“...Hear that Inca God...cause we’ve got a God worth a thousand of yours. A gentle God, with gentle priests and a couple of great big cannon to blow you out of the sky.”-
“...y en aquellos puse todo el bizcocho que teniamos y tomé dos canoas y até la una con la otra parejas, con unos palos atravesados por encima...”
“The defense which we had against these people
consisted in two very good brass falconets and much powder and ball, with
which we so terrified them that they did not dare to come up to us.”1
Introduction
There is some reasonable amount of evidence suggesting the use of breech-loading cannon on the De Soto Expedition.
A little later [late June 1539] Añasco discovered that a large body of Indians had assembled at a point some distance away near the shore and he was sent in ships' boats with foot soldiers (De Soto says 80) to disperse them “or see and hear what was up.” He found them upon an island and killed nine or ten with small cannons (artilleria), but they in turn destroyed as many of the Spaniards and he was unable to dislodge them. 2
A brief passage from another chronicler relating to an incident later in the expedition also implies their use:
“We made bellows from two bearskins and we set up a forge with two cannons that we had brought along, tempering our weapons and preparing as best we could. - Alonso de Carmona”3
Clearly, a muzzle loading cannon would not lend itself into being turned into a forge tube.
Finally, one other indicator of their use is from an:
Insert Dave Cannon photo here“Inventory of the assets left by the Adelantado Hernando de Soto following his death, 1543...
-three versos [light artillery] with their iron chambers-two bronze versos, one with its loading apparatus [sevidor ] and the other is fired without it
-twelve iron versos without their loading apparatus.”4
Dave Elkins aka Master Gunner Rodrigo, has constructed a pair of breech-loading artillery pieces. One is a replica of a swivel gun (verso) with about a 1½ inch bore, mounted on a field carriage. The other is a 3 inch bore tube gun (bombardeta) also mounted on a field carriage. Please note that there is a great deal of uncertainty as to just what terms apply to what ordnance by various writers in the sixteenth century. The resulting confusion continues to this day so for the sake of simplicity the two guns referred to in this manual will be referred to as Hermano Pequeño (Little Brother) and Hermano Grande (Big Brother) respectively.
With the use of these pieces in mind, I have been trying to find a Spanish 16th century breech-loading cannon drill for a number of years now, thus far without much success. Even expanding my search to include other European countries and into the 17th century has resulted in little information. J. F. Guilmartin, Jr. has in his article, “Early Modern Naval Ordnance”5 published a couple of conjectural re-constructed breech-loading drills. I find them both, with 22 and 15 person crews respectively, to be terribly over-manned, requiring a good portion of a ship’s complement [or a re-enactment group] to get more than one shot off. Though some of the 30 or so works listed in an article in Fernando Gononzalez de Leon’s article entitled, “'Doctors of Military Discipline': Technical Expertise and the Paradigm of the Spanish Soldier in the Early Modern Period”6 may hold some promise of turning up a period breech loading drill. However, only a couple appear every to have ever been translated into English, and all are difficult to get anyway. My Spanish is little more than survival grade along with some obscure 16th century military terms, so this drill will have to due for now.
What follows is a breech loading drill based mostly on a modified drill for a muzzle-loading 18th century cannon from “Tommy’s British Naval Drill & Stuff” originally taught at a past school of the 16th Century in St. Augustine; tempered with some practical experience in using this ordnance.
______________________________
1 Jane, Cecil. ed. The Four Voyages of Columbus: A History in Eight Documents, Including Five by Christopher Columbus, in the Original Spanish, with English Translations. Vol. 2. (Dover Publications, New York, 1988) pp. 122-123.
2 Swanton, John R. The Final Report of the United States De Soto Expedition Commission. (Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington 1985) p.141.
3Clayton, Lawrence A., Vernon James Knight Jr. and Edward C. More De Soto Chronicles Vol. II (The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa: 1993) p.373.
4 Clayton, Lawrence A., Vernon James Knight Jr. and Edward C. More De Soto Chronicles Vol. I (The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa: 1993) p.497.
5 Guilmartin, Jr. J.F., “Early Modern Naval Ordnance,” Nautical Archaeology, 17.1 pp.44-46.
6 Gononzalez de Leon, Fernando. “'Doctors of Military Discipline': Technical Expertise and the Paradigm of the Spanish Soldier in the Early Modern Period.” The Sixteenth Century Journal, (Vol. XXVII Spring 1996) pp.61-86.
