The Mexican gunpowder dilemma

[Jim McDougall]

In the current thread on the Jaivana cannon in India, it has been a fascinating discussion with Philip, Wayne and Fernando, and has been most informational. Along the way, my interest in the important battle at the Alamo in March, 1836 has been rekindled, and a key topic which is often given only cursory note in most references pertains to the miserable quality of Mexican gunpowder.

I did not wish to burden the flow of discussion on the huge cannons being discussed on the other thread, so wanted to learn more on the effects of gunpowder quality here, and how in many ways, the outcome of warfare can depend on it.

It seems that at the Alamo, the well known versions of this famous thirteen day siege were not entirely as typically portrayed, and new research has revealed that faulty powder was indeed the culprit in many aspects.

Originally James Bowie had orders from Sam Houston to go to the Alamo, remove the 24 guns remaining there after General Cos of the Mexican army had surrendered Bexar (San Antonio) and the mission in December.
Apparently when he and his surrendered forces were allowed to leave, they were allowed their muskets, and one cannon for defense as they marched to Mexico. He was forced to leave the remainder of cannon as well as the stores of powder.
He shrewdly took the best measures of powder, leaving the already poor grade in store.

Col. Neill and Bowie in late February however decided with the notable strength of cannon there, it would be a well defended place to make a stand.
However, what they did not consider was the lack of ammunition and the deplorable powder in store.

In the bombardment of the Alamo at the outset of the siege, the antiquated and relatively light field cannon with inadequately charged shots which apparently did virtually no damage nor caused a single injury to the defenders.

In the ultimate and final attack by the Mexican forces, it was in the early AM in cold and darkness, and the defenders, exhausted by the constant thuds of artillery, were mostly asleep except a few pickets.
With the Mexican troops, the same poor powder dilemma affecting the artillery plagued the infantry, and the largely conscripted soldiers had barely handled muskets. The poor powder required extra charge for force, and the men, unable to hold at shoulder level due to flash and heat from explosion held the guns low and fired from the hip.

The disastrous result was these inexperienced men in a chaotic attack in complete cold and darkness firing almost wildly, but horrifically bringing down their own men ahead with the low firing.

The defenders asleep inside were caught with unloaded guns, as the damp Texas weather in March would have been fouled if not freshly loaded. They had some measure of good Dupont powder, but largely the supply was the horrible Mexican powder.
One survivor, Mrs. Dickinson, claimed the Mexican powder was 'damaged'.

While this sounds like a circumstantial case with poor batches of powder with the Mexican forces, it seems that in 1846, with the Mexican American war, the Mexican powder situation had not improved.

At the Battle of Palo Alto, May 8, 1846, it was noted that Mexican artillery barrages often sent cannonballs bouncing 'lazily' across the battlefield.

Another reference regarding another battle in the 1830s Texas Revolution claims that in that entire day of battle, not one cannonball in a thousand reached the enemy, most fell about half way.

My question is,
Why, in this period of time, with all the attention given to 'Napoleonic uniforms' etc. and the acquisition of all manner of artillery and arms, was there apparently no attention to adequate gunpowder?

The British, who sold the Mexicans tens of thousands of muskets (despite being deemed obsolete) had access to much of the world saltpeter supply from India. Would that not be considered part and parcel to the acquisition of firearms?
The Mexicans had considerable pieces of French artillery, again, France had developed notable saltpeter production.

Mexico itself had notable natural saltpeter resources, near Mexico City as well as others. There were sources for sulfur and of course charcoal.
Yet Mexico continued to produce the absolute worst gunpowder on record, with seemingly no effort for resolution. Why?

It was said the powder was nothing more than charcoal (derisively)..so was it they were inept at the proper concentrations of components? or that they were 'cutting it' with more charcoal due to 'spreading the volume' more?

[Philip]

Thanks, Jim, for initiating a thread on a very interesting subject.

It's true that black powder was made of just three ingredients. The procurement of sulfur would perhaps be more of a challenge than charcoal (the most plentiful, at least where there are trees) or saltpeter (typically scraped off the walls of livestock stalls and toilets). But aren't there volcanoes in Mexico?

Just having the ingredients is just the beginning. There's the issue of PROCESSING. Saltpeter and sulfur found in nature need to be purified. Having the best charcoal available is as important to a powder mill as to a barbecue chef, so the kiln operator has to really know his stuff. Garbage in, garbage out, as they say.

And just because the expertise is there, there's the question of the will to provide quality. Corrupt governments tend to provide avenues for profiteers taking advantage of lax oversight. A notorious example of government contractors providing substandard ammo could be found in 19th cent. China, where gunpowder supplied to the imperial government was frequently adulterated with sand or sawdust. The cheating was widespread enough for the foundrymen and inspectors in cannon workshops to pass off slipshod castings because they figured that weak powder wouldn't unduly strain a gun barrel anyway. Some excellent cannons and ammunition were made, but in French-run factories in the south of the country (the French trained the Vietnamese to be first-rate gun founders as well, comparable to what native workmen did at Macau and Chaul under the Portuguese). But the pigtailed Manchus who ruled China weren't too preoccupied with the problem -- the military officers' exams still revolved around archery on foot and from galloping horses, à la Genghis Khan, until these tests were abolished in 1905!

So you thought Mexico was in a pickle?

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Thanks, Jim, for initiating a thread on a very interesting subject.

It's true that black powder was made of just three ingredients. The procurement of sulfur would perhaps be more of a challenge than charcoal (the most plentiful, at least where there are trees) or saltpeter (typically scraped off the walls of livestock stalls and toilets). But aren't there volcanoes in Mexico?

Just having the ingredients is just the beginning. There's the issue of PROCESSING. Saltpeter and sulfur found in nature need to be purified. Having the best charcoal available is as important to a powder mill as to a barbecue chef, so the kiln operator has to really know his stuff. Garbage in, garbage out, as they say.

And just because the expertise is there, there's the question of the will to provide quality. Corrupt governments tend to provide avenues for profiteers taking advantage of lax oversight. A notorious example of government contractors providing substandard ammo could be found in 19th cent. China, where gunpowder supplied to the imperial government was frequently adulterated with sand or sawdust. The cheating was widespread enough for the foundrymen and inspectors in cannon workshops to pass off slipshod castings because they figured that weak powder wouldn't unduly strain a gun barrel anyway. Some excellent cannons and ammunition were made, but in French-run factories in the south of the country (the French trained the Vietnamese to be first-rate gun founders as well, comparable to what native workmen did at Macau and Chaul under the Portuguese). But the pigtailed Manchus who ruled China weren't too preoccupied with the problem -- the military officers' exams still revolved around archery on foot and from galloping horses, à la Genghis Khan, until these tests were abolished in 1905!

So you thought Mexico was in a pickle?


The Alamo is an excellent example for study and difficult to get to the root of considering the precise Gunpowder question . The other example and comparison with Vietnamese and with the situation with the Manchu is altogether fascinating ..
On ploughing through the weapons resupply much came from the British who clearly sold a lot of badly engineered weapons and quite likely some awful gunpowder...as part of the Triangular Trade England Africa The Americas. It is recorded that gunpowder was exchanged for slaves in Africa and we know that in The Americas cotton and sugar were bartered . Thousands of rifles were sold to Mexico and amongst that Baker Rifles and Brownbess made in India and of dubious quality. These weapons were condemned and should have been scrapped.
Mexican army administration was hopelessly inadequate; often supplying the wrong ammo to the weapons.. Somehow ammo was too heavily doped up with too powerful a charge actually too much charcoal which gave a bigger bang in the breach that simply blew back into the firers face and eyes..Soldiers got round this by firing from the hip..totally dangerous to their own men in front and utterly badly aimed. It was at the same time almost impossible to load on the move and in the darkness being whipped by their so called officers this attack although overwhelming in numbers must have been chaotic in the extreme with more chance of being accidentally shot in the back than in the front!

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Another question arises over uniforms and while it is clear The Mexican leader was obsessed with Napolionic dress it is odd he opted for British weapons although the Cannon were French I understand. …

The dress question comes up time and again on research on web sources and I point to~

http://johnwayne-thealamo.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1274&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&sid=84d6ddc79276f172202e1ce1fac0fcb0&start=160

and offers as a good guide to this entire phenomenon of dress.... Here below is another picture from the same source as to uniforms... It is clear these Mexican soldiers were tough by the fact they wore only sandals for most of their marches... although Sant Anna did try to show an interest in better foot ware for the soldiers later... I note a lot of the soldiers weren't Mexican but Indian and interestingly the point of poor training just keeps popping up.

[Philip]

[B]…

I note a lot of the soldiers weren't Mexican but Indian and interestingly the point of poor training just keeps popping up.

Perhaps you are not aware that Mexico, like the United States and Canada, has a population which is a blend of ethnic bloodlines going back centuries. Europeans from the Iberian Peninsula arrived in the 16th cent. and besides conquering the indigenous peoples and Christianizing many of them, also started intermarrying. The Spanish then brought African slaves. Successive waves of immigrants followed on the heels of the conquistadores -- a trickle of Filipinos and Chinese coming with the trans-Pacific galleon trade, larger numbers of French, Germans, and Irish fleeing political, religious, and economic troubles in the 18th-19th centuries, and even Japanese and Russians at the close of the 1800s. By now the gene pools are quite mixed. Mexicans come in all sizes and colors and their culture is a pretty spicy stew. Beer is more popular than wine, and folk musicians like the tuba. Mariachi orchestras originated with French country wedding music imported in the 1800s. From France also comes a taste for refined cooking with delicate sauces in parts of the country, along with a liking for horse meat. There are Mexican citizens, whole villages of the original inhabitants, who even today don't speak Spanish and need translators if they are to have a conversation with someone from Mexico City or Tijuana.

I'll close by saying that I don't see the connection between being an Indian and being a poorly-trained soldier. Remember the Aztec empire?

[Philip]

. Thousands of rifles were sold to Mexico and amongst that Baker Rifles and Brownbess made in India and of dubious quality. These weapons were condemned and should have been scrapped.


I think that this statement needs some re-examination and possible emendation. As re the Baker rifle, may I refer you to the late Harold L Peterson's discussion of it on pp 141-42 of Pollard's History of Firearms. , 1983, with illustrations. By all accounts this was an excellent weapon in its day, one of the first regulation-pattern rifles issued in an era when the standard in just about every army in the world, including Britain and France, was the smoothbore musket designed for unaimed volley fire. As far as I am able to determine, the production of Bakers was limited to factories in England. At the period in question, workshops in India were not set up to produce a gun of this sophistication, with its rifled barrel.

The Brown Bess musket you mention is likely the so-called Ïndia Pattern aka Third Model adopted late in the 18th cent. It was indeed a simplified version of the earlier Besses, designed for lighter weight and reduced production costs, but it was by no means of "dubious quality" as you state. Made in England, it was "...a sturdy arm, giving good service until it was superseded by percussion-cap muskets in the 1840s" to quote Peterson, op.cit. If it was such a piece of junk, do you think that it would have remained in the service of the most powerful nation on Earth at the time, for a period of a half-century?

The deficiency of the weapons sold to Mexico by the British most likely lay with their decrepit condition, worn out after of hard service. Not because they were poorly made to begin with.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Yes you are correct and it is my poor choice of words which is wrong... If I can take the last point first what I meant was the condition in which these weapons were sold when probably they were BLR as army armourers would say today..Beyond Local Repair meaning they couldn't be fixed by a battalion armourer so were effectively condemned. I think they used to be designated with two arrows facing each other on the weapon...On the Baker I take your point that they were made in England and it was one of these that killed at long range Millam in an earlier battle shot in the head. This weapon had bayonet problems making it useless for this purpose but it wasn't a bad weapon otherwise... but again depending on what I called quality but meant serviceability. The Brown Bess was not a bad gun but difficult to load on the dash forward especially when NCOs and Officers were beating troops with whips and in the confusion of a pre dawn attack.

I read that the difficulty with Indian troops under training may have been due to a language difficulty..But I have to say I hadn't fully grasped the fact that the mixture of Indian and Mexican was simply normal procedure in which case that would also be missing the point... No inference was meant in the wording to suggest some racist point about either nationality or creed... absolutely not but I wrote it so its my fault!

Just staying with the different nationalities but on the defenders side I noted a big mixture of nationalities and the last few men to get through the Mexican cordon were in fact Ulstermen promised tracts of land after the battle.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Just to examine the Baker Rifle to some degree~

When it was introduced the weapon was used in special sharp shooting battalions of the British Army...

The accuracy of the rifle in capable hands is most famously demonstrated at the Battle of Cacabelos (during Moore's retreat to Corunna in 1809) by the action of Rifleman Thomas Plunkett (or Plunket) of the 1st Battalion, 95th Rifles, who shot French General Colbert at an unknown but long range (as much as 600 yards (550 m) according to some sources). He then shot Colbert's aide-de-camp, Latour-Maubourg, who went to the aid of his general, suggesting that the success of the first shot was not due to luck. In fact Plunket was using a now famous snipers shooting position lying on his back and the sling in tension around one foot.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you guys for the outstanding perspective which surrounds this topic, and while not of course directly attending to the issues on the gunpowder, the context is certainly pertinent.
The Mexican forces under Santa Anna were indeed widely diverse ethnically, and while Mestizos were broadly considered of Spanish and Mayan mixed ancestry, there were over twenty Indian tribes in Mexico which also accounted for the mixed groups.

As noted, the ethnicity had nothing to do with the efficiency or lack thereof in the tactics and warfare employed by Santa Anna, however it does seem was less than concerned on the well being of his troops, whom he regarded as expendable.

Getting to the guns, it seems that the 'Brown Bess' purchased in huge volume by Mexico (over 400,000) was the Third Pattern M1793 (Windus pattern) designed to replace the earlier Long and Short Land patterns which comprised the two earlier types.
Production of these was temporarily halted with peace with France in 1802, but peace ended quickly, and production heartily resumed. Over three million were produced by the end of the Napoleonic wars in 1815. These were produced under the auspices of the 'Tower' in England, and the term 'India Pattern' was used for them, perhaps due to large EIC orders, of course quite separate from government orders.

Apparently, England decided to dispose of these, as many references deem a consistent reaction of England to peace, so some 700, 000 were sold off to Central and South America as well as Mexico, as these countries took independence from Spain .

So the disposal was not necessarily from poor quality, but from sudden surplus and opportunity to sell them off for profit and restoring the coffers after the long wars. The Baker rifle of course stood on its own merits for its accuracy , it was the ineffective long. heavy and awkward bayonet that was its issue.

I found that the British gunpowder was the 'best in Europe' and they apparently sold much of it to their allies, so I cannot imagine them not selling to Mexico and what countries bought the surplus guns. This was probably (I am assuming) that the tremendous supply of saltpeter coming out of India was the basis for such high quality powder.
This being the case, it seems likely that the powder may have been somehow adulterated or diminished in the also likely corrupt dealings of suppliers handling the Mexican powder.

What I have not been able to find is if it was produced in Mexico, or if they relied on outside suppliers.

With the firing of the Brown Bess muskets, in the original India pattern (Third pattern) that the Mexicans were using, it was given a rather poor review in criticism by Hans Buck about 1840s in "The Rifle and How to Use it" . The author claimed it was clumsy and worst contrived of any firelock in the world, and required the "largest charge of powder" and "its weight and windage were the greatest, its range the shortest, and its accuracy the least".

While this criticism years later was deemed harsh, it does seem that these muskets did require a notable charge of powder (it seems one revision to this pattern was a deeper pan and the charge was 6 drams). One soldiers account was that his shoulder was 'blackened' by the repeated recoil.

With this it would seem that the Mexican forces, not particularly familiar with the firing of these, would quickly resort to lowering the weapon away from their shoulders. If they were adding to the already excessive charge required then they must have been like hand held cannons, and the explosions into the darkness and disorganized masses (there were numerous redirections in the attack) simply devastating fire without aim.

This was the recipe for disaster, but with the defenders at the Alamo overrun, outnumbered, caught off guard, the outcome was still in Mexican favor.

Still, despite the obvious failings of Mexican force effectiveness overall with poorly trained troops, disrupted attack maneuvers etc. it was still the powder that played a large part in all of this, and this is the theme of this thread.

[Philip]

With the firing of the Brown Bess muskets, in the original India pattern (Third pattern) that the Mexicans were using, it was given a rather poor review in criticism by Hans Buck about 1840s in "The Rifle and How to Use it" . The author claimed it was clumsy and worst contrived of any firelock in the world, and required the "largest charge of powder" and "its weight and windage were the greatest, its range the shortest, and its accuracy the least".



The Brown Bess had its fans and detractors on both sides during its day. Robert Held , in his classic The Age of Firearms (1957) quotes part of a report by a British officer complaining of the irregular bores and crooked barrels on many regulation-pattern guns (p 114); other writers mentioned soft steel on the frizzen faces resulting in erratic sparking and thus, misfires.

However, some things should be kept in mind. First, military muskets of any nation could never match the quality and performance of bespoke sporting guns for obvious pecuniary reasons. Moreover, the infantry tactics of the day did not call for great accuracy from the common soldier's weapon. The goal was for troops to load (as quickly as a muzzle-loading weapon could be) and fire in volleys at massed targets advancing at distances of well under 100 yd, more often as close as 50 or 30 before it was time to use the bayonet.

Given the relatively low bar to cross, it's not surprising that things like barrel quality might be uneven (this was a very demanding part of the manufacturing process in an age before advanced mechanization (still mostly by hand throughout the 18th cent). But the task of producing a large number of weapons at an affordable cost to the treasury was something faced by all states and there does not seem to be any evidence that the British with their Brown Besses were any worse at doing this than was any other Western power.

Historical documents and the experience of subsequent generations of shooters tell us that a well-made smoothbore musket loaded with a tight-fitting patched ball and good powder can bring down a deer at 120 yards without much problem. Not too shabby.

