among the holdings of old artillery miscellania.

I am inclined to think that a weapon such as a stiletto, regardless of how it was used, would not be left deliberately brittle, nor with deep incisions intended to break the blade more easily. Despite the obvious shortcomings of these daggers as defensive weapons, I think that much as most weapons worn in dress or court situations, they were entirely capable of at least limited combat potential.

Regarding my previous note on the advent of premeasured containers of powder precluding the need for these for measure, it is noted by Terenzi that these needlepoint stilettos served well to puncture the containers to release powder ar key locations for ignition.