Scan % insert pages 4&5&6
The breeching-loading cannon drill is designed for a crew of five with an option for a sixth member if there are extra warm bodies and/or a desire to speed up reloading. The positions and duties of the gun crew are:
Gun Captain-who gives the commands and supervises the drill.
Loader-who loads the chambers with powder & wadding, cleans the spent chambers; stays
with the powder box at all times.
Wedge man-who places the loaded chamber in the barrel, secures it in place, and removes
the spent chamber after firing.
Primer-who pricks the cartridge casing though the touch hole in the chamber and fills it
with priming powder.
Linstock man-who hold the linstock with lit match and on command sets off the charge.
Chamber relay (optional)-who takes the
loaded chamber from the Loader and transfers it to the Wedge man; Likewise
he takes spent chamber back to the loader.
One very typical question from visitors as an inquirey as to the range of the replica cannon on display.
From an article in Historical Archaeology Vol. 26. "Replicating Fifteenth- and Sixteenth - Century Ordnance by Joe J. Simmons III.
The English wrought-iron gunsmith mentioned earlier, A.C. Carpenter, has fabricated five breech-loading pieces over the past 10 years, one of which was a replica of a gun found on the Cattewater Wreck near Plymouth, England..It is uncertain to what degree his replicas have been used experimentally, but they are all fully functional and he has test fired each one of them after completion. The proof of a gun he completed in the Fall of 1990 for the Ancient Monuments Office exemplifies the success of his techniques: it fired a 7.6 cm [ or 3 inches, approximately the bore diameter of the larger cannon Dave built]-diameter solid lead ball 730 m [almost 2400 feet or just under ½ mile] at a 10-degree elevation."
Additionally, Luis Collado, in a treatise on artillery published in 1592 (Platica Manual de la Altería)gives some ranges for cannon of the ‘first class.’ Although the cannon of this type are undoubtedly muzzle-loaders rather than the less efficient breech-loaders on display that afternoon, Collado’s table does give an idea of the possible range. As translated in Albert Manucy’s Artillery Through the Ages:
Of course it would be nice to know what ‘weight of ball’ equates to the size of the ball.
Fortunately, I’ve come across “A Table to know the weight of yron fhotte.” in William
Bourne’s 1643 tome, The Arte of Shooting in Great Ordnance. In it he states that (with
the typeface modernized and grammar updated by
your editor):
A shot 2 in. high weighs lb. ¾ ounces
A shot 2¾ in. high weighs lb. 14 ounces
A shot in. high weighs lb. 12 ounces
It is interesting to note that Collado’s 3-lb. shot range is about three times that of the
experimentally derived value. Although Wallace does not give a value for the weight of a
shot 1½ inches (the bore size of Dave’s smaller replica) it appears from Wallace’s table that
such a shot should weigh on the order of a pound and I would venture a maximum range
on the order of ¼ mile.
|
(pounds) |
|
|
|
|
|
1/2
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 to 4
|
|
"...Cortes then had all the artillery, which consisted of ten brass guns and some falconets, brought ashore...to be cleaned and tested. He told them to see the that the balls and powder were prepared, and gave them wine and vinegar for their cleaning...1
1Diaz, Bernal. J. M. Cohen, Trans. The Conquest of New Spain (Penguin Books: New York, 1963) p.55
In regards to the question of cannon range mentioned elsewhere on this page, some more thoughts on the subject with this discussion from the alt.history.living newsgroup.
Subject: Re: Medieval cannon (ranges of)
From: dave_key@uk.ibm.com (Dave Key)
Date: 1997/12/09
Message-ID: <66jup4$39e$1@zen.hursley.ibm.com>
Newsgroups: alt.history.living
In article <gWknUAAx2Vi0Ews4@isbjorn.demon.co.uk>, Andrew Brydon <andrew@isbjorn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Couple of quick questions if anyone can help:
1. How well developed were cannon at the time of the Wars of the
Roses in England?
An interesting ... but tricky & somewhat controversial question
... and one which has received little attention ... normally added as a
short introduction to more 'modern' ordnance rather than a period study.