However, military drill of the first half of the 19th cent., and for the previous two centuries, didn't allow the leisure of careful loading with patched bullets. A somewhat loose ball (the differential in diameter was to compensate for the buildup of powder residue in the bore after repeated volley shots) was dropped "naked" down the bore atop the powder, with the crumpled up paper from the cartridge pushed down on top with the ramrod to seat the charge. Since the projectile could be expected to "rattle" its way down the bore upon firing, it didn't make much difference if the barrel was perfectly true or not. The soldier had to keep up with the drummer's cadence and fire when his buddies did, when ordered. Tardiness on the training ground was typically rewarded with a brutal flogging. The idea was for opposing forces to face a hail of lead before closing in with cold steel. Also, keep in mind that these guns usually had only a rudimentary front sight, on some models attached to the front barrel band, which could shift if there was any play in that component.

Regarding poor sparking, the face of the frizzen had to be surfaced with steel of sufficient carbon content, and the surface was usually laminated onto an iron base, or the unit was case-hardened. Excessive wear after a long period of service, even on an otherwise well made gun, would require refurbishing or replacement of the frizzen.

in short, the manufacture and performance of military weapons in a particular culture or age needs to be examined in context.

[Jim McDougall]

Beautifully detailed and explained Philip, thank you!
As I had noted, the critique by the author I noted in the material I was reading was described as pretty unwarranted and over three decades later. As you say, the volume of weapons being produced would experience many flawed components, and of course would not match the carefully made sporting or personal weapons.

Again, the goal was not to discredit the muskets nor training or the soldiers themselves, but to illustrate that these weapons apparently required an unusually heavy charge (at least that was the description) in the first place.

If these troops were being supplied with either adulterated powder, or poorly made powder from a Mexican source, then that would explain the heavier charge which caused them to fire from the hip. Not only the recoil, which was powerful as the muskets were initially produced, but the flash and sparks in the face......would have these inexperienced soldiers avoiding such dynamics very quickly.

It seems wherever I have looked, there is patently zero mention or data on any gunpowder supplier, maker or source for the Mexican army. Whether any powder they had was 'damaged' (as Mrs Dickinson described it at the Alamo, and her husband was a gunner) or somehow otherwise adulterated remains a question. Could its transport from Mexico have rendered it inert from weather or some sort of alteration to make it less volatile have been at hand?

[Philip]

If these troops were being supplied with either adulterated powder, or poorly made powder from a Mexican source, then that would explain the heavier charge which caused them to fire from the hip. Not only the recoil, which was powerful as the muskets were initially produced, but the flash and sparks in the face......would have these inexperienced soldiers avoiding such dynamics very quickly.

Could its transport from Mexico have rendered it inert from weather or some sort of alteration to make it less volatile have been at hand?

Jim, here are some tidbits of data that might be germane to your post, put here in no particular order:

1. Yes, black powder can degrade during long storage, or transport in unfavorable weather. Remember the folk saying, "Keep your powder dry!" ? Moisture is the primary threat. In an earlier post on the cannon thread, I mentioned that this propellant has a tendency to absorb atmospheric moisture. In those days, bulk storage was typically in wooden barrels. The best powder in the world, kept for a time in damaged barrels, or those cheaply made from insufficiently seasoned wood, can be compromised by moisture of this sort. As you mentioned, springtime in Texas is pretty wet; I imagine that the whole Gulf region can get pretty damp during hurricane season as well.

2. Degraded or adulterated powder would have been weak (assuming that it did explode) so Newtonian physics would indicate that if projectile velocity were low, recoil felt by the shooter would be reduced likewise.

3. But the ignition of such powder could be more flammatory than explosive mainly due to a sub-optimal burning rate. This would explain the discomforting flash and smoke coming out of the pan and vent. All the more so if the troops were in the habit of overloading in order to ensure the bullet reached the target. Understandable that soldiers would prefer to shoot from the hip rather than shoulder their pieces to aim. Before the advent of metallic cartridge ammunition, shooters often tested powder for freshness by igniting a pinch of it in the palm of their hand. Good powder went off so quickly (it didn't explode unless confined) that the skin would not be burned.

4. Reaction to the force of recoil on the shoulder could be aggravated by negative perceptions generated by the noise and smoke of firing. Especially on the part of recruits who lacked prior exposure to firearms before conscription and who have had insufficient training by competent drillmasters. Have you looked into the standards for musketry training in the Mexican army at the time? (I wonder if it was on a level with that in the Czar's infantry at the time of the Russo-Japanese War, when recruits got to fire just six rounds during basic training because of a chronic supply shortage mainly due to inadequate state funding).

5. We can't go back in time to watch those soldiers shoot and experience the recoil for themselves. So we have to take their word for it, via surviving documentation. However, my experience and that of other modern shooters who have fired replica military muzzle loaders tends to lean towards the perception that the recoil felt on our shoulders (and cheeks) is of a different intensity than that produced by later service rifles using cartridges loaded with nitrocellulose "smokeless" powder. Probably because of the slower combustion rate of black powder, you definitely feel the energy but it comes across more like a robust push than a sharp jolt. Personally, I find the kick of a Civil War-model rifle in .58 caliber to be less uncomfortable than that of, say, a Mod. 1893 Spanish Mauser in 7 mm, or a Mod. 1903 Springfield in .30-06. All three guns are of similar mass, their design makes no allowance for mechanical recoil absorption, and all have straight-wrist stocks. However the bore diameter of the Mauser is half that of the muzzle-loader.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Thank you guys for the outstanding perspective which surrounds this topic, and while not of course directly attending to the issues on the gunpowder, the context is certainly pertinent.
The Mexican forces under Santa Anna were indeed widely diverse ethnically, and while Mestizos were broadly considered of Spanish and Mayan mixed ancestry, there were over twenty Indian tribes in Mexico which also accounted for the mixed groups.

As noted, the ethnicity had nothing to do with the efficiency or lack thereof in the tactics and warfare employed by Santa Anna, however it does seem was less than concerned on the well being of his troops, whom he regarded as expendable.

Getting to the guns, it seems that the 'Brown Bess' purchased in huge volume by Mexico (over 400,000) was the Third Pattern M1793 (Windus pattern) designed to replace the earlier Long and Short Land patterns which comprised the two earlier types.
Production of these was temporarily halted with peace with France in 1802, but peace ended quickly, and production heartily resumed. Over three million were produced by the end of the Napoleonic wars in 1815. These were produced under the auspices of the 'Tower' in England, and the term 'India Pattern' was used for them, perhaps due to large EIC orders, of course quite separate from government orders.

Apparently, England decided to dispose of these, as many references deem a consistent reaction of England to peace, so some 700, 000 were sold off to Central and South America as well as Mexico, as these countries took independence from Spain .

So the disposal was not necessarily from poor quality, but from sudden surplus and opportunity to sell them off for profit and restoring the coffers after the long wars. The Baker rifle of course stood on its own merits for its accuracy , it was the ineffective long. heavy and awkward bayonet that was its issue.

I found that the British gunpowder was the 'best in Europe' and they apparently sold much of it to their allies, so I cannot imagine them not selling to Mexico and what countries bought the surplus guns. This was probably (I am assuming) that the tremendous supply of saltpeter coming out of India was the basis for such high quality powder.
This being the case, it seems likely that the powder may have been somehow adulterated or diminished in the also likely corrupt dealings of suppliers handling the Mexican powder.

What I have not been able to find is if it was produced in Mexico, or if they relied on outside suppliers.

With the firing of the Brown Bess muskets, in the original India pattern (Third pattern) that the Mexicans were using, it was given a rather poor review in criticism by Hans Buck about 1840s in "The Rifle and How to Use it" . The author claimed it was clumsy and worst contrived of any firelock in the world, and required the "largest charge of powder" and "its weight and windage were the greatest, its range the shortest, and its accuracy the least".

While this criticism years later was deemed harsh, it does seem that these muskets did require a notable charge of powder (it seems one revision to this pattern was a deeper pan and the charge was 6 drams). One soldiers account was that his shoulder was 'blackened' by the repeated recoil.

With this it would seem that the Mexican forces, not particularly familiar with the firing of these, would quickly resort to lowering the weapon away from their shoulders. If they were adding to the already excessive charge required then they must have been like hand held cannons, and the explosions into the darkness and disorganized masses (there were numerous redirections in the attack) simply devastating fire without aim.

This was the recipe for disaster, but with the defenders at the Alamo overrun, outnumbered, caught off guard, the outcome was still in Mexican favor.

Still, despite the obvious failings of Mexican force effectiveness overall with poorly trained troops, disrupted attack maneuvers etc. it was still the powder that played a large part in all of this, and this is the theme of this thread.


I think it reasonable to assume since the absolute facts seem to be few and far between on the gunpowder question that the Mexican supply of weapons also included gun powder. The most obvious factory appears to be Faversham; Please See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faversham_explosives_industry#World_War_I

The factory supplied all stations East via the EIC and also is noted as instrumental in the Industrial Revolution where explosives played an important role in blowing tunnels and roads ...another vital ingredient being gunpowder... Emphasis however, though my own , seems to place the Ports of Liverpool and Bristol in their trade with Africa and the Americas and Mexico (Triangular Trade) where it is noted that gunpowder could be used at African ports for exchanging for slaves. It would seem logical that in transporting gunpowder there must have been an exchange also in the Americas and particularly since a lot of weapons were being sold to Mexico from Tower armouries.

As an add on note having absorbed a load of detail on The Brown Bess, while I agree on the importance of decent gunpowder the weapon was not the ideal candidate for an assault on a fortification and was more used in the mass lines of infantry against an enemy advancing in packed ranks in a long line at least two files deep and occasionally at very short range around 30 paces. The great danger was in firing too high as often the undergrowth behind the targets at Waterloo (using the Indian version), for example, were cut short as rounds were too high. The Brown Bess was no sharpshooters weapon since the barrel gave it more the feel of a shotgun.The barrel in fact had a variable calibre and almost no two weapons were of exactly the same bore...It had no grooves, but even so, well aimed it could when fired on mass decimate an enemy advancing in the open.

[fernando]

I wonder whether the guy in uniform at the Alamo site went, in his synopsis, as deep as to enlighten the audience on the gunpowder saga. I was too far i couldn't hear him, or understand what he was saying ... a cheap excuse for my lack of patience.
But i have read anecdotes about the subject, namely in a narration of the Palo Alto encounter, in that:
"Mexican gunpowder, for example, was of such poor quality that artillery barrages often sent cannonballs bouncing lazily across the battlefield, and the American soldiers merely had to step out of the way to avoid them"
(Zachary Taylor ?).

Or in the Bejar siege (translating):
" In some cases, Mexican bullets slided by the Texian soldiers bodies, causing little damage beyond a bruise.
(Stephen L. Hardin)

Perhaps the following article by Stuart Reid, not objectively dedicated to the discussed topic, helps cracking the riddle and suggests what the solution to solve the problem should have been; one visibly not put into practice by the Mexican forces.

.

[Jim McDougall]

Guys thank you so much for these outstanding entries!!
Philip, I sincerely appreciate the patient and detailed explanations on all these factors. This thread has been quite and education for me as I have never focused on the dynamics and processes involved in the firearms or artillery of these periods. While being familiar with the types of guns, it was only a historical overview noting the various forms in use.

Obviously, I am not a 'shooter' either, but your explanations of how the powder detonates (or explodes as it seems more properly described) makes perfect sense in the propelling of the projectile. It is my understanding that the added powder was to increase the velocity of the ball (or buck and ball) being fired. I was expecting that might have increased the recoil, not to mention the flash.
It sounds as if the powder was degraded in any manner, the resultant 'explosion' would have been 'adequate' regardless, and it sounds like the flash was more troubling than the recoil.

The number of 'friendly fire' casualties seems to suggest that somehow adequate propulsion was reached in at least a good number of instances. It sounds like a profound number of misfires probably took place as well.
The inability to reload in the cold and darkness and in chaos was certainly what brought the preferred bayonet to use, and it seems virtually most of the victims probably were bayonetted.

Ibrahiim, excellent notes on the British aspects of arms and powder. It does indeed seem that there were probably stores of powder sold along with the huge numbers of guns, and their powder was as noted earlier, probably the most superior. If I have understood correctly, the 'third pattern' musket Brown Bess we are discussing were I think largely intended for EIC purchase, but they were declined or something to that effect. I think that or perhaps the officer involved in design (Windus) may have been associated with EIC,. Whatever the case, it was basically the Brown Bess.
Fascinating on the powder plant in Faversham which well illustrates the volatility issues with this. Thank you so much for the great research in finding all this perspective!

Fernando, excellent article by Mr. Reid!!! and specifically addresses many of the questions I had toward the Mexican powder issues. In my research I do recognize the anecdotes re: Mexican powder but the specifics Mr. Reid attends to are most helpful. Thank you.

[fernando]

... Obviously, I am not a 'shooter' either, but your explanations of how the powder detonates (or explodes as it seems more properly described) ...
Jim, i was once told that gunpowder, as the one dealt here, does not explode but, quickly burns... faster or slower depending on its granulation. It would only explode if confined, as cited by Philip. The concept that it explodes, although widespread, is erroneous. If in fact it did explode while shooting, pressure and exothermy generated inside the gun would be such that it would burst and hurt the shooter.
... Shooter i am not, either.

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks Fernando, indeed Philip very well explained the dynamics of gunpowder, and I had often heard that flintlocks often burst due to improper charge and just the kind of detonation you describe. I think the terminology is confusing, I had read that detonation or explosion were wrong terms.

I suppose that explosion might be regarded as a concentrated and VERY rapidly burning of a measure of gunpowder (which they says is called 'black' powder, yet according to sources they say is gray). Confusing.

[Philip]

Thanks Fernando, indeed Philip very well explained the dynamics of gunpowder, and I had often heard that flintlocks often burst due to improper charge and just the kind of detonation you describe. I think the terminology is confusing, I had read that detonation or explosion were wrong terms.

I suppose that explosion might be regarded as a concentrated and VERY rapidly burning of a measure of gunpowder (which they says is called 'black' powder, yet according to sources they say is gray). Confusing.

Jim -- you have it pegged. The impression I get from the literature and being a layman taking advice from shooters who reload their own cartridges, is this: burning (combusion) and explosion (or detonation) are on the same spectrum, and one becomes the other when the speed of heat- or flame induced chemical change passes a certain point.

And confinement does play a huge part. Both black and smokeless powder will burn with a flame in open air but will go boom when in an enclosed space. The cartridge guys emphasize that modern smokeless powders are more powerful than black powder (plus the advantages of far less flame, smoke, and residue) to a large degree because the combustion "profile" is different, mainly faster (not being a chemist I can't delve further into the theoretical details) and the fact that the constituent chemicals generate more "oomph" in the first place. But the fact that my head is still intact is that I followed their advice to NEVER load smokeless powder into a barrel or a cartridge case designed for a black powder gun. Also to be careful to choose the correct type among the plethora of nitrocellulose powders on the market for a particular caliber and type of firearm, because burning rate varies to measurable degrees from one to another and an inappropriate burning rate can create dangerous chamber pressures that might damage either the weapon or the guy firing it.

From this, may I clarify the comment on overloading, that it isn't just flintlocks that are in danger of bursting under excessive charges, this is true of all firearms including modern ones. Nowadays, barrels of modern ordnance steels are generally of a high level of strength and safety, but it is the breech components that can still fail and turn into shrapnel (I've seen it happen on rifle ranges and it's scary, lucky that no serious injuries resulted). Back in the era which we are talking about, quality of gun barrels varied enormously -- this was true until industrial processes and government "proof" standards were more systematic. The difference between the best sporting gun barrels, those wonderful creations by the Cominazzo family or by Bis and the best Spanish makers, was far and away above the typical munition-quality barrel, which was typically made of a longitudinal flat strip of iron, curled lengthwise around a mandrel, with a single seam hammer-forged straight from breech to muzzle.

[fernando]

Filipe, there is no doubt that, my uneducated attempt to approach powder dynamics, burning versus exploding, has by far a better clarification in the comprehensive way you put it.
Also your mentioning issues involving gunpowder loading up to nowadays is more than pertinent. I have learnt that, black to smokeless powder transition, provided for a frequent exponential power increase. In two cases i have acquired 'not so antique' weapons, passive of being loaded with cartridges containing different types of gunpowder, i was firmly warned by the (different) sellers that, i should take care with the ammunitions i loaded them with ... ignoring whether i was only a collector or (also) a shooter. I soon got rid of them, anyhow.

[Jim McDougall]

Philip, thank you so much!
In recent study of firearms powder, I was curious on the 'old'method of measuring the charge in the ammunition in the Winchester rifles and carbines of 1870s+.
It notes that the .44-.40 cartridge was .44 cal. but the .40 indicated forty grains of black powder.

In the same 'type' lever action Winchester in more recent times, those for hunting apparently are of as much as 150 to 170 grain with varied bullet heads, but the .30-.30 is called that in accord with the old method of noting the grain weight. Very curious.

[yulzari]

Coming late to the party I apologise if I repeat anything already said that I missed on reading my way through the thread.

There does seem to be a misconception that Britain was arming the Mexican government. Britain was simply selling off surplus arms from it's stock that were no longer needed. Mexico got what it ordered and paid for. Probably (as was normally the case) through a British company buying them at auction for the Mexicans. The weapons were well made and possibly worn but in serviceable condition. The quoted back to back 'V's do not note the gun as unserviceable but simply that they were sold out of British government service. No poor quality is implied. The Mexicans bought cheap and got cheap.

As far as powder was concerned the guns were not noticeably supported by powder sales. British manufacturers would have been only too happy to have sold good powder were the Mexicans to offer to buy it at a profitable price. Again I am not aware of any such approach nor sales. Essentially the Mexicans made their own and it was awful They had the ingredients but poorly refined, charred and worse processed.

IIRC the Mexicans did have trouble finding domestic flint and knapping the same which would raise the proportion of misfires.

FWIW it seems that the Mexican powder of the day was like a poor British ACW powder and was used in equivalent arms. Were the troops trained and supported like the British army in the ACW they could have overcome their material issues but the Mexican army was not so organised despite the doubtless bravery of the troops on the ground. The British powder of the time of the Alamo was an order of magnitude better than in the ACW when it was one of the poorest in Europe. Hence the government going into the business of powder making itself to get the necessary quality.

Again, pursuing a comparison to the ACW British army, an equivalent Mexican army would have had the troops well supplied with powder, well fed and clothed with several months of relevant training and practice before they came under fire confident in their arms and well directed.

In short. Yes they had *** powder but that was a hinderance to their performance, not a bar. The underlying issue was the way the Mexican army was run. The common soldiers, as ever, paid the price.

[Philip]

.

IIRC the Mexicans did have trouble finding domestic flint and knapping the same which would raise the proportion of misfires.


The subject of the flint-knapping industry worldwide is an under-researched field other than that dealing with England and France, which led the world in volume and the longevity of production of a very high-quality product. Undoubtedly you know of the article "The Manufacture of Gunflints" by Stephen White and Mario Scalini, in Art, Arms , and Armour ( Robert Held, ed., 1979). It has an extensive bibliography and detailed coverage of the technical aspects of the craft (with excellent illustrations). However Mr White did admit that documentary information on the industry itself in many countries was rather scanty, and that coverage of North America is unfortunately limited to perfunctory data on the US, with no mention of either Canada or Mexico.

If any forum members has access to more recent published info, expecially dealing with North America, please share with us.

[Jim McDougall]

Yulzari, welcome!! and thank you for the very much spot on summary of the situation with the Mexican army at the Alamo (and for that matter afterwards as well) with arms and powder. as you have well noted, there was nothing wrong with the India pattern Brown Bess muskets, nor the Baker rifles.
From one source I read after the end of the Napoleonic campaigns, in what was noted as pretty much standard British fashion, the 'war is over' so time to unload the surplus.
These arms were simply in excess for the now peaceful status, so perfectly functional.
As noted, the 'training' of the Mexican army ranks was inadequate and deplorable, just as the supply of required materials such as powder. The corruption notoriously known in the Mexican government especially under Santa Anna certainly led to the poor production leading to miserable powder.

One thing I was trying to discover here was where in the world did Mexico in these years get the powder they were using? As noted, the British had very good quality powder with their considerable sources for saltpeter, however I feel sure the Mexicans thought they did not need that expense and could make their own. In all the resources I have checked there were mentions of certain arms works, but no mention at all of powder production.

With the Texians, although in limited supply, the powder they had was apparently Dupont, which was excellent powder, but diminished in quantity.
With all the powder however, the elements of weather and dampness rendering it relatively inert came very much in play.

Thank you again for joining us here! and never worry about reiterating something already said :) These threads can get pretty long and intense and often its good to bring up certain aspects that are key in the discussion from time to time.

[Jim McDougall]

Philip, just crossed posts. Thank you so much for bringing up the flints, which is a most salient factor as well in the operation of these guns, and honestly I had forgotten about. I know that one of the reasons that the flintlock remained in use for so long in remote regions was that it was often so difficult to get the percussion caps for guns with that 'modernized' feature.
With that, I had the impression that powder and commensurately the flints were far easier to come by. Clearly that notion was not entirely well founded, and getting these important components would often present issues....and edged weapons, bayonets etc. would prevail.

I do recall reading that in Spanish colonial America the use of the lance prevailed as a more durable and ready weapon as firearms were not as available due to serviceability and it would appear, lack of powder. Perhaps the lack of flint may have equally come into play.

[yulzari]

Mexico has traditionally been fond of fireworks and this was probably the major production purpose. Equally, whilst Mexico did make gun powder and the Confederate States in the ACW were woefully short of powder, I can find no suggestion that they attempted to import Mexican powder.

Both of these suggest to me that Mexico only made firework powder which would explain the poor shooting qualities when employed as a firearm powder.

Firearm gun powder is different in the quality of materials and it's processing to firework powder. It is both less powerful for the same weight or volume but also fouls the bore greatly.

[yulzari]

I wrote a post on the subject and it has disappeared into the ether so i will summarise.

The gun powder made in Mexico was probably firework powder which would match the described qualities of Mexican arms in the period and be fit for the major market for gun powder domestically.

[fernando]

If in one hand is plausible that Mexicans assumed the weakness of their explosives, it is rather amazing that their forces went to war knowing that their (no gun) powder was for pyrotechnic use.
For this or that reason, Santa Ana (in 1850's) "has acquired new machinery for the gunpowder factories" (Martha Eugenia Gillaumin).
As already approached, the use of a smaller projectile obviated for residual accumulation in the barrels. It looks as the trick to compensate for consequent (short) range limitations was the dispersion provided by the buck & ball load. This ammo system, first thought to be a 'possible' resource, was later confirmed by archaeologists (Doctor Greg Dimmick) who have found numerous Brown Bess cartridges loaded with a single basic ball added by a few buckshot pellets. Some story goes in that Joe, Travis slave, describes the type of projectile that hit his head as a compound looking like more than one shot.
On another note, we can read in an article by the Naval History Division that, on the 3th. March 1836 (3 days before the Alamo fall) " Texas schooner Liberty captures Mexican schooner Pelican off Sisal, Yucatan, with contraband gunpowder " ... for whatever this suggests.

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks very much guys!
Interesting notes Yulzari, . As you note, it is presumed that Mexico made powder (somewhere) in the 1830s period we are discussing, but where that might have been is what I cannot determine.
True, the fireworks industry is big in Mexico, having grown up in Southern California the endless supply of fireworks (not necessarily legal) from across the border was profoundly known.

It had seemed to me that although obviously the powder mixtures for fireworks were quite different than that used in gun powder, that the basic components would also have what was necessary for producing it.

The note on the Confederacy being short of powder is curious as I had always heard that these forces never experienced shortages of effective powder as they ran one of the biggest centers for production in North America.
Naturally this was during the Civil War which was years later than the Texian revolution and the Mexican America war.

Well noted on the buck and Ball Fernando, and thank you for the info on Santa Anna getting new machinery for gunpowder in the 1850s. By this time he had used up most of his many attempts at securing power in Mexico.
As you have pointed out, the terrible powder used would quickly foul the barrels of the guns, so smaller caliber ball was used, and the buckshot would add to the short range wounding potential of the underpowered shot.
The fact that Joe was hit in the head and survived is telling. There are numbers of accounts of men in these campaigns hit by Mexican ball and not notably wounded.

The terrible attitude toward the forces of the Mexican army seems to say that they were poorly trained and poorly supplied, basically cannon fodder. However elite forces such as the cazadores were much better armed and supplied.

Fernando, truly interesting note on that Mexican vessel captured off Yucatan with contraband powder! So where was this powder from?

[yulzari]

I will happily stand correction on the CSA powder availability. I had observed that they imported British made cartridges so used shipping space for quality powder.

Just as a note on powder qualities. Nepal made copy Francotte breechloading Martini action rifles and made their own powder. There were metal issues with the rifles but they were accepted into service. Then they were given British (Indian Arsenal) made ammunition with good quality powder. The result was many burst guns and the survivors withdrawn and put into store. In New Zealand some years ago the supply of firearm quality powder had ceased for some reason and the only powder available was a Chinese powder which was basically a firework powder and shooters experienced many of the reported Mexican results. In British Army service post Napoleonic Wars the musket charge reduced by a factor of @3 with the improvement in powder over the period. The Mexican problem was neither unique nor one which could not be dealt with by planning (larger cartridge charges) and discipline and training to keep the bores cleaned frequently in gaps in actions. Artillery officers needed the training and experience to compensate for the reduced ranges and adjust the sighting and commanders needed to appreciate that artillery needed to be sited to allow for the same. Infantry musket fire would have been limited by the extra thick own smoke. The training and discipline for officer controlled volley fire to allow firing all together when the smoke cleared would be another discipline which might be beyond the period Mexican Army. Even today people under estimate the skilled trade that is infantry warfare.

[fernando]

...The fact that Joe was hit in the head and survived is telling...
Actually Joe was describing how Travis was shot; i also didn't figure it out in the first place, when i read (and transcribed) the article.

[fernando]

... resuming that bad gunpowder was not the sole reason for Mexican forces failure but, a set of liabilities that could be avoided with skilled organization, tactics & discipline for one, obviously aggravated by the gunpowder issues; a well called dilemma by Jim which, for a start, if we think that firearms gunpowder was brought to Mexico by the Spaniards and only afterwards the locals started using it in fireworks, how could they forgot the propellant version know how ?
Was it an issue of components quality, rather than pure knowledge ? Mexico was rich in saltpeter, the main 'variable' of powder quality. Furthermore, if i understand correctly, making fireworks is a rather more complex craft.
Indeed when reading the various works on the Peninsular war, it was all about systems, tactics, discipline and such sort of the things that brought Anglo-Portuguese forces to victory over those of Napoleon... only seconded by equipment.

[Jim McDougall]

Actually Joe was describing how Travis was shot; i also didn't figure it out in the first place, when i read (and transcribed) the article.


Oh.....uh....that's different! :) oops.
Actually it was my own misunderstanding.....I have read so much Alamo history and should have remembered that description by 'Joe'.
Still the point was that the Mexican powder was so poor that in many cases, the shot did not even penetrate. In the case of the actual final attack, it was pretty much irrelevant as the Mexican forces became almost a virtual mob infiltrating the compound.
As defenders awakened, startled and without time to even load their guns, they had no choice but to try to escape. In their haste to prevent this, the Mexicans simply resorted to their bayonets, which appears to have been the method by which most defenders died. Naturally, we have no way of knowing this unequivocally as (technically) there were no survivors. All we have is Mexican accounts and those of non combatants who did survive.

[Jim McDougall]

... resuming that bad gunpowder was not the sole reason for Mexican forces failure but, a set of liabilities that could be avoided with skilled organization, tactics & discipline for one, obviously aggravated by the gunpowder issues; a well called dilemma by Jim which, for a start, if we think that firearms gunpowder was brought to Mexico by the Spaniards and only afterwards the locals started using it in fireworks, how could they forgot the propellant version know how ?
Was it an issue of components quality, rather than pure knowledge ? Mexico was rich in saltpeter, the main 'variable' of powder quality. Furthermore, if i understand correctly, making fireworks is a rather more complex craft.
Indeed when reading the various works on the Peninsular war, it was all about systems, tactics, discipline and such sort of the things that brought Anglo-Portuguese forces to victory over those of Napoleon... only seconded by equipment.

Well put Fernando, the 'dilemma' with powder was but one of the many issues, actually failings, of Santa Anna's forces which ultimately led to his defeat. The Alamo was but what in reality was an inconsequential rout, not a strategic battle, and the lack of viability of Santa Anna's forces would have resulted in a probably different outcome if Texian forces were military and in more conventional tactics and equipment.

Santa Anna, in my perception, was a bit an egotist and narcissist, who was more obsessed with Napoleon and his brilliant military acumen as seen by him. It seemed almost as if he was a 'military wargamer' with a living army to play out his fantasies, all dressed out in the colorful pageantry of the Napoleonic uniforms and tactics. He appears to have obviously been far less concerned with viable supplies of importance, such as gun powder. It does seem possible that corruption in the ranks of his officers might well have caused these issues and were unknown to him....however that too remains unclear.

The outcome of the 'attack' in the darkness that night at the Alamo in what I have understood seems almost as chaotic in the troops attacking outside in approaching the walls and defenses as it was inside once breached.
The 'volley fire' of the Mexican forces turned out to be right at other troops who had deviated from one attack point and flooded into another, and as a result the fire (from the hip rather than normal shoulder rest) lethally struck their own troops. In the darkness, and shooting emptily in the general direction of the 'attack', the shots went low, instead of over the heads of preceding forces as should have been the case.

I am curious about the powder which was discovered on the 'Pelicano' vessel captured (300 barrels) which was said to have been under the proprietorship of a New Orleans dealer and apparently destined for Mexican forces. If this was the case, it begs the question, could this have been valued DuPont powder? If so, could this have been a source for Mexican powder, which might have been later adulterated by unscrupulous Mexican officials in replacing it and reselling etc.?

As you note, Mexico had the necessary resources for saltpeter, as well as sulfur (volcanic) and charcoal so certainly could produce powder as required. True, while fireworks powder is certainly with different properties, it is comprised of the same or similar components, which they seem to have mastered well.

[fernando]

... I am curious about the powder which was discovered on the 'Pelicano' vessel captured (300 barrels) which was said to have been under the proprietorship of a New Orleans dealer and apparently destined for Mexican forces. If this was the case, it begs the question, could this have been valued DuPont powder?...
This instead would be a "trilemma" Jim; the contraband powder riddle, not the the shifting of the battle result. What was the men ratio of attackers/defenders ... ten to one ? They say that in these things of sieges, are the defenders who have the odds in their favor, but hardly with these unequal proportions; bad powder, wrong volleys, whatever.
In such circumstances, Mexicans could well bear the luxury of several liabilities, but they also had some assets; their lancers, for one, whom actually slaughtered the last bunch of defenders, as it is well documented.
Speaking of liabilities and still a bit off (gunpowder) topic, did you know that, reportedly, the bayonet of the Baker, used by some Mexican forces, besides being a nuisance due to its weight which prevented aiming accuracy, tended to fall off the rifle as, after intense firing sequence, its holding device deformed ?


.

[Jim McDougall]

This instead would be a "trilemma" Jim; the contraband powder riddle, not the the shifting of the battle result. What was the men ratio of attackers/defenders ... ten to one ? They say that in these things of sieges, are the defenders who have the odds in their favor, but hardly with these unequal proportions; bad powder, wrong volleys, whatever.
In such circumstances, Mexicans could well bear the luxury of several liabilities, but they also had some assets; their lancers, for one, whom actually slaughtered the last bunch of defenders, as it is well documented.
Speaking of liabilities and still a bit off (gunpowder) topic, did you know that, reportedly, the bayonet of the Baker, used by some Mexican forces, besides being a nuisance due to its weight which prevented aiming accuracy, tended to fall off the rifle as, after intense firing sequence, its holding device deformed ?


.



I think much of the issue historically with the Alamo is the very lack of agreement on so many details. It has never been entirely established as to how many Mexican troops were there, nor for that matter the accurate number of defenders. However, it seems now known that the attack made by Santa Anna was in early pre dawn hours, while most of the defenders were soundly asleep.
As well noted, Santa Anna had fully expected the rout of the defenders, and had strategically placed his lancers at locations where they would likely escape. Actually it was not just the last bunch of defenders, but there were at least two large groups and perhaps several smaller who attempted exiting the compound.
These actions should not be seen negatively as their emplacement was entirely overrun, and without any means of effective defense they had little other choice. They had been exhausted by the relentless artillery pounding by the Mexicans, which was more noise than anything else, but finally had ceased, no doubt part of Santa Annas plan. While the men had actually considered surrender, they could have escaped the day before as a number of open lines of escape were possible with the loosely positioned Mexican forces. If the defenders had been ready with loaded guns there may have been a better chance. Although the Alamo had 21 cannon, there was not only lack of ammunition, poor powder, but totally inadequate manpower for proper gun crews. To add to matters, there was sickness in the ranks (not just Bowie) and many men were in the hospital at the time of attack.

With the Mexican guns, even the accurate estimation of the models is unclear, but it is presumed these were India pattern muskets, which were sold off to the Mexican army after the end of the Napoleonic campaigns.
The Mexican forces termed these guns 'tecerlos' overall, unsure of translation.

While the Brown Bess' was issued at large to the rank and file, they did indeed use buck and ball (the buck was .35 cal) along with smaller than bore ball to account for fouled barrels.
I did reread the account by Joe (Travis' servant) and he was apparently describing his own wound, which was in his side, and from buckshot.

With the Baker rifles, it would appear that these were early models, and as they were with rifled barrels, the more elite cazadores received them and were trained in marksmanship. These were not in large number nor issued in an overall regulation, but those with them were skirmishers and snipers.
The first models (1 and 2) were issued with a huge sword bayonet (24") which added to the weight (over 9 lbs) and made the gun overall awkward.

It does not seem that the bayonet was broadly present with these, but it is noted that the trauma of muzzle blast would consistently weaken the hook and spring causing it to fall off. By the third model of these guns (1815) these bayonets were replaced by the familiar socket type.

These socket bayonets were used by the ranks with Brown Bess' with effect, and essentially in the melee of men trying to either load guns or get out of the chaos to regroup or escape within the compound. I have not found any specific mention of the Baker rifles with these huge sword bayonets thus far, but it seems doubtful there were many.

There is much we will never know about what really happened there, but recent publications have brought forth much very hard truth, though it mostly must be regarded as from reasonably to profoundly plausible.
Regardless, as in any battle, the valor of the men of all sides remains notably recognized in these difficult and terrible circumstances.

[fernando]

... However, it seems now known that the attack made by Santa Anna was in early pre dawn hours, while most of the defenders were soundly asleep...
The simplest of tactics :shrug: .

... With the Mexican guns, even the accurate estimation of the models is unclear ...
Not taking into account reportedly massive quantities of firearms left by the Spanish after independence, which seems not having been used, the basic equipment would have been British muskets with two different barrel lengths and the Baker.

...The Mexican forces termed these guns 'tecerlos' overall, unsure of translation...
I see it written 'tercerlos', but the correct (original) term is 'tercerola', as per Spanish dictionaries. This is the name they gave to a short version of the India pattern, which the Brits called 'Sergeants carbine'.

... With the Baker rifles, it would appear that these were early models, and as they were with rifled barrels, the more elite cazadores received them and were trained in marksmanship... The first models (1 and 2) were issued with a huge sword bayonet (24") which added to the weight (over 9 lbs) and made the gun overall awkward....
Heavy, ma non troppo, Jim ;
"Following the German style the Baker Rifle was designed to accept a sword-bayonet of some 24 inches long. Therefore the first bayonet for the Baker Rifle was a single-edged flat sword of 23 inches length. It was brass handled with a knuckle bow and clipped onto a muzzle bar. It weighed 2 pounds and, as later reports confirmed, created difficulties for firing when it was attached to the rifle muzzle".

... I have not found any specific mention of the Baker rifles with these huge sword bayonets thus far, but it seems doubtful there were many...
Yet they existed ... but in fact not all rifles were equipped with them .

... Regardless, as in any battle, the valor of the men of all sides remains notably recognized in these difficult and terrible circumstances...
Yes, a tribute to those who are the pawns in such games.

Attached:
Three of the few cannons that were left back in the Alamo site.


.

[Jim McDougall]

Fernando, if I may say so, absolutely excellent research and constructive support as well as defining modifications to observations! Thank you, and I very much appreciate the itemized attention to particular details.

This is exactly the kind of interaction that is so helpful in discussions and helps so much in developing threads. I think that often people misperceive varying kinds of modifications as corrections but in fact they are essential additions in true fact finding discourse and not personally oriented.

Actually your additions are entirely helpful in adding important dimension to my findings, and key information I may have overlooked or inadvertently omitted.
Thank you so much, really learning far more than I had thought.....the material is so much deeper than I have realized, and your insights outstanding.

Teamwork in investigative research and discussion. Excellente' !!!

[Jim McDougall]

Moving on, I think I have found some interesting perspective on the situation with back powder and the supply to the Mexican army in this time.
Apparently at the time of the 'Texas Revolution', the United States was actually in a pretty much 'business as usual' state as far as commerce in the Gulf of Mexico. This appears to have included supplies to the Mexican army of Santa Anna and through his appointed agents in New Orleans.
The Texians had a small navy of several ships that were patrolling and blockading movement of such supplies in the gulf, and it appears that Yucatan and Maramoros were key port locations for the Mexican trade.

One ship that was captured was Mexican, but owned by Americans (the Pelicano) and apparently had supplies including 300 barrels of powder mingled in with flour and other commodities. Two other American ships were taken also carrying arms, ammunition and powder for the Mexican Army. One ship, a brig from Boston, also had a contract to transport Mexican soldiers to Texas.

While this sounds provocative, it must be remembered that the United States was not at war with Mexico, it was a revolt of the Texians against Mexico. In fact there was considerable uproar of the 'commerce' in the Gulf being disturbed by these nautical situations, and the Texians even accused of piracy!

It would seem that the campaigns in Texas had Santa Anna with a notable shortage of supplies, which apparently included powder. That being the case, perhaps the powder on hand was 'cut' or altered to go farther?
Had the powder being used by Mexico been supplied through New Orleans?, as noted that regular commerce through that major port had been well established.

It would seem that Mexico may have been obtaining powder through New Orleans with Santa Anna through a firm he had business with, and through purchase orders via his worldwide agent for provisions and materials such as ammunition etc.

[fernando]

Still some missing links may be found out there, to be brought in for connection or, if preferred, a consolidation of all loose episodes in a solid timeline. Poor gunpowder, yes but, basically due to weak components, lack of know how, or adulterated by one of two reasons; economic interests based on bad faith, or 'cut' to extend its stocks due to contextual shortage ... hardly a measure, due to its technical naivety. And then, which of those motives motivated Mexicans to acquire extra gunpowder from abroad ? And from when have they realized they needed such supplements ? Why thinking that the Pelicano was the first ship to transport gunpowder for Santa Ana forces? I wouldn't call it contraband, as that would be one sided point of view. Wouldn't it be interesting to spot a publication narrating the gunpowder saga, viewed from inside by a Mexican (documented) author ? Forgetting that is the historian that makes the history, as real or according to his taste. No, just a politically naked synopsis on the subject.


.

[yulzari]

This all reinforces the idea that Mexican powder was not of a firearm quality and they sought to remedy that by imports as the Mexican producers were unwilling or unable to source and suitably process the necessary quality of ingredients for firearm quality powder. All gun powder uses the same basic ingredients but there are major differences in the purity of them, type of wood and charring processes and how they are incorporated and then processed. There is little that can be done to bring firework powder up to firearm standards . I could go into tedious detail but gun powder making is far more complex than just chucking together the 3 basic ingredients and making the best of it is a very subtle affair which is, even now, not fully understood.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you for the responses guys!!!
Fernando, as always very well observed. There are indeed many missing links, but after lengthy research trying to find more after the Pelicano matter was brought in, what I found was under a very different heading than specifically gun powder.
The information I found had to do with espionage which was also carried out via these 'trade' arrangements, and the mention of powder was almost an aside included with descriptions of materials and commodities being carried.

The point is that there does not seem to have been more than casual mention of Mexican gun powder aside from that kind of cursory reference or the derisive regard toward its quality and inefficiency. What I wonder is, if the Mexican powder was so poor and ineffective...….then why was it so?
Its poor character is mentioned repeatedly in historical works and accounts of the Alamo and other campaigns.

It is mentioned that in the departure of the expedition of Texians who left the Alamo prior to the siege (the Matamoros expedition) they 'took most of the good powder'. That would have been the Dupont that apparently was the premium powder brought in by the volunteers.
That left the defenders with the amount of powder which was left behind by the Mexicans in the Alamo along with the cannons after General Cos surrendered to the Texians in December.
Narratives record that Cos, allowed to leave to return to Mexico with a limited supply of powder and arms (for protection) took , again, the 'good' powder, leaving that deemed inadequate.

We know he spiked cannon, as may be expected not wishing materials to fall into the hands of his enemies. Could he have somehow adulterated the powder in deliberate sabotage?
If the powder being used by the Mexicans was already poor as per the accounts of other battles, then why worry about it?
Susanna Dickinson, wife of one of the gunners at the Alamo who was there and survived spoke of the 'damaged' powder held in the magazine there.
I suppose her husband, artillery being his specialty, may have grumbled about it to her.

Returning to the Pelicano, and the associated captures mentioned, 'contraband' was the term used in the material I read, and while not regarded as such to the trading companies involved from the US, it certainly was deemed as such by the Texian vessels 'interfering' with its transport to their enemies, the Mexican army.

In all the material and bibliographies I have researched through (over many years and numerous visits to the Alamo and resources there) I have never found any specific reference focused on Mexican gunpowder. That is NOT to say it does not exist, but that I, personally, have not found it. Hence, the reason for this thread.

It is very true that these matters and topics as dealt with by each historian or narrator reflect their own views and perspective. That is why it is incumbent on researchers to always dig deeper, corroborate and cross reference all available material. Only then can a reasonably plausible outcome or resolution be determined, based on the preponderance of evidence which favors a specific result.

As Yulzari has well noted, the ingredients for the varying grades of powder (black powder) are gauged according to the intended use. The powder for firearms is of finer grained, while that for artillery is 'corned' or much coarser, these variables tuned for the explosive or 'burn' properties required.
Fireworks would seem to be more for pyrotechnic effect of visual character rather than for propelling projectiles, so clearly with much different mixture.

In analogy, toward the producing of gun powder, it does seem to require a certain measure of adept ability, and I think of the situation in the Sudan prior to Omdurman (1898). Khartoum had been taken by Mahdist forces, and the arsenal and the abundant materials were being put to use to supply the building forces of the Caliph. While, as at the Alamo, there were many arms on hand, but as always, the difficulty was powder.

In similar character as the ranks of peasant soldiers in the Mexican army, relatively untrained, the Ansar warriors fired 'from the hip', and again, their powder (produced ineffectively in the arsenal at Omdurman) was poor in quality. There were accounts of British soldiers hit numerous times by Sudanese bullets which only superficially wounded them, if at all.
The same description came from Texians in confrontations with Mexican forces.

It seems I had read of the difficulty in transporting powder with Santa Annas forces in their long march through inclement weather to get to the Alamo. The powder I believe had to be stabilized (?) and did that entail either dampening it, or making it less volatile? Perhaps ineffective adjustment of its properties by that or weather itself rendered it less effective?

As a matter of note, the kegs of gunpowder on the Pelican were found 'mingled' with bags of flour, and this was presented as if the powder (contraband) was intended hidden? Could this have been meant to somehow preserve or stabilize the powder? unconventional though it seems...or was the agent (Zacharie) indeed unaware of the powder hidden away in the flour?

[David R]

I find "firing from the hip" of interest. Frederic the Great's (der Alte Fritze) troops fired from the hip, to speed up the delivery of volly's, and the same was done by Prussian troops in 1870. (Gas escape from early breach loaders)Having had an eye nearly taken out by side blast in a re-enactment, the Mexican troops have my sympathy.
There is a reason for the term "Fog of War"

[Jim McDougall]

I find "firing from the hip" of interest. Frederic the Great's (der Alte Fritze) troops fired from the hip, to speed up the delivery of volly's, and the same was done by Prussian troops in 1870. (Gas escape from early breach loaders)Having had an eye nearly taken out by side blast in a re-enactment, the Mexican troops have my sympathy.
There is a reason for the term "Fog of War"

Thanks David! Interesting notes on firing from the hip to speed up volleys.
It does seem like the dynamics of the ignition of the powder would have pretty negative possibility to a persons face. While not having much (any) experience in firing these kinds of guns, I did once fire a muzzle loader, and smoke and sparks were pretty disconcerting.

The smoke alone made me wonder, in the discharge of a single gun, the acrid smoke was unbelievable. Multiply by hundreds, even thousands and 'fog' would be an understatement.

With the Mexican forces, I think the big problem was firing in total darkness and with the low elevation of guns actually shooting into the forward ranks instead of over them.

[yulzari]

If the powder had to be 'stabilised' that would suggest it was firework meal powder and not corned so the ingredients would separate in transit. Gun powder is a mechanical mixture not a compound. That would involve the powder being removed from the keg and remixed. Probably by hand. There would no reason to mix any other (i.e. flour) into the gun powder. Occasionally sawdust used to be mixed in for blasting purposes to slow the production of gasses to give a longer 'heave' rather than sharp cracking effect but that is irrelevant to firearms use.

Gun powder manufacturers will only make firearms good quality powder if there is a regular demand. If Mexico had only a small hunting firearms use the only other demand could come from the military. Otherwise that small demand would be best met by import. If the military are not demanding good powder from ignorance, lassitude or outright corruption (buying cheap powder and pocketing the difference from good) and there is no state manufacturer that can be directed, then industry will only make powder they can sell and firework powder needs far less capital to set up and is far cheaper to run.

The fault comes down to Mexican government and military culture of the time which itself is a manifestation of Mexican period culture and it's preceding history.

[Jim McDougall]

What I meant about the flour in the Pelican 'incident' was that the powder kegs were 'mingled' (i.e. partially hidden by) BAGS of flour, as if deliberately loaded (i.e. placed in the hold) in such a manner. The agent who shipped the materials from New Orleans, claimed he had NO knowledge of the gun powder among the shipment and it was no included in the manifest. I did not mean the flour was mixed into the powder.

I understand that black powder is not a chemical mixture, but 'mechanical' therefore simply mixed ingredients which maintain their own individual properties. It does seem that there was some mention of remixing powder but details I am not certain of. I believe it was after being transported from Mexico into Texas, which is why I wondered if some special means were in place to make it less volatile.

Interesting notes on the corning of powder, in which I had the impression that powder for artillery was heavier grained for the type of explosive needed in projecting the heavy shot etc. I admit as is obvious not fully comprehending the differences in forms of powder used for firearms, artillery and the related topic of fireworks.

The point I have been trying to get to is discovering where Mexico was obtaining their powder for the military, since there was considerable military activity with Santa Annas army at the time. I had not imagined that the military would be acquiring powder from suppliers furnishing hunting needs, so of course importing would be necessary for the types of powder and quantities required for military action.

It does not seem there was a time, particularly the wars of the 18th into the 19th etc etc that there was not a demand for good firearms powder, as well as artillery grade powder as military action was always in place at one place or another. Clearly export and import were necessary to move those commodities as well as saltpeter, a key ingredient, to these places.

As England had some of the best powder of the times, if I understood correctly, and they had been disposing of massive quantities of firearms at the close of the Napoleonic campaigns (as in the sale of over 400,000 muskets and rifles to Mexico in 1820s)..I thought possibly they might also sell powder.
If the evidence of powder being shipped out of New Orleans is correct, then that location might be Mexico's source. Whether it was British in origin, or the high grade Dupont...the point was that it had to be GOOD powder and would beg the question ...WHY was Mexican gun powder so bad?

[fernando]

...WHY was Mexican gun powder so bad?
Specially taking into account that the invention was brought there by the Spanish Cortez early in the XVI century; and the joy shown in his letters to the Spanish King, due to the abundance of the necessary ingredients in local lands. I would take it as implicit that "cousin" fireworks was a tradition also brought by the Spaniards. It is not hard to realize that gunpowder takes more care to fabricate, but i would hardly digest the fact that preparing fireworks powder is a simple thing to achieve. One does not wake up in the morning and go to basement to fix some pyrotechnics only by reading the users manual; and eventually the risk to kick the bucket by mishandling the components appears to be the same in both cases.
Picture 1; an extract of Hernan Cortez report.
Picture 2 & 3; courtesy American Museum of Natural History.
Picture 4; How Goya saw the Spaniards performing the making of gunpowder.
Picture 5; The XVI century flour mill Molino del Rey in Mexico city, where next to it was the "old gunpowder mill".
Picture 6; a detail of the pavement in the pateo of the old (now museum) Portuguese black powder mill of Barcarena, where the bricks are positioned in "cleaver" and "spine", to avoid the risk of sparks by friction.


.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you Fernando, very well illustrated.
I agree, it must not have been a simple thing to do in making gunpowder, or why would there be such a struggle to import or obtain it from sources other than their own homemade concoctions.

Throughout the Mexican campaigns from the Texian revolt to the Mexican American war descriptions of the inadequacy of Mexican powder prevail. This was in artillery as well as firearms. In colonial New Spain, it was made clear that the use of the lance prevailed due to either shortages of or inadequacy of gunpowder. The reason Mexicans became so adept with lances was because they used them for hunting as well as for military purposes.

Interesting to see the example of a flour mill next to a gunpowder mill :) I guess two incredibly important commodities.

Interesting too seeing the bricks placed in a manner to avoid sparks, sounds like very prudent engineers.

[fernando]

I must have put it wrong in trying to establish the relation between 'fireworks powder' and 'gun powder'. In that between one and the other there isn't such an interval of knowledge. I wonder whether a gun powder craftsman is able to prepare fireworks powder just by his experience without any new learning.
On the other hand, i have now learnt that, while gun powder was brought to Mexico as early as in the era of conquistadors, fireworks also went from Europe but as late as in the XIX century.

I gather that the use of the lance, such an ancient reliable weapon as it is, was not an alternative weapon for Mexicans specifically caused by bad gunpowder issues. It has been a long way before firearms were so reliable as to convince armies to abandon lances and other white arms ... all over the globe. A humid 'good' gunpowder or a 'soaked' flint (or even a percussion) musket/rifle would let you down in the more critical of occasions; something you Jim have often approached.

-

[yulzari]

Just to emphasise, the making of firework powder is comparatively easy. Good firearms powder is another matter.

Ordinary charcoal is hardwood charred in a covered pit or chamber at a high temperature. Good firearms powder requires lightweight woods, charred in a temperature controlled sealed burn at a low temperature with the other products of combustion removed during the process but retaining the fouling softening creosotes. Then ball milled to an impalpable dust and it can then be used. Termed a meal powder.

Delivered sulphur contains assorted contaminants and good performance requires it to be melted and the light contaminants skimmed off or left and the heavy ones left behind as the middle liquid is drawn off, cooled, broken and ball milled as above.

The saltpetre is even more contaminated and needs to be put into solution and crystallised. Perhaps several times to get a near pure result. Then again ball milled etc.

After the same mixing as firework powder it is put into expensive powered rolling mills (weighing tons) under careful controls and mechanically incorporated under these many tons of pressure for several hours. The longer the better. Then it is dampened and pressed at high pressure until it forms a hard cake. Once dried out the cake is broken up and then milled into chosen size grains. Said grains aresubject to being rolled loose to glaze the grains. All the the dust is removed and returned to be used in the next batch. Only them is it fit to be used as dense smooth grains. There are variations in wood, temperature of burn, length of milling time, density of the cake pressing, the size of the grains and general variations in the quality of the ingredients including the water used to dampen the powder for milling and for caking. Today one can buy firearms powder of a period 'musket' standard, 'rifle' powder and rarely a true 'sporting' powder to match rifle standards as in the late 19th century. Even in those days they could be tailored to give burning at chosen temperature. In one case a proportion of the fine charcoal was mixed with 30% charred peas so as to reduce the temperature of the burn to prevent the fouling being too hard in certain cases. The modern Aubonne works uses more saltpetre in their powder than normal which reduces the gas production slightly but increases the adiabatic expansion of those hot gases to give a better and more constant burn.

I mention all of this to show how hard it is to make a good firearm powder of even 'musket' powder standard and needs a customer willing to pay a far higher price than the minimum and an industry willing and able to invest in the capital and skilled staff to achieve it. The British experience of their suppliers in the ARW led them to demand higher standards and to invest heavily in the means to make it thus. French powder, at that time, was far better and made in government mills built to make good powder. If it took Britain until the Napoleonic wars to make the change and I doubt if Mexico had either the means, the will or the government culture to do the same only 20 yers later.

I will mention that meal powder can be corned, badly, with lighter pressure and little milling, even in a stamp mill by simply grating of the lightly pressed, or just dried, cake and passing the gratings through chosen sieves but the result is soft and prone to crumble in storage and transport. In which case the powder will need to be remixed or good grains separated from the crumbled dust. Gun powder is a very complex substance from which to get the best results. By the end of the use of gun powder in small arms it was moving into solid rods with assorted shaped holes to adjust the rate of burn so there was a collective sigh of relief when smokeless nitro powders were introduced.

[fernando]

Yulzari, let me bow to your knowledge. Being that i am only playing by ear, just to give a fight to Jim ;), i don't stand a chance to mess with your expertise. The thing is that we find a zillion works out there on the problematics of powder but never a comparison (technical or not) between the various powder products, in what touches their difficulty degree of preparation. All i can reach is that, the mill that makes powder for guns is able to make it for all less demanding purposes; such is the case of the main Portuguese powder factory. Previously the Royal armoury smithy, started making black powder in 1729, with four limestone galgas (mills), later replaced by wooden ones, with bronze hoops, containing in their interior metallic spheres to add weight to the setups, still making them more maneuverable; an invention with a replica now exhibited in the factory museum. Powered by the nearby water stream; modified to steam power in 1879, to electricity in 1920, diesel in 1924 and finally a hydro-electric group. It is to believe that the Portuguese could make a decent gunpowder since early days, judging by period chronicles. Yet in these facilities they produced powder ('pólvora') for hunting, mining, quarry, cannon, signals, and artifice fire (fireworks). Even when the factory started producing chemical powder in the 1940 decade, they maintained the fabrication of foguetes (firecrackers) and luminous artifices.


.

[yulzari]

Indeed the technology existed for the Mexicans to make good powder had they decided to do so but the performance of the Mexican small arms and artillery as described in the Alamo and later war demonstrates that they did not choose to do so. Possibly they imported some good powder for their rifles. I have noted no rifle references in the commentaries.

The behaviour of the Mexican arms displays all the signs of poor powder. The Portuguese government mills shows how it could have been done. The Portuguese army had become accustomed to British powder in the Peninsula campaign with the extensive material support from Britain and was regarded as a very competent and reliable ally.

Tultepc by Mexico City has been a firework manufacturing centre for th past 200 years since Mexican independence and the end of the Spanish Royal gunpowder monopoly so Mexico did indeed make it's own gun powder in the relevant period, both for fireworks and blasting powder for mining.

BTW I notice that period Mexican gun flints found in Tucson were old French ones.

[fernando]

Portuguese were accustomed to gunpowder over four centuries before the Peninsular war, whether learnt from the British or whomever. Such is evidenced in history, based on countless artillery contacts. I don't think they would go as far as they did with low ratio gunpowder.

.

[fernando]

Hoping not to be boring but, this is the first time i read of Mexican gunpowder grade being put in concrete terms, rather than just bad, poor or mediocre.
I have extracted a couple of (hopefuly) interesting paragraphs from the work "Finding A Face: El Soldado Mexicano 1835-1848" by Kevin R. Young, Historian (San Antonio, Texas).
I hope the PDF i have created is amenable.

.

[Jim McDougall]

Yulzari, I want to thank you for some of the most informative and detailed perspective and insight into the dynamics of the varied types of black powder I have seen. It is clear you have expertise in this topic far beyond what is typically found in most resources concerning the differences and production of gun powder. I think in most cases these presume that readers already have some knowledge on these details and do not get far enough into particulars.

Fernando modestly suggests he is 'playing by ear' however I know he has far more knowledge than I do regarding firearms and ordnance, where I am very much the novice. Your well written explanations are excellent and most helpful.

From what I have found on the circumstances with Mexico and the powder 'dilemma' as I have described here, the poor results of the powder issued may add 'incompetence' to the 'mixture' of the situation over years.

It does seem that along with the poor military administration which had been pretty much the hallmark of New Spain through the 18th c into 19th, that firearms were indeed in considerable paucity in the frontiers in particular.
Apparently the few guns which were obtained were misused and not properly maintained by the soldiers, and armorers did not have proper tools, parts no expertise to repair them.
The lack of proper training and marksmanship was primarily due to lack of powder and ammunition to permit such drill.

It seems that by the time Santa Anna took over, the arsenals overall had been largely dismantled, probably for more centralized control as he became dictator. As has been suggested, the proper mixing of gunpowder does take specific skill, and while the necessary ingredients for it were certainly well available in Mexico, the skills for producing it were apparently not
In the campaigns discussed, one of the unfortunate circumstances was the incompetence of ordnance officers issuing incorrect ammunition to the soldiers for their weapons, which were Brown Bess while many were Baker rifles.

Here I would say that I imagine that the gun powder captured from New Orleans destined for Santa Anna was sorely needed.

[Jim McDougall]

Hoping not to be boring but, this is the first time i read of Mexican gunpowder grade being put in concrete terms, rather than just bad, poor or mediocre.
I have extracted a couple of (hopefuly) interesting paragraphs from the work "Finding A Face: El Soldado Mexicano 1835-1848" by Kevin R. Young, Historian (San Antonio, Texas).
I hope the PDF i have created is amenable.

.

Fernando...………..not boring!!! This is the exact topic we are trying to examine, and this is an absolutely excellent excerpt with key information. This is actually a source I had not seen, so thank you.

With regard to the Cazadores, these were actually of the more elite forces in the Mexican army, and as such they were better trained, excellent marksmen and were typically issued the Baker rifles. These are, as per their description, rifled and thus capable of accurate fire.

I would add here, digressing from the powder issue but to the use of lances by Mexican cavalry, the resounding defeat of US dragoons by Mexican lancers in the first skirmish of the Mexican War (1846) was at San Pascual in California. This was noted to describe the skill of Mexican lancers over the supposedly well armed dragoons.
Actually, the US forces were well worn after one of the longest marches of the time, and were on blown horses and mules, armed with new type percussion rifles. It was extremely cold, and literally the middle of the night in early morning hours.

It as been claimed they were overtaken by Mexican lancers because the powder in their guns was wet from earlier rain, however the real reason was the cold fingers in total darkness could not secure the necessary firing caps on the guns. These were 'improved' M1833 Hall carbines which had a percussion system but flawed breech which often gapped over time, and the paper cartridges were loaded OK, but the priming caps were the bigger issue.
The paper cartridges, contrary to popular belief, were not truly dampened as they were held in cartridge cases which were treated to be moisture resistant.
After sunrise, fighting continued in degree with the guns of the dragoons firing as designed.

Beyond this, the Mexicans were not regular line cavalry, but vaqueros (ranchers) of militia armed with the lances they used for hunting and as previously mentioned, notably without firearms.
They were on familiar terrain, and excellent horsemen, well mounted .
Members of the American force were unable to adequately defend themselves.

The dramatized painting is of course compelling but as often the case, embellished. It is not clear whether the red pennons, or any were on the lances. The red is of course the 'no quarter' warning later described in the accounts of the Alamo and the deguello.
The image of the battle area reveals to rugged terrain they were in.

[fernando]

... It as been claimed they were overtaken by Mexican lancers because the powder in their guns was wet from earlier rain, however the real reason was the cold fingers in total darkness could not secure the necessary firing caps on the guns...
... And what did i remind you the other day ? ;)

...I gather that the use of the lance, such an ancient reliable weapon as it is, was not an alternative weapon for Mexicans specifically caused by bad gunpowder issues. It has been a long way before firearms were so reliable as to convince armies to abandon lances and other white arms ... all over the globe. A humid 'good' gunpowder or a 'soaked' flint (or even a percussion) musket/rifle would let you down in the more critical of occasions; something you Jim have often approached...

[Jim McDougall]

Yeah yeah! OK dad!!! I know, you did :)

Surprisingly though, the lance continued its use in many contexts even into the 20th c in WWI. German uhlans had incredibly long steel lances, and there were numerous contingents of Bengal and other lancers with Great Britain in a number of campaigns.

Most of what I have read on New Spain did note that the lance was favored over the use of guns as a primary weapon in the frontiers. As noted, the lack of powder and paucity of firearms themselves were key in that preference.
In the more metropolitan areas and cities this was not so much the case.

While one of the most intriguing conditions in New Spain was that remarkably obsolete arms and armor continued in use long after they were no longer in use in Europe. However, the use of the lance was not related to this proclivity of obsolete arms forms, such as the lance, but was actually more toward the notable use of the lance by American Indian warriors which revived the usefulness of them with the Spaniards.

Toward the unreliability of firearms, the advent of the use of the tomahawk by colonials was presented by the Indian tribes who learned that they had a window of attack using these as the colonists reloaded. Clearly this was not as opportune with soldiers using volley fire, but with loosely formed groups firing independently it was of course used as noted.

[David R]

Slightly off subject,but a reminder of how late lancers were used in the field. Indian Lancers in Mesopotamia WWI.

[Jim McDougall]

The situation with Mexico and their gunpowder issues does not seem to have an isolated matter, apparently America had their own problems during the Revolutionary War. It seems that in colonial America, there had been sources of gunpowder production, but over time the mills had been left to decay and the reliance was on England for powder. By the time of the Revolution, there were supplies of British powder remaining, but obviously the colonists needed their own supply now.
There were incentives offered by the state governments, and there were even instruction booklets offered. However, much of what was produced was terrible to the point investigations were even set toward one well known producer.
Had France not come to the rescue with their superior powder, America might have lost.
In one reference it was noted that France had a poor return on production (1774) when they had purchased cheap saltpeter from India (British controlled), but returned to regular quality after that ceased.

That was the key, saltpeter. In that time, it was known that gunpowder was a mixture of sulfur, charcoal and potassium nitrate (saltpeter), however the compound of potassium nitrate was not chemically understood. Chemistry itself was only a rudimentary science then with that compound not properly identified.

It has been noted that in the Mexican powder, it was with too much sulfur and charcoal and inadequate saltpeter. That would seem to have been the common denominator in most gunpowder deemed inferior, just as in the American colonies and as noted, Mexico.

Having identified what appears to be a key factor in the gunpowder issues with Mexico, I would include kind of a lighter note found regarding the 'flour' situation in previous posts. I discovered that flour can actually become explosive when it is suspended as 'dust' in air.
It takes only 1 or 2 grams of dust per cubic foot of air (50 or more grams per cubic meter) to become volatile enough to explode. The flour grains are so minute they burn instantly if ignited.
With that interesting discovery I was thinking that perhaps hiding the gunpowder on the 'Pelican' under bags of flour might not have been such a good idea :)
Whether viable or not, it just seemed interesting.

Still hoping to discover any reference to actual gunpowder making (or attempts at it) in the periods of the Texas Revolution or Mexican War (1830s to 1840s).

[fernando]

... Most of what I have read on New Spain did note that the lance was favored over the use of guns as a primary weapon in the frontiers. As noted, the lack of powder and paucity of firearms themselves were key in that preference...
How many of the following reasons were valid; education on its use inherited from ancients, simplicity (no need to resource other components to make it functional); the cost of firearms acquisition and continuous ammunition maintenance) ... and reliability !

... While one of the most intriguing conditions in New Spain was that remarkably obsolete arms and armor continued in use long after they were no longer in use in Europe...
As also occurred (and still occur) in other continents; in a certain extent, colonized locals were not allowed to possess firearms above a determined grade.

[Jim McDougall]

How many of the following reasons were valid; education on its use inherited from ancients, simplicity (no need to resource other components to make it functional); the cost of firearms acquisition and continuous ammunition maintenance) ... and reliability !


As also occurred (and still occur) in other continents; in a certain extent, colonized locals were not allowed to possess firearms above a determined grade.


It appears I have reversed the use of the lance in suggesting the Spaniards learned from the Indians, actually it was the other way around. The Comanches actually acquired horse as well as the use of that weapon from the Spanish.
While the lance was certainly brought to the New World by the Spanish in the early incursions in 16th c. its long standing use was a preference which was maintained in later years over other weapons due to the reasons mentioned.

"..owing to the scarcity of firearms and perennial shortage of lead and gunpowder, the lance remained an important weapon in the Spanish colonies long after it had fallen into disuse elsewhere".
"Spanish Colonial Ironwork"
Frank Turley & Marc Simmons
2007, p.177

In the late 1590s, soldiers in New Mexico were seen with lances with triple bladed lance head (runka), and later inspections of troops in New Mexico (1684) noted lances. So the lance had remained a weapon of choice since the 'conquest' as noted (reminded Fernando :) and simply remained so despite the advance of firearms in most other contexts.

It would seem this favor reigned mostly in the frontier regions where these shortages prevailed, while firearms supply was abundant to the south in Mexico City and ports.
"...the lance was the favorite weapon of the presidial soldiers in the northern frontiers of New Spain".
"Spanish Military Weapons in Colonial America 1700-1821"
Pierce Chamberlain & Sidney Brinckerhoff, 1972, p.108

The adoption of the lance had nothing to do with the weapons of ancients who had used a projectile weapon called atlatl and kinds of obsidian bladed swords of a kind with pieces of this razor sharp rock imbedded in a shaft.

Returning once again to gunpowder availability and production.

With the science of chemistry only in rudimentary state, the properties of the components of the potassium nitrate were not accurately understood even by early 1800s, and known primarily by the long known element of nitre.
This was typically obtained in natural state from bat guano, which found in caves retained its favored properties for its use as oxidant in gun powder.
It would seem that naturally found nitre (saltpeter) found in other means such as bird droppings or uric composed material were subject to certain deficiencies in cases due to absence or excesses of other natural processes.

Thus it would seem that the physical properties of the saltpeter obtained from natural resources might mitigate the effective outcome of the powder produced. Apparently Europe, specifically France and England, had far more advanced the creation of higher quality powder, and France had Antoine Lavoisier the famed chemist as head of gunpowder organization officially .

While Mexico by the 1830s seems to have been trying to adequately supply its forces, it would seem that inadequate supply of powder as well as the poor result of local production may have come from deficiencies in supply of adequate components. This seems to have been the case in America during the Revolution as well, as recounted in "Arming America", M. Bellesiles, 2000.
It is noted that even with the colonists and the fledgling military, the poor marksmanship and lack of proper training with firearms were due to the same shortages of ammunition and powder restricting practice as Mexico faced.

I would note here that the Bellesiles work is highly controversial due primarily to apparent flaws in mostly statistical and legal records research, but the historical data and overview is in my opinion sound.

[Philip]

In the late 1590s, soldiers in New Mexico were seen with lances with triple bladed lance head (runka), and later inspections of troops in New Mexico (1684) noted lances. So the lance had remained a weapon of choice since the 'conquest' as noted (reminded Fernando :) and simply remained so despite the advance of firearms in most other contexts.


.

We tend to associate late-medieval and Renaissance Spain with the art of the sword, first the broadsword and then the rapier. An interesting 15th cent. series of books by a Spanish professional soldier with literary talents, Pietro Monte, sheds much light on individual combat, horsemanship, military organization, and the martial qualities of men and nations as they were understood in Spain and Italy when Europe was taking its first steps into modernity.

One of his works in particular, Petri Montii exercitorum atque artis militaris collectanea in III libros distincta (Milan, 1509) explains the importance of shaft weapons in the fighting techniques of the era. What we tend to lump into a large category of "lances" are actually a variety of long weapons of specific design and purpose.

The lanza, strictly speaking, was a long spear used on horseback (similar weapons are still used for equestrian boar hunting in Spain). Infantrymen were equipped with an even longer spear, known as a lanzón or pica which is familiar to us as the pike. This weapon, fearsome in the hands of well-drilled Spanish mercenary pikemen, became an essential adjunct to musketeers who were vulnerable while reloading their weapons (prior to the invention of the bayonet). Pikes, due to their length and weight, were best deployed in tight formation to create impenetrable hedges against enemy assaults.

Spears of medium length, jinetas, were ideal for individual combat since their size and lighter weight made them far more maneuverable. These were the counterpart to the Roman hasta, designed for use in the hand as opposed to the javelin or pilum which was intended to be a missile.

The runka which you mention was known as the spetum in Southern Europe, and Monte attaches considerable importance to it. Its design and usage can be best stated in a short quote from the Collectanea:

"The spetum usually attacks with the point, although it has a pair of sharp ears, each curving forward like a half-bow, and able to slice with a reverse or a cut. It is a strong weapon, for it can parry any long or short weapon with the ears, both high and low, and to the side. The spetum should sit in the hands such that one ear stands upward and the other downward, so that a small rotation brings it crosswise to trap the opponent's weapon...The spetum can easily fight against any weapon. In opposing it we should wear mail gauntlets...since the ears can slice..."

[yulzari]

Not quite relevant to the use of the lance in mid 19th century Mexico but I was issued a lance for formal guards whilst in the British army in the 1970's and my local gun shop in France has a small line in modern boar spears in shiny stainless steel with synthetic shafts and handles which are used by the more athletic members of some local chasses but on foot.

[fernando]

... "..owing to the scarcity of firearms and perennial shortage of lead and gunpowder, the lance remained an important weapon in the Spanish colonies long after it had fallen into disuse elsewhere".
"Spanish Colonial Ironwork"
Frank Turley & Marc Simmons
2007, p.177.,.
Jim, was i a documented historian and would question the "long after it had fallen into disuse elsewhere" statement :o .

...In the late 1590s, soldiers in New Mexico were seen with lances with triple bladed lance head (runka)...
Yes indeed; an Iberian resource ... for one.

...The adoption of the lance had nothing to do with the weapons of ancients who had used a projectile weapon called atlatl and kinds of obsidian bladed swords of a kind with pieces of this razor sharp rock imbedded in a shaft.
I hope it was not my mentioning 'ancient' inheritances that went misunderstood; i was surely meaning by ancient, early Spanish with their gear. Surely no atlatls ;) .



.. That was the key, saltpeter. In that time, it was known that gunpowder was a mixture of sulfur, charcoal and potassium nitrate (saltpeter), however the compound of potassium nitrate was not chemically understood. Chemistry itself was only a rudimentary science then with that compound not properly identified...
With the science of chemistry only in rudimentary state, the properties of the components of the potassium nitrate were not accurately understood even by early 1800s... Apparently Europe, specifically France and England, had far more advanced the creation of higher quality powder, and France had Antoine Lavoisier the famed chemist as head of gunpowder organization officially ...
Ah, the academic perspective. What bout empirics ? Lavoisier was not even thinking of being brought to this world and bunches of dudes were engaging into battle stirruped on the gunpowder as a vital resource. If you have a strong willing to win and the laboratories were yet not invented, you test and test different mixtures and different 'cooking' times until you achieve something capable. You don't go to war without knowing how reliable is your powder; neither you surrender to the fact that your ingredients are not satisfactory. For some reason XVI century King João II imported reliable saltpeter from Venice, or in the XVIII the century the Portuguese set up saltpeter mines in colonized Brazil. Indeed the French were good at making gunpowder; nevertheless when they invaded Portugal they chased local University researchers who were highly skilled in the gunpowder field.
And speaking of how to make it, guano and all, there are 'many ways to kill a flee', meaning that there are various processes to make, or 'grow', saltpeter.
However too exhaustive to translate and not vital for the discussion.
But let me cite three passages of "Memorias de la Revolucion Mexicana, including a report of the expedition by General Xavier Mina, when about the siege of the Los Remedios fortress; re-translated to Spanish by William Robinson ... and now tre-translated by my humble self:

"Despite the vigilance made by the enemy, some brave peasants entered the fortress almost daily with gunpowder and other articles; the provision of ammunition was abundant, meat abounded and the best fresh bread was served daily. On the contrary the situation of the Royalist forces presented a strong contrast".

Again:

"the ammunition provision was also considerable, added that we counted with enough nitrate, sulphur, iron and lead"

Later as things seemed to worsen:

"We have previously mentioned the considerable amounts of saltpeter, sulphur and coal existed in the fortress, whith which the necessary gunpowder could be elaborated but, be it the bad administration of those in command or for depending on the supplies from Juajill, as only as one person was employed in the fabrication of this indispensable article. The operation was realized by the patriots in a rather tedious manner, using metates (mealing stones). The ingredients are milled in these stones and are after granulated by passing through them cedazos (sieves). This process is so slow that a man elaborates in a day what an official specialist can do in a hour. When preparing without ability or scientific knowledge the necessary proportions, its grain is bad, frequently not sustained and rarely you can rely on it. Hence bad, as it was, the gunpowder quality, in any case a sufficient quantity could have been made if the opportune precautions had taken place".

So Jim, i would not view the whole Mexican 'bad' powder saga as properly a dilemma per se, but a circumstance like many that occur here and there; only that this one, in the context, is more publicized than (many ?) others.

.

[fernando]

As a matter of fact a few days ago i was compelled to figure out what kind of pole arm those guys in the Benin bronze plaques (last picture my post #64 ) was holding. I have consulted my micro resources and none of the findings satisfied me. Interesting that, for two 'basic' styles shown in books, there are 'at least' four different names (Runka, Ranseur, Corseque, Spetum), with respective descriptions tangled between both, depending on the author. It seems as in one case the wings curve towards the butt and in the other towards the tip. But my dissatisfaction goes for the fact that in both cases the blades are rather long, specially the middle one, whereas the weapon of the soldiers in the plaques have a head composed of short blades, in a trident posture, which in my fantasy is more in consonance with the weapons used at that stage (XV-XVI centuries) by both Spanish and Portuguese. But of course, only in my imagination, as i wouldn't know the name of these things in my lingo, to allow me to search into period chronicles.


.

[Jim McDougall]

Philip, thank you so much for the excellent insights and references on the use of shafted weapons in Spain and Italy in 15th century. As you well note it seems that Italy and Spain were indeed the leaders in the development of weapons and their use in these times, but the sword is first thought of.
Horsemanship and the use of shafted weapons often seem overshadowed by the profound attention to the sword.

The attention to the character and terminology of these varied forms and their use is extremely helpful and important, and helps understand the use of such weapons in the colonies which were better suited for the kinds of situations the forces faced. Brilliantly written and detailed as is your hallmark, and much appreciated here as the thread develops deeply in the broad scope of factors surrounding the topic at hand.

Yulzari thank you for the note on use of the lance in the British army, while of course not directly associated with Mexico is interesting perspective which has its own pertinence here. Also interesting on the boar spears. Here in Texas and the southwest wild boars are hunted, but these days of course with high power rifles.

Fernando, as always very much appreciate your elucidation and qualification of my ramblings. Using that quote from the writers of the book I cited regarding the use of the lance in the colonies of course was perhaps in need of closer scrutiny. Your skills at critique always lend to better understanding of these kinds of statements and prevent broad assumptions, which I clearly failed to elaborate in my inclusion. Well done.

Good information and use of cited resources toward the gunpowder situations in Mexico, which indicate that the circumstances of poor grade powder was more incidental than chronically present. You really have done your homework :) and really appreciate you sharing these details .
As you remind, the 'empirical' (that was a word I overlooked) application of making and testing components of powder would benefit its quality accordingly. However the production was only as good as the skill of those making it, clearly, so as noted, much of it turned out badly.

[fernando]

Wile i take the opportunity to show a third plaque with a soldier holding a weapon (now) admittedly called a Trident, as per description in a Catalog of the ENCOMPASSING THE GLOBE, Portugal and the World in the 16th & 17th centuries, an exhibition held in the Smithsonian Museum, i concur with the idea that the sword is the 'star', while in fact was the 'humble' lance the weapon that prevailed in statistic terms. Have a look to the famous Pastrana tapestries, picturing the fall of Tangier by the Portuguese (1471), and watch how many lances are there for a sword.

.

[David R]

A western Runka is less a trident and more a side bladed weapon... Unable to load a picture, which is annoying.

[Jim McDougall]

I agree with David, the trident is more a shorter hafted stabbing weapon, mindful of course of its use with gladiators (and recalling its symbolism with mythical figures like Poseidon)…..while these versions (runka) tri bladed polearms are variations of multi bladed weapons on long shafts.

Fernando, I often reread these posts and just realized in the reference to 'ancients' toward the use of older types of weapons, including the lance, I had been thinking the Indians were what was meant. I honestly had not even thought of the Conquistadors as 'ancients', and turned to the early indigenous inhabitants of these regions.....thinking of the atlatl.

Pretty far down the rabbit hole from gunpowder :) mea culpa.

In again returning to the Mexican gunpowder 'dilemma', which I believe was in fact a proper term given the consistent reports of the terrible nature of the Mexican gunpowder in most of the resources I have consulted, it is most interesting to see less negative reports as you have entered here.

I would point out that the period described here was much earlier than the time of Santa Annas campaigns against the Texians, and for that matter the later development of the Mexican war. Much as the circumstances in the American Revolution I previously mentioned, there were considerable quantities of materials necessary for mixing gunpowder left over from the regular supplies of the previously dominant nations.

With Mexico, after independence, and after these battles such as Los Remedios, over time these 'abundant' supplies began to dwindle and the now independent Mexicans needed to rely on their own resources to produce renewable supplies. While these forts (in 1817) were well supplied at first, Fuerto del Sombereo was abandoned by the peasantry after lack of provisions rendered the position untenable. Martin Javier Mina y Larrea (1789-1817) went to defend Fuerto de los Remedios after the fall of Sombrero but that too fell, and he was executed Nov. 11, 1817.
I knew an archaeologist who has long worked regions in Mexico, and who believed he had found the site of the execution. Mina was a brilliant officer and revolutionary who was also a lawyer and was known as el Mozo (the student).


Naturally there are many processes to produce the essential saltpeter which is the key ingredient in gunpowder (comprising 75% of the mixture) however most of these are somewhat time consuming and often less effective. In essence, there is far more room for failure or inadequately functioning compound.
That was why I was focused on the availability of 'natural' resources , primarily bat guano, which provided an already combined source which was typically inherently ready to be included in gunpowder after relatively simple processing.

What my thoughts were toward the use of these natural sources of saltpeter was that there surely must have been quantities of this resource which were perhaps inadequately leached or improperly prepared for mixing. With this, possibly that was the cause of the poor powder the Mexicans had apparently become burdened with.

The wonderful wealth of supply enjoyed at the time of Los Remedios had in effect, petered out (no pun intended) by the time of the 1830s campaigns, and the notorious 'terrible' powder of the Mexican forces had become well known. In many resources I checked, it was noted that it had too much charcoal and sulfur, not enough saltpeter. In one reference, one writer described it as 'charcoal' derisively.

That there must have been 'some' good powder was illustrated by a note that General Cos, when marched out of the Alamo after surrender, took the 'good' powder in supplying his men (though only limited quantity was allowed).
This falls in place with the comments of Susana Dickinson (the wife of Texian gunner) who survived and noted the powder left by Mexicans was 'damaged'.
Perhaps he deliberately adulterated the powder just as he spiked and disables cannon left there.

There are of course many possibilities, but the recurrent theme of most of the many accounts I have read, describe 'poor quality Mexican powder'.
With that critical assessment being so prevalent......it WAS a dilemma.

[fernando]

...the trident is more a shorter hafted stabbing weapon, mindful of course of its use with gladiators (and recalling its symbolism with mythical figures like Poseidon)…..while these versions (runka) tri bladed polearms are variations of multi bladed weapons on long shafts...
You are pulling leg, Jim ...and Poseidon is wondering whether his trident is what we are talking about. There are tridents and tridents ... even non weapon tridents ;).

... With Mexico, after independence, and after these battles such as Los Remedios, over time these 'abundant' supplies began to dwindle and the now independent Mexicans needed to rely on their own resources to produce renewable supplies...
You got it right from my previous short synopsis ;)

... was a brilliant officer and revolutionary who was also a lawyer and was known as el Mozo (the student)...
In a way he had it coming. He could as well remain as a lawyer; instead, and not satisfied to have fought the French in the Peninsular war, he later went to Mexico looking for glory ... or failure. Options ! and by the way Jim; El Mozo means the young, not the student ;) .

... Naturally there are many processes to produce the essential saltpeter which is the key ingredient in gunpowder (comprising 75% of the mixture) however most of these are somewhat time consuming and often less effective...That was why I was focused on the availability of 'natural' resources , primarily bat guano, which provided an already combined source which was typically inherently ready to be included in gunpowder after relatively simple processing...
I guess that no way is simple, Jim. When you have time, you may feel like submitting THIS ARTICLE (http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-40422000000600021)to your translating engine

...There are of course many possibilities, but the recurrent theme of most of the many accounts I have read, describe 'poor quality Mexican powder'.
With that critical assessment being so prevalent......it WAS a dilemma.
You know i am not a schooled character Jim, but i dare propose that, perhaps one of us has a less objective interpretation of the term dilemma. Back to the dictionaries :o .

[Philip]

A western Runka is less a trident and more a side bladed weapon....

I agree, a trident's lateral tines extend forward more, their tips are not far to the rear of the central spike. The images in Fernando's post above depict several examples of weapons that fit this description -- the one with sheathed tips is Siamese, and the assemblage of tridents in outdoor display reminds me of a votive array at a Hindu temple. The trident has a long symbolic history in the East (called a trisula in Sanskrit, it is the emblem of mendicant holy men or sadhus and is also a part of Buddhist iconography as well. We in the West know it as the symbol of Neptune.

Monte's description of the runka / spetum which I quoted in my prior post matches the examples to be seen in the Real Armeria in Madrid, the Metropolitan Museum, and elsewhere. The crescentic ears do not extend forward nearly as far as the tines of a trident. Furthermore, the spetum is edged on all its contours and is thus capable of cutting in a number of directions in addition to stabbing and grappling. This is not the rule on a typical trident.

[Philip]

Interesting that, for two 'basic' styles shown in books, there are 'at least' four different names (Runka, Ranseur, Corseque, Spetum), with respective descriptions tangled between both, depending on the author. It seems as in one case the wings curve towards the butt and in the other towards the tip. But my dissatisfaction goes for the fact that in both cases the blades are rather long, specially the middle one,


.

Nando, the problem is that in the literature, a weapon can be called different things depending on the language of the writer. Back when these things were in current use, there must have been numerous regional names, and even what we would call slang terms for objects (what would arms historians of the 22nd cent. think of the Italian term mazzagatto (cat beater) applied to a pocket pistol?)

Just for fun I looked up the terms you mentioned in Stone's Glossary... keeping in mind that his understanding was based on the writings of those late-Victorian kernoozers of antique arms such as Dean, ffoulkes, et al). Be that as it may, runka / rhonca / ranson / ranseur are listed as variant terms for the spetum described by Monte; the five illustrated examples all corroborate this (one has straight narrow ears, another has tiny subsidiary earlets pointing backwards under the main ones but the rest are of "classic" form).

The corseque / corsesca has a wider, markedly tapering central blade, and the ears are correspondingly wider at their bases, and straight, and taper to triangular tips. There is a beautiful Italian variant called the corsesca a pipistrello, on which the ears have the contour of bat wings, hence the name.

Linguistic differences may cause confusion as far as the term rhonca, above. It's not to be confused with the Italian term ronca or roncone which derived from a pruning knife with hook, with a spear point attached -- what the English called a "bill" .

For any fans of polearms, who wants to get a firmer grasp on the subject AND who reads Italian, I can recommend a book by Mario Troso, Le Armi in Asta delle Fanterie Europee 1000-1500. He classifies all the various types with numerous profile diagrams and photos.

[Jim McDougall]

"Dilemma" (definition) : A difficult situation or problem.

In the thesis (if I am using the right term) of this thread, the objective was to determine the accuracy and possible causes for the apparent extremely poor quality and effectiveness of Mexican gunpowder. This question was brought about by repeated references to the extremely inadequate quality of the gunpowder of Mexican forces in the time of the Texas Revolution and into the campaigns of the Mexican War (1846).

The fact that the powder was of such poor quality had a dramatic effect on the circumstances and many aspects of battles and conflicts as described in many accounts of these.

With the efforts to obtain better quality powder, as seen in the supplies confiscated in the vessel Pelican, it would seem that the Mexicans were aware of the deficiencies of their powder, however it was obtained, and were trying to resolve the matter. This appears the case as powder from New Orleans was likely either the premium Dupont powder much favored in America or perhaps even French powder traded there. Which is unclear.

Whatever the case, the issue with faulty powder was certainly a dilemma which needed resolution. In campaign this problem may result in completely ineffectual fire to even the unfortunate explosion of weapons and wounding or fatally injuring troops using them.
It is noted that the Mexican artillery pounding the Alamo was more of a nuisance than effective bombardment, as the shot barely even made the walls. Most of the damage done to the Alamo structure was done by the Texian bombardment when the Mexicans were besieged there the previous December.

The Mexican soldiers in the 'ranks' were poorly trained in the use of their muskets, presumably due to lack of ammunition and powder rather than oversight of officers, however that is perhaps simply a gratuitous perspective.
Whatever the case, the troops were often issued incorrect ammunition by ordnance officers, and the poor powder quickly fouled the barrels, so smaller ball with added buck were employed.
Also, the additional charge of powder to compensate for the poor quality powder forced the men to lower the guns and fire from the hip due to the inevitable flash and sparks (not to mention possible explosion) .
This resulted in firing low into the darkness and decimating their own forces ahead.

Most of the Mexican casualties (perhaps as many as 90%) were caused by friendly fire, in turn caused by poor powder and resultant poor shooting.

All of these issues would likely have had notably catastrophic effect had the defenders been military and of more significant number properly emplaced, and the Mexican forces would have faced possible defeat due to these powder related circumstances.

So, with these considerations, I would submit that the word dilemma does accurately describe the Mexican gunpowder issues.

[fernando]

"Dilemma" (definition) : A difficult situation or problem....
Definitely Jim, our dictionaries are in conflict over such term and/or its pretended attribution to the exposed topic; i will sow you by PM what mine says:
But i resist no more; i throw in the towel over this one.

...With the efforts to obtain better quality powder, as seen in the supplies confiscated in the vessel Pelican, it would seem that the Mexicans were aware of the deficiencies of their powder, however it was obtained, and were trying to resolve the matter. This appears the case as powder from New Orleans was likely either the premium Dupont powder much favored in America or perhaps even French powder traded there. Which is unclear...
Judging by the enormous difference in distances, specially in the sailing era, it appears more plausible that the powder came from Delaware ... whether the story of this cargo was indeed what it is presumed to have been.
But speaking of gunpowder setbacks, also Du Pont does not escape 'clean' from such episodes; they have a record of 288 explosions between 1802 and 1921, leading to the deaths of 228 people.

...This resulted in firing low into the darkness and decimating their own forces ahead....Most of the Mexican casualties (perhaps as many as 90%) were caused by friendly fire, in turn caused by poor powder and resultant poor shooting...
I have read about episodes of friendly fire; i have been myself directly involved in such things but, 'perhaps as many as 90%', is worth a mention in the Guinness book of records :o.

... So, with these considerations, I would submit that the word dilemma does accurately describe the Mexican gunpowder issues...
As said above; the towel is on the canvas floor:shrug:.


.

[fernando]

Thanks for the comprehensive input, Filipe. My issues were more towards the identification of the weapon those guys carry in the Benin plaques. Being (at least)three of a kind, this must not be only artist's imagination. And if it exists, by association, would also be used by our neighbor Spaniards.

[Jim McDougall]

Fernando, no towel throwing allowed :) The term use is in this case simply a matter of perspective, and relatively moot it would seem if it brought such consternation.It would seem the word was unnecessary in the title but I used it to suggest the issues resulting from the notoriously poor powder, and the point of trying to find out why it was so.

Agreed that the Dupont was more likely the powder being sought, which ironically was that which the defenders had originally at the Alamo.In their case, their supply of that powder was depleted when the number of the contingent left there on the Matamoros expedition prior to the siege. They took most of this 'good' powder, leaving the unfortunate defenders with what remained, and the store of Mexican powder left by Cos in December.

With the Dupont powder, which was indeed from Delaware, it had been notably sold and traded throughout the states, which certainly included the New Orleans entrepot, where the barrels of powder on the Pelican had originated.

The production of gunpowder of course, must be regarded as appropriately volatile, and in volume production such as was carried out at Dupont, the inevitability of explosion must have been a constant threat.

The Mexican powder left in the Alamo, in further reading, I found was seriously damaged even to add to its poor quality, by the effects of what is known as 'creeping damp'. This natural situation is something well known in Texas and in which the dampness permeates relentlessly regardless of precautions attempted.

This same circumstance was why the men left at the Alamo were caught as they slept with guns unloaded, the same dampness would have effected powder left in the pans. By the time they reacted, the compound was overrun, and they had little to do but try to flee. These defenders were not the seasoned veterans and frontiersmen who indeed comprised the less predominant faction of the contingent, and those fewer do seem to have tried to stand as the others fled.
It does seem that historians are often not entirely correct on many aspects of this tragic event, and the true number of defenders are not accurately known, but simply estimated.

It is the same with the numbers of Mexican forces, typically largely exaggerated by those emphasizing the more heroic perspectives of the siege itself. However, this same embellishment seems to concern the numbers of Mexican casualties.

As with much of the research I have done here, my primary source has been "Exodus from the Alamo", Philip Thomas Tucker, 2010, where it notes the accounts of Santa Anna's 2nd in command Gen. Vincente Filisola, who regarded the Alamo engagement as 'useless'.

Tucker notes on p.3, "... while historians have grossly inflated the number of Mexican losses, the Filisola document shows that most of the attackers losses were due to fratricide. In all truth the Mexicans lost fewer men than traditional documents have claimed : in all less than three hundred casualties.
The large percentage of fratricide casualties means that the entire Alamo garrison may have killed or wounded barely a hundred of their opponents.".

My comment on the percentage of such Mexican casualties being as much as 90% was admittedly far beyond what numbers here reveal, and probably from my initial reaction of surprise at this clearly remarkable revelation.

While clearly the gunpowder issues of the thread topic, while playing a key role in many dynamics of this historic and tragic event, the true 'dilemma', at least for me, has been trying to better understand it.
While the tragedy was as put by Gen. Filisola, a useless engagement, the heroism of the forces on both sides was indisputable.

[yulzari]

If Mexican powder was prone to suffer from dampness it could point to using guano derived sodium nitrate instead of potassium nitrate as the saltpetre portion of the gun powder.

Sodium nitrate is a workable alternative to potassium nitrate saltpetre but is less effective and is notably hygroscopic so goes soggy when exposed after a while. It needs to be kept sealed until used. Often turned to as a cheaper ingredient or when the better is not accessible. OK as long as you use it up fast but goes soggy in storage and definitely in a weapon, especially the pan of a firelock, overnight. OK-ish for blasting or fireworks where the buyer uses it soon after purchase but firearm powder is stored until used in the future so not a good choice.

Not conclusive evidence but makes it valid to examine the possibility seriously and is at least consistent with the reports made here.

There is a process to convert sodium nitrate to potassium nitrate but that is chemistry knowledge out of period and beyond the Mexican technology of the day. A less direct route is to use the guano in 'nitre beds' but I am not aware of any being created in Mexico and is a slower and more wasteful method. Not to mention unpleasant.

[Jim McDougall]

If Mexican powder was prone to suffer from dampness it could point to using guano derived sodium nitrate instead of potassium nitrate as the saltpetre portion of the gun powder.

Sodium nitrate is a workable alternative to potassium nitrate saltpetre but is less effective and is notably hygroscopic so goes soggy when exposed after a while. It needs to be kept sealed until used. Often turned to as a cheaper ingredient or when the better is not accessible. OK as long as you use it up fast but goes soggy in storage and definitely in a weapon, especially the pan of a firelock, overnight. OK-ish for blasting or fireworks where the buyer uses it soon after purchase but firearm powder is stored until used in the future so not a good choice.

Not conclusive evidence but makes it valid to examine the possibility seriously and is at least consistent with the reports made here.

There is a process to convert sodium nitrate to potassium nitrate but that is chemistry knowledge out of period and beyond the Mexican technology of the day. A less direct route is to use the guano in 'nitre beds' but I am not aware of any being created in Mexico and is a slower and more wasteful method. Not to mention unpleasant.


Again, I join Fernando in very much appreciating your valuable insight and expertise here!! The differences in the chemical properties of these two compounds in the 'nitre' is profoundly explanatory in the circumstances they clearly faced here. Absolutely fascinating Yulzari, thank you!!

[Jim McDougall]

Reading further in "Exodus from the Alamo", Philip Thomas Tucker, 2010,
on p.123 there is more saying that the Texians were , "...not desiring to utilize the Mexican black powder which was all but useless".

The Alamo's defenders could rely only on the limited supply of "..high grade black powder from the Dupont factory in Delaware". It is noted that Dupont supplied the American forces in the war of 1812 as well, so clearly there had been precedent for Dupont powder in New Orleans for some time.

However, the contingent of volunteers who left the Alamo prior to the siege took the bulk of the Dupont powder, probably as they were to attack Matamoros and expected action. They had no idea that reinforcements and supplies would not be forthcoming to the Alamo.
In the meantime they assumed the Mexican powder would be sufficient in the interim. Unfortunately its integrity had been compromised by the following noted in this reference (p.123)...due to the lengthy transport FROM MEXICO; the high humidity of the Texas central plains; lengthy storage in the limestone rooms and the rising damp complicated by the extreme cold wet winters of these Texas regions.

It sounds as if the Mexican powder was indeed produced in Mexico, and by the description given by Yulzari this suggests very likely production using bat guano. This making the powder more susceptible to moisture.

This begs the question of the Dupont powder, which is regarded as 'high quality' and apparently less prone to these problems? Would this powder have been produced using the 'French method' for niter, as devised by Turgot and Lavosier with niter beds using manure, mortar or wood ashes, earth and straw moistened with urine and after period (up to year) leached with water and filtered through potash.

As the barrels of powder which were destined for Mexico had come from New Orleans and were captured from the vessel Pelican, it sounds as if Santa Anna was aware of the issues with powder and was trying to resolve it. As noted, very likely that powder from New Orleans would have been the much desired Dupont product.

[yulzari]

I do have to qualify my post above in that I am drawing upon the use of saltpetre from Chile and that bat guano was used in US gun powder production.

My post was about the possibility that sodium nitrate was used in Mexican gun powder production. The reports are consistent with that but the source of Mexican saltpetre is unknown to me as is it's chemical composition.

http://www.themeister.co.uk/hindley/lowwood_saltpetre.htm gives a brief overview of saltpetre over history for gun powder. Chilean saltpetre was actually used for gun powder but not good powder and was being converted to normal saltpetre in some quantity late in the 19th century industrially but black powder firearms powder demand dropped drastically with new nitro smokeless powder but remains important for the ignition of artillery shells today. The sporting use is only a small fraction of the military demand these days.

From the Mexican perspective it was the cheapest source of a saltpetre, direct from Chile by ship, compared with buying ready made gun powder from the USA or Europe. I can see it being a possible commercial choice for the core firework and blasting powder production in Mexico. Again I know little of what they actually did in Mexico other than that they did make gun powders in some form or forms.

[fernando]

The earliest references of gunpowder mills in Mexico date from circa 1550, a unit built West from Mexico City, profiting from the canal running from Chaputelpe to supply water to the city. Soon after the Real Fábrica de Pólvora de Nueva Espana was expanded, adding three new mills and a lustration engine. This factory exploded in 1784. In 1780 another factory was built near Santa Fé, three leagues from the capital, which pestle engines were powered by hydraulic wheels. Eighty mestizos were employed to move the granizators.
If i were a person well within the gunpowder science, i would not discard the historic evidence of the 'several' manners of how saltpeter may obtained.
In the extreme, the Portuguese Castle of Moura had its medieval taipa (a mud/lime/stone mix) wall panes destroyed (1809/1826) for the digging of raw material to produce saltpeter.
Much prior to this were the needs during discoveries, where demands of powder were highly demanded, where saltpeter sailed from India played by far the largest role.
Whether dampness was a key factor in the Mexican gunpowder mediocrity by the presently discussed period, one might ask; how is it consistent that such setback did not sporadically affected a determined number of kegs and kept being viral in continuity?
Perhaps a more consistent explanation is the lack of skill of their gunpowder makers. Although the basics were no secret, making it good or bad depends more in the criteria put up to prepare it. To what i have recently read, you may have the best ingredients (and reasonable machinery) at hand but, if you don't follow highly methodical rules you achieve as good as powder for carnival crackers. There is no decent powder mill without a competent gunpowder master. We also had quality setbacks over here by the same period; but the government did not relax until good stuff was again well manufactured ... leaders were sacked in 1832 and again later, systems were double inspected and in 1833 it was concluded that powders tested were not inferior to those from France and Switzerland...
One thing never discussed here is the other two (three when also counting with the air) gunpowder components; saltpeter is the star but, one can not make omelets without eggs. There is a lot to consider about sulphur ... and (coal) wood, the 'poor/rich' parent, which the practicals sustain that the ideal type (and harvest) is (also) responsible for a good powder. Maybe the Mexicans of this period did not pay much attention to such part. My ignorant perspective is that these discussed issues did not only reside in a period encompassing such episodes but since actual Mexican gunpowder factories probably ceased to exist (Santa Fé ?) and were replaced by artisanal resources. Hitchhiking Yulzari's wise considerations, where did they have the means to measure the true output what they were doing ?

All in all ...
Anyone can make chicken curry; but i wouldn’t swap the one made by wife for any of those bought in take out spots ;).

.

[Jim McDougall]

Fernando, perfectly written and well illustrated as always and I always enjoy your analogies!! good points on the 'omelette' making as in gun powder making and right, the other two components were quite necessary as well.

On the dampness issue, I thought to look into how in the world powder was dealt with in the days of 'fighting sail'. Obviously at sea, there was a 'bit' of dampness around :)
Apparently there were individuals assigned to keep powder viable. One source says the men in these areas wore special footwear and there were curtains kept moist to avoid sparks. Surprisingly it is noted the magazine was usually below water line, so further puzzling how it could be kept dry.
In any case, the keepers of the powder apparently were charged with sifting it and remixing it for distribution to the 'powder monkey's (young boys carrying it to gunners).

Perhaps failure to properly sift and remix powder supplies were key in the poor quality of the Mexican powder?
If the Dupont powder was so great, would it not be susceptible to moisture damage?

Yulzari thank you again for these further insights, and the note that Chile was a source for the saltpeter used in Mexico. It was cheap and there was of course notable volume of its production. The constant maritime activity from there seems well understood so inclusion of the saltpeter would be expected.

I admit I am still unclear on the differences in saltpeter, between sodium and potassium nitrates. It seems that both of these compounds are derived from bat guano. The only notable difference seems to be that the 'potassium' version is less 'hygroscopic' (susceptible to moisture effects) if I have understood correctly.

Returning to the Alamo for a moment, in a touch of irony, one defender was killed as he ran toward the powder magazine with a torch. The miserably inadequate powder he hoped would take out as many attacking Mexicans as possible.

On the US powder production, it does appear that guano was indeed used broadly for saltpeter up to and including the Civil War, however I have wondered if the Dupont powder of such noted high quality was in fact using the 'French' process. The Confederate forces had many mills and all seem to have used either guano or other means of saltpeter production. There is some mention of use of urine, but unclear how much used that instead of guano etc.

[fernando]

... I admit I am still unclear on the differences in saltpeter, between sodium and potassium nitrates. It seems that both of these compounds are derived from bat guano. The only notable difference seems to be that the 'potassium' version is less 'hygroscopic' (susceptible to moisture effects) if I have understood correctly...
Hopefuly Yulzari doesn't find all this a senseless bunch of words ...

Saltpetre refers to the combinations which form the multi-base nitrogenous acid, in particular the potassium and sodium hydroxides. More narrowly, the name saltpeter refers to potassium nitrate (KN03), and is reserved for sodium or saltpeter nitrate from Chile or Peru. Saltpeter was first cited by Geber in the 8th century, who called it salt petrae and the alchemists used the designation salt niter. This salt results from the decomposition of plant and animal organic matter and may, under favorable conditions, form efflorescences in certain soils, which should have attracted human attention in ancient times. Such efflorescences appear, in particular, in geographical areas characterized by abundant deposits of organic matter and where the climate is warm and with a prolonged and regular dry season, during which it is possible for such matter to decompose without being carried by water. the rains. The areas where the largest saltpeter deposits appear are India, Ceylon, Syria, Egypt, the Maghreb, South Africa, Peru, Bolivia, and Brazil, among others.
From the mid-nineteenth century a new method of saltpeter production was imposed: the conversion of nitro, that is, the production of potassium nitrate from sodium nitrate or saltpeter from Chile, imported mainly from that country. and from Peru. In this method, sodium nitrate and potassium chloride are reacted in aqueous solution at 90 ° C: NaN03 + KCI NaCl + KN03

THE NATURAL SALTPETER ...
This would be basically the following. We began by accommodating in casks layers of the earth from which the saltpeter was to extracted, alternated with those of ash, and sometimes with layers of straw added to facilitate the passage of water. A pit is dug into the upper part of this arrangement, where potash (our potassium carbonate) was added, and then water. After a while, the salt-laden water was allowed to flow (through taps or previously sealed holes) and evaporated in boilers. During the evaporation process, the mass of common salt (our sodium chloride) that was formed was removed with a slotted spoon until it had only the liquid. It was continued until complete evaporation, when finally there was the “raw or unclean” saltpeter, which would later be refined.

THE ARTIFICIAL SALTPETER ...
Saltpeter can also be obtained artificially through methods that humans have long mastered, as evidenced by Cristobal Rojas's in 1607. A traditional way of artificially obtaining potassium nitrate is to mix decomposing organic matter, such as nitrogen-rich stable waste, with plant ash (which contains a high percentage of potassium salts) and limestone. he difference would be that artificial saltirs were built by “the hands of men, and nitrate [was] ahi produced at the expense of human industry” 30. Equating the two ways of saltpeter formation, it would only be appropriate to decide on the most appropriate one. Couto, however, considers that the best way to “form” the saltpeter would be in the artificial salitaria, which, according to the author, “is no other thing but a palhaça house, under which certain amounts of land are gathered, that managed in a way are abundantly impregnated with potassium nitrate, or saltpeter. ”Couto goes on to explain how to build the salad boxes, in a wealth of detail that would make this article very extensive if we wanted to reproduce them. In any case, tanks should be built where the “salitifiable” materials should be deposited, which, properly treated, after a certain period would give the precious salt. But before moving on to the “recipe” itself, Couto says it is important for the “salitreiro” to know that: “potassium nitrate, this salt whose production and harvest is the object of its readings, is made up of three principles, oxygeneo, nitrogen, and potash: the combination of the first two constitutes nitric acid, and this later with potash said nitrate or saltpeter. Nitrogen could be obtained, as we have long known, from materials of animal and plant origin in which it could be found in large quantities. That is: “Generally all the lands called dung, […] the dark lands that are taken from the dark places, as under the houses, and above all there are livestock, wineries, horsemen […] are also good the dark lands underneath the treetops, […] the lands of the cemeteries, the farms, especially the sheep, the hens, doves, the corn fields, […] the mud of the villages, latrines, ponds, and alagoas…

[fernando]

... Returning to the Alamo for a moment, in a touch of irony, one defender was killed as he ran toward the powder magazine with a torch. The miserably inadequate powder he hoped would take out as many attacking Mexicans as possible.
Do you believe in such story Jim ? In which of the versions ventilated; entering the magazine with a torch in hand, deliberately committed for suicide or, light a lengthy fuse that would reach the powder kegs ... or only a history spice, like so many :shrug:.

... There is some mention of use of urine ...
Preferably that of drunkards, they say !

[yulzari]

Do you believe in such story Jim ? In which of the versions ventilated; entering the magazine with a torch in hand, deliberately committed for suicide or, light a lengthy fuse that would reach the powder kegs ... or only a history spice, like so many :shrug:

The famous Times reporter William Russell mentions visiting a Union battery in the ACW and observing a sergeant upbraiding a private for going to go into the magazine with a lit pipe in his mouth. There is no limit to human foolishness and nothing is completely soldier proof.........

[fernando]

...On the dampness issue, I thought to look into how in the world powder was dealt with in the days of 'fighting sail'. Obviously at sea, there was a 'bit' of dampness around :)
Ah, that would be another deal, worthy of a couple shots of Drambuie ;).
For your consolation, i will gift you with a couple rustic Chinese pots for the hanging storage of Portuguese artillery gunpowder, to prevent from dampness and watering.

... And by the way; powder must not be too humid ... neither too dry: i will tell you one day why ;).


.

[Jim McDougall]

Do you believe in such story Jim ? In which of the versions ventilated; entering the magazine with a torch in hand, deliberately committed for suicide or, light a lengthy fuse that would reach the powder kegs ... or only a history spice, like so many :shrug:.


Preferably that of drunkards, they say !


Actually it is a documented event which apparently did take place. While the commonly held beliefs of the Alamo myths believe there were no survivors, there actually were, including Susanna Dickinson, wife of one of the gunnery crew. The well researched book, "Exodus from the Alamo" by Philip Thomas Tucker, also at last carefully uses many accounts from the Mexican records.

The last desperate act of Maj. Robert Evans in the chaos that engulfed the Alamo in those early morning hours Mar. 6, 1836 was to try to take out the remaining reserves of powder. Obviously in a reasonable situation he would have certainly used the sensible method of igniting a trail of powder to the bulk. After all he was in charge of the care and maintenance of the artillery there. However, they were completely overrun, and the Mexican forces were wantonly killing every Texian in sight. In this darkened madness, realizing all was lost, such a suicidal act was not at all unseemly.

As always, with Hollywood, these kinds of events are often seized upon and embellished, and the 1960 John Wayne movie "The Alamo" was no exception.
In the final scenes John Wayne, as Davy Crockett, mortally wounded dashes toward the powder magazine with torch and carries out the defiant act.
This, along with virtually most of the rest of the movie, had nothing to do with the true events at the Alamo, however this act, though clearly distorted, was 'based' on a factual event.

Maj. Evans was apparently from Ireland, then New York, and finally New Orleans, so likely was one of the famed New Orleans Greys who were key to the military members of the defense. He was apparently a most zealous officer, and an outstanding leader, and this action actually seems quite in character for him given the circumstances they had reached.

The irony of course, was that these stores of powder, otherwise mostly useless in conventional use, were in that moment seen as a possible solution for desperate and defiant final response to the Mexican attack, and by the officer charged in its use.

This action also recalls another similar situation historically with the pirate Blackbeard in his end in 1718. On his ship, the 'Adventure', as he was attacked by Lt. Maynard's forces, he ordered one of his men, a black slave (?) named Caesar to stand near the powder magazine. If they were overtaken, his orders were to 'explode the powder', in apparently much the manner of the Alamo event being discussed. He was however captured and did not carry out the order.

[Jim McDougall]

Ah, that would be another deal, worthy of a couple shots of Drambuie ;).
For your consolation, i will gift you with a couple rustic Chinese pots for the hanging storage of Portuguese artillery gunpowder, to prevent from dampness and watering.

... And by the way; powder must not be too humid ... neither too dry: i will tell you one day why ;).


.


"...trust in God, my boys, and keep your powder dry"
- Oliver Cromwell, Edgehill, 1642

[fernando]

"...trust in God, my boys, and keep your powder dry"
- Oliver Cromwell, Edgehill, 1642
Isn't that a metaphor that someone decided to put in Cromwell's mouth almost two centuries later than the battle of Edgehill took place ? :rolleyes:.

Causes of gunpowder spoilage...
Joseph Fernandes Pinto Alpoim (1700-1765) warns the reader about two gunpowder enemies, excess moisture and its opposite, extreme dryness. In the first case, if the gunpowder is stored in a humid place, the charcoal absorbs moisture and the saltpeter dissolves, causing the unit to break with sulfur, which gives rise to what he calls a viscous tartar. On the other hand, if the gunpowder is stored for a long time in a very dry place or outdoors, the charcoal will detach from the composition, separating as a fine powder, making the gunpowder less active. He exemplifies how this phenomenon can be verified, which consists of taking gunpowder samples from the top and bottom of a barrel: the first one "weighs less than the bottom", that is, has lower density.

[kronckew]

Modern (ie. Dupont) black powder granules are tumbled in fine graphite powder for 12 hrs. after granulation to coat them, this not only provides protection against electrostatic friction sparking but aids in prevention of absorbing water (or excessive drying). Not sure when they started doing this.

Brooklyn Navy Yard saw a number of catastrophic fires in the 20th C. from refuelling with oil, the rushing oil set up a static charge between the hose nozzle and the ship which would spark and ignite the fuel oil in the mostly empty oxygen filled tanks when it reached the appropriate air/fuel ratio and kaboom. they learned to ground strap the nozzle to the ship. Moving dry powders can have the same effect and gunpowder of course is not your friend when it happens. When I was stationed in New Orleans, I remember someone pointing out a bare area next to the Mississippi in the docks area, appears they once were the site of a trio of flour silos. Until one particularly dry day, a cloud of dry flour dust and air managed to spark itself and another Kaboom blew the rest of the flour into the equation and - no more silos. and a few less workers. In an odd twist, they found that a CO2 fire extinguisher being discharged can also cause an electrostatic spark that can set off an explosive air/fuel mixture. (they tried blanketing fuel tanks with a layer of CO2 - bad idea - more kabooms)

[yulzari]

Tumbling gun powder granules in graphite is a detrimental practice when longer incorporation and tumbling will polish the grains quite adequately if they were made dense in the first place, It gives a polished look and was popular in the undiscerning sporting/hunting powder world but a true high quality sporting powder is made dense and polished by long tumbling.

However we are looking for good musket powder which is less critical. I have concerns, from the reported performances of period Mexican military powder, that they even pressed and corned their powder. My suspicion (and no more than that) is that they were given firework quality meal. What they could make may not be what the army received if either they bought cheap or corruption received the money for good powder, bought cheap and kept the difference.

Again we speculate but do not know what powder was actually sold to the Mexican Army. Only that it was very weak.

[Jim McDougall]

Fernando, I missed seeing your expertly explained entry on the production and properties of saltpeter, outstanding!!! I have never realized how much science is involved, and after Wayne's entry on explosive properties, I better understand my invitation to leave chemistry in my school days (uh a LONG time ago). I thought chemistry was simply pouring some stuff together, like in the mad scientist movies :) NOT! I had a 'kaboom'.

You are way too sharp Fernando, another historical 'spice' as you colorfully put it.....Cromwell's words were 'put in his mouth' almost exactly two centuries later by yet another 19th century writer.

So not only too damp, but too dry...…..yikes, this stuff is like......well, that would be chauvinist :)...lets just say volatile!

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

I found this to additionally explain Corning at https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-best-way-of-corning-gunpowder

[fernando]

Myself i gather Jim that, all the fun in these brainstorms is to explore what has happened back in the old days; surely the episodes occurred with the (mis) behavior of gunpowder or any other 'artifacts' in present modernity, with all the existing (un) charming technology, are no doubt rather interesting but ... refer to a distinct ambiance.
Going back to a question you posed the other day Jim, i wouldn't know how to approach the problematics of gunpowder in the Age of Sail being kept down the lower (est) deck of ships, passive of humidity deterioration. Certainly there were superior conveniences like keeping it distant from hazardous situations above water line, namely fire ... caused either by accidental fire aboard or by enemy's action, with the impact of cannonry or other firing attempts. Also surely measures were taken to keep it as much hermetic as possible, by means of proper containers, those well covered and inside purposely confined spaces, where light through from other compartments would dispense the use of life (burning) light; even when someone had to go down the lower deck, the light allowed was a candle enclosed in a tin with thin holes. I have read a passage in which wet blankets covered the gunpowder cauldrons, whatever that meant; although it is evident that, the risk of fire justified the involvement of all other potential liabilities. Also to consider that, only the gunpowder necessary for possible immediate action was carried in its whole condition; the remaining was carried with the three components not yet mixed, for opportune preparation. Also a part of gunpowder was kept not loose but in sacks and later in (paper ?) cannon dosed 'cartridges', an implement started by the Portuguese ... contrary to what some 'competition' authors pretend. :shrug:
Concerning the use of alcohol as in Peter's link on corning powder, also Alpoim has a go at it, in one of the processes to recuperate bad gunpowder.
Sure there were guys well within the gunpowder secrets back in those days.
For your perusal and in order not to 'soak' again these pages with a mile long testament, this one will come in the form of a PDF.


.

[Jim McDougall]

An excellent link Ibrahiim, once again lending to the 'recipe' for gunpowder in perspective. It does seem that there must have been a lot of trial and error involved in early days with the varying character and properties of the components as derived either naturally or through processing.
When one realizes that 'chemistry' in these opening years of the 19th century was barely out of the 'alchemy' stage, and many elements were not yet properly identified, nor compounding of them. …..it is amazing that simply mixing achieved required effects.

Fernando, thank you for the additional perusal toward the subject of humidity and the profoundly contextual case for powder used at sea in the age of sail.
One of the references I found noted that the hold for powder was enclosed with 'curtains' which were kept damp to prevent accidental spark, as well as men covering feet with cloth or material to also prevent same.

I would think that storing the components separately to avoid detonation would be prudent, especially as intermittent remixing seems to have been required. However none of the sources thus far has suggested that means of storage. Surely there had to be a modicum of powder 'at the ready' in case of attack or battle as you suggest, but it seems the powder was always noted as in barrels, suggesting it being wholly combined.

I have not read descriptions of the detail on the 'cartridge' sacks of powder but it does seem familiar, as I say this is not an area I often study.

Thank you for the link to this process as well. These surely are pertinent, but as noted very long, detailed and scientific, and do indeed 'soak' the pages.
A LOT to learn, and I admire those who have knowledge and command of it all.
'

[fernando]

... One of the references I found noted that the hold for powder was enclosed with 'curtains' which were kept damp to prevent accidental spark, as well as men covering feet with cloth or material to also prevent same.
"Just as i previously said and, and having now found the specific words:

Sob a coberta, junto ao paiol estava o capitão de fogo a distribuir a pólvora que tirava às gamelas ou ensacada dos caldeirões defendidos do lume por colchas e cobertores molhados".
"Under the deck, next to the (powder) magazine, was the fire captain distributing the gunpowder he took from the troughs or bagged from the cauldrons defended from the fire by wet bedspreads and blankets".
(Dieter Dellinger, Portuguese Ex-Journalist, advisor for the Navy Magazine, ex-Law maker, etc)

... as well as men covering feet with cloth or material to also prevent same...
So true. In the Barcarena mill workers were required to wear shoes of calf skin over their own shoes, once these could have nails.

...I would think that storing the components separately to avoid detonation would be prudent, especially as intermittent remixing seems to have been required. However none of the sources thus far has suggested that means of storage. Surely there had to be a modicum of powder 'at the ready' in case of attack or battle as you suggest, but it seems the powder was always noted as in barrels, suggesting it being wholly combined....
Yet so it happened according to my sources, whatever they are worth :shrug:. I don't recall where i have read my previously posted text, but i can locate the following one, from texts written about the early Barcarena Black powder factory. It is not the same thing, but will have to do :o.

"Nos territorios conquistados, criaram-se fundições de artilharia e fábricas de pólvora.Os componentes eram frequentemente adicionados nas proprias fortalezas à medida das necessidades locais da polvora"
"In the conquered territories, artillery foundries and gunpowder factories were created. Components were frequently added in the fortresses according to local powder needs".

... I have not read descriptions of the detail on the 'cartridge' sacks of powder but it does seem familiar, as I say this is not an area I often study...
Then let me fill you in:

" O cartucho de pólvora foi uma ideia de Vicente Sodré, tio de Afonso de Albuquerque, que para aumentar a cadência da artilharia resolveu ensacar previamente a pólvora para ser colocada logo que a alma do canhão tivesse sido arrefecida e limpa de restos de pólvora com escovilhões adequados, em vez de a lançar a granel como se fazia então. Claro está que os ingleses e holandeses têm a mania que inventaram isso tudo, revelando a mais inconcebível ignorância e refiro-me a alguns historiadores de prestígio que são um exemplo de incompetência total, mesmo perante simples amadores de boa fé sempre que se trata da historiografia portuguesa ".

"The gunpowder cartridge was the brainchild of Vicente Sodré, the uncle of Afonso de Albuquerque who, in order to increase the rate of artillery, decided to pre-bag the gunpowder to be placed as soon as the cannon core had been cooled and cleaned of gunpowder remnants with suitable brushes, instead of throwing it in bulk as it used to be done. Of course the English and Dutch have the craze that invented it all, revealing the most inconceivable ignorance, and i refer to some prestigious historians who are an example of utter incompetence, even in the face of simple bona fide amateurs when it comes to Portuguese historiography".
(Dieter Dellinger )

...Thank you for the link to this process as well. These surely are pertinent, but as noted very long, detailed and scientific, and do indeed 'soak' the pages.
A LOT to learn, and I admire those who have knowledge and command of it all...
Dear Jim, you wanted to cross opinions about Mexican gunpowder; but you know this is an universal subject, and things tend to slide to the rest of the globe... perhaps also with your eventual complicity. However, let me assure you; no more soaking will take place from my side :shrug: .

.

[Jim McDougall]

Fernando, again, thank you for the responsive notes reaffirming the items we have brought up from various references on this topic, which as you have astutely noted, is quite universal. The ancillary notes, digressions, and other looks into related circumstances are relevant, necessary and helpful and not at all distracting as far as I am concerned.
Actually I encourage and welcome all such information, and the links to key subject matter for the perusal of readers and researchers who view these pages are wonderfully placed and appreciated.

Persons who read these threads are following the subject matter from many different angles and perspectives, so all material included finds varying degree of usefulness depending on who is reading it. The 'soaking' jest actually is just acknowledging that this is the case, and 'one size does not always fit all'.
It is therefore, up to the reader.
For me, valuable information I can use later if need be.

Therefore, I thank you for all the great entries, links and well researched detail (NOT soaking but profoundly bolstering thread content). For now it seems we have reached a plateau with a new understanding of this topic,
so until later, when new evidence is found, Elvis may now leave the building.
Uh uh huh.....oh yeah!!! :)

[yulzari]

It may be instructive to note John Braddock's 'A Memoir on Gunpowder' of 1832 (https://books.google.fr/books?id=6ifVymz576gC&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=the+bombay+gunpowder+manufactory&source=bl&ots=O0u15VWPoz&sig=ACfU3U2Z_vhMkqIFzYWVCyYUDX1zQyPGaw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjrkOecyr7kAhVHAWMBHVdaDWQQ6AEwBXoECAgQA Q) in which he reports upon the state of gun powder manuacturing in India for the Honourable East India Company. In this he is most rude about the quality of Bombay powder compared to that made in Allahabd. Reporting it as 'barbarous' and 'their best and highest ranges are only half the distance of the other Indian powders'.

This demonstrates the range of performance that can come from variations in the performance of gunpowder mills and in this case between those of a well funded Company with access to all the materials it could need and the capital to invest in machinery etc. and with the sole purpose of making military quality powders.

If Bombay powder was 'barbarous' in 1832 the Mexican powder was likely to be beyond Mr Braddock's vocabulary to describe it's weakness.

[Jim McDougall]

This is an excellent reference Yulzari! Thank you.

I feared we had expended the viability of our powder here, so I am grateful to see entry continuing. It seems this reference describes the dynamic of 'exposure' being an element of powder losing its potency, in the case mentioned after about 12 days. That would bring the earlier suggestion of keeping the ingredients of the powder kept separate until required, not only for safety, but clearly to ensure freshly mixed powder.

I am puzzled by the term 'barbarous' as describing a 'weak' powder. Such a term would seem more toward a potent, threatening condition rather than 'weak'. I wonder if the connotation (as used here in 1832) would mean rough, rugged or uncivilized in the way 'gothic' meant rude or contrary to refined in architectural parlance. Thus meaning the Bombay powder was rudely mixed and ineffective.

If the Mexicans were indeed getting powder from British sources, just as they obtained their firearms in 1821, perhaps the British were selling them the apparently miserable Bombay powder as opposed to the other more refined powder. This was often the case, obviously, with trade arms and resources and the practice continued well through the 19th c. Mediocre quality locks and complete weapons often brought ill repute to the places that produced them.

As earlier noted, it sounds as if the Mexicans were attempting to secure better quality powder through New Orleans merchants who probably carried the highly regarded Dupont....as revealed in the cargo of the Pelican.

[yulzari]

By 'barbarous' he just meant crude and primitive Jim. Just his way, as a man of his times, of saying that it was of appallingly bad quality. John Company (to use the period vernacular) was not in the business of making powder for public sale but for their own use. Though doubtless some made their way to private use informally. Certainly not in sales to the Mexican government.

What happened was that the Bombay Gunpowder Manufactory was brought up to standard and is better know later as the Kirkee arsenal and a major ordnance depot and manufacturer.

There is no connection between them and Mexico in any way but the reference is a period detailed examination of the varied qualities of gun powder manufacture. Remember British ARW gun powder was so bad the government bought the factories and made them raise their standards until they were the best. There was also no connection between the British Ordnance selling surplus arms to dealers who sold them to Mexico and the Indian government and it's powder production. They were different governments on different continents.

[Jim McDougall]

OK, understood. The term seems oddly used here, but obviously there is often dramatic change in words, terms etc. in 'archaic' context not to mention semantics. Just wanted to confirm.

I had not thought there was any intergovernmental connection in such sale between England and Mexico, but that private concerns were selling such products, much in the way private vendors were supplying arms to EIC.
Most of what I have seen on the sale of the EIC arms in 1821 was apparently due to excesses of weapons after close of Napoleonic campaigns. Most of these were also becoming obsolete. In these cases the ordnance dept. I think was involved. The powder of course would be a different story.

[Jim McDougall]

Yulzari, in rereading again some of the text, while I must apologize for my dismal comprehension of scientific discourse, I am wondering....there seems to be a notable disparity between the black powder for guns, and that for artillery. It seems that 'good' or fine grade powder for guns is different (obviously ) than that for cannon.
Is it possible that with the shortages of powder in these campaign situations that stores of powder designed for one or the other might have become interpolated, leading to the poor resultant powder referred to in Mexican context?

With the case of the Mexican cannon at the Alamo siege, the note that the Mexican cannon (of smaller size already than adequate to bombard fortifications) had virtually no impact due to weak powder charges.
Would this have been from using firearms powder in place of the coarser artillery powder required?

[yulzari]

The risk in using small arms powder in artillery is that the smaller grains cause a more rapid burn which gives a higher pressure and the cannon barrel may fail. If it does hold together (for a while at least) then the cannon ball will be projected faster rather than slower so it does not match the reported behaviour of Mexican artillery.

BTW the powder cannot be transported in it's constituents for mixing when needed. That would give you, at best, very bad firework powder. The incorporation of them needs much time and pressure. To get past transport shaking the constituents parts apart corning was developed generations before this war. The powder being pressed under high pressure into solid cakes which are then broken up and sorted through sieves into solid grains which will not break up if well made. It burns better than the earlier powdery 'meal' as the flash can pass through the interstices between the grains. I will spare you issues about adiabatic heating etc. By this time meal is only made for fireworks, rockets and some blasting purposes. Never for firearms but it would match the observed performances of Mexican powder.

I conclude it was probably made as badly made powder, badly corned, badly packaged, roughly transported and badly stored. Based upon low quality firework powder and deteriorated since making. Soft corning and poor incorporation will result in friable grains which will crumble in transport and be more hygroscopic in storage. I do doubt that even the most venal buyer and military would expect to get away with buying actual meal firework powder.

[Jim McDougall]

The risk in using small arms powder in artillery is that the smaller grains cause a more rapid burn which gives a higher pressure and the cannon barrel may fail. If it does hold together (for a while at least) then the cannon ball will be projected faster rather than slower so it does not match the reported behaviour