Good refs. are in the Royal Armouries books "Guns from the Sea" &
"Mons Meg & her Sisters : Medieval Bombards" (or something like that)
and Deuchler's 'Die Burgunderbute' (Swiss-German book wth chapter on the
Burgundian Guns captured from Charles the Bold in the 1470's).
In the simplest terms ... most of the technological innovations used in Ordnance between the c16th & c19th were already in place & use in Europe by c.1470 ... including
- light horse drawn carriages with separate limbers
- trunions
- cast bronze barrels (although wrought iron hoop & Stave still predominated)
- pre-prepared charges
In addition many of the smaller guns were breech loaders with, typically,
3 chambers per gun.
Even by the end of the c14th defensive works were taking account of
ordnance & in 1453 the English archers were soundly beaten by French
Ordnance
In England the adoption of ordance appears to have been slower but no
less pronounced. The Pastons give an idea of the spread of ordnance when
looking at the dispute over Caister
However for various reasons their impact was not noted until towards
the end of the Wars (at Tewkesbury the Arrival (I think) places equal emphasis
on ordnance as archery in the bloodbath of the lanes). However Ordnance
was noted for its failures earlier ... Northampton - Kings Ordnance made
ineffective by rain Barnet - Warwick's Ordnance ineffective because of
poor marksmanship during the night
My gut feel is that the Ordnance technology was fine ... the problems were with the quality of the powder & the technical competence/expertiese of the gunners.
2. What sort of ranges could be expected from such weapons?
Almost impossible to be sure ... I've seen a wide range of period refs
unfortunately rarely together with the size of the piece ...
Most modern assessments are usually fatally flawed as the gun is not
the problem ... by the c15th the basic barrel is OK ... the problemis the
composition & quality of the powder. Quality is critical & without
an original bag to analyze it is all guesswork.
Only a VERY quick overview ... I'll try to help more if you have any
specific questions...
Cheers
Dave
The White Company (1450-1485)
Subject: Re: Medieval cannon (ranges of)
From: moireasdac@aol.com (Moireasdac)
Date: 1997/12/09
Message-ID: <19971209225700.RAA14014@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.history.living
[More Headers]
Most modern assessments are usually fatally flawed as the gun is not
the problem ... by the c15th the basic barrel is OK ... the problem is
the composition & quality of the powder. Quality is critical &
without an original bag to analyse it is all guess work.
Yes and to add to the confusion not all of the blackpowder was milled
large amounts were mixed with varying amounts of sulfur and Salt Peter
so that some would have one rate of burning at one point in the batch and
later on a different. This didn't help range or accuracy. The same problem
existed on the American frontier up to the mid 1800's when properly made
powder was readily available. Effect on ranges with poor to the highest
quality from appear to be almost 100% and accuracy appears to have been
the same. This is from occasional remarks preserved from then, so without
the powder in use of the period and the knowledge of how long it had been
sitting I would be very conservative on your best guess of the range but
willing to allow that guess to be off as much as 200%.
Have you checked out the group in the UK that is planning on building
a firing a replica of one of the MARY ROSE's portpieces? There was information
on their website. Also, I'm sure Stuart can fill us in with the latest
on the project.--
Subject: Re: Wrought iron guns (was: One More Thing)
Date: Sat, 02 May 1998 18:09:00 +0000
From: Stuart Vine <ecs@CIX.COMPULINK.CO.UK>
Reply-To: cs@CIX.COMPULINK.CO.UK
To: SUB-ARCH@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
In-Reply-To: <3549416D.C7FEF35C@ocslink.com>
Thank you for reminding me Steve. At the moment a new breech is being built for the replica gun, the last one failed on it's second firing (failed, good word for blew up eh?). With a relatively low charge and a shot with plenty of windage it was OK, because of pressure of time the next firing had what was thought to be the correct amount of powder for that type of gun and a shot that fit the bore rather better. At this point, the back end of the breech failed.
As I am not involved in this project, I can only give you general details,
but a more firings are intended when a new breech has been completed!
cheers
stuart
Children are led through a "Gun Drill", simulating the loading and firing
of a full-scale model of one of the iron breech-loading guns recovered
from the Mary Rose. They then discuss the life of a Tudor gunner as evidenced
by his tools and possessions.
Some Widely Available References for 16th Century Breech-Loading Cannon
The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration (1988) 17.1
R. D. Smith, R. D. “ Towards A New Typology For Wrought Iron Ordnance” pp.5-16.Konstam, R.A., “16th Century Naval Tactics” pp.17-23.
Simmons, III, Joe. J. “Wrought-Iron Ordnance: Revealing Discoveries from the New World” pp.25-34
Guilmartin, Jr., John F. “Early Modern Naval Ordnance and European penetration of the Caribbean: The Operational Dimension” pp.35-53.
(1988) 17.4
Arnold III, J. Arnold.; Oertling, Thomas J. “Comment on ‘Early Modern Naval Ordnance ...’ ” Guilmartin, Jr., John F. “Reply by...” pp.351-354
Simmons, III, Joe. J. “Replicating Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century
Ordnance” Historical Archaeology, volume 26 1992 pp.14-20.
Subject: 16th Century Ordnance References
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 08:53:01 -0400
From: John Kiwala <jkiwala@mailer.fsu.edu>
To: caldron@GTE.NET
Timothy:
Some additional reference material on 16th Century Ordnance:
Howard, Frank "Early Ship Guns, Part I: Built-up Breech-loaders In The
Mariner's Mirror Vol 72, Number 4, 1986.
Howard, Frank "Early Ship Guns, Part II: Swivels". In The Mariner's
Mirror Vol 73 Number 1, 1987.
You might also look at a series published by the Tower of London, they
have some excellent resources on many types of ordnance.
Blackmore, H.L. The Armouries of the Tower of London, Part I, Ordnance.
Her Majesty's Stationary Office 1976
John Kiwala
Florida State University
Academic Diving Program
Subject: Wrought iron guns (was: One More Thing)
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 19:34:17 -0400
From: John de Bry <jdebry@WINNIE.FIT.EDU>
Reply-To:
Underwater Archaeology Discussion List <SUB-ARCH@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU>
To:
SUB-ARCH@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
References:
1
You may want to get in touch with Doug Armstrong who undertook the conservation,
disassembly, study, and re-assembly of a wrought iron swivel gun. He wrote
an interesting paper entitled A wrought Iron Gun for Early 16th-century
Sea Service. At about circa $25, the 49-page report is a worthwhile acquisition.
Armstrong's address is:
Douglas R. Armstrong
1618 Emmaus Road NW
Palm Bay, FL 32907
Tel.: (407) 727-0221
Fax: (407) 984-0975
E-Mail: coreserv@msn.com
John de Bry
Director
Center for Historical Archaeology
3220 River Villa Way, # 161
Melbourne Beach, Florida 32951 - USA
Tel. (1)(407) 723-2467
Fax (1)(407) 724-9768
Pager (1)(800) 539-7017 USA only
E-mail: jdebry@fit.edu
Web site: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/anthro/Caribarch/chaweb.htm
Battista. I have observed another invention from beyond the Alps which has recently been imitated in Italy: making the spokes of the wheels of our artillery carriages incline obliquely from the exterior rim to the hub. Now I should like to know the reason for this because I always thought straight spokes were stringer than any others.
Fabrizio. You must not look upon this deviation from the usual custom as the effect of whim or caprice, or for the sake of ornament; where strength is absolutely necessary, little account ought to be taken of beauty. The true reason then, for what you have observed that such wheels are safer and stronger than our own; when the carriage is loaded, it either is even or inclines to one side, when it is even, each wheel sustains an equal share of the weight and is not too overburdened by it; but when it inclines to either side, the total weight lies wholly on the wheels. Therefore, if the spokes are straight, they are soon broken because if the wheel inclines, the spokes must also incline and cannot support the weight the presses upon them. So by setting the spokes of their wheels obliquely, upon the spokes, they will then become straight in a line with it; consequently, they will better be able to support the whole than they were to bear one-half of the load when the carriage was even.1
1 Machiavelli, Niccolò. Ellis Farneworth, trans.
The Art of War (De Capo Press, New York 1965) p.189.
Calderon's Company - Home
Questions, comments, suggestions, bad links, spelling mistakes, grammer errors and the five simple actions that will turn me into a mental wizard overnight can be directed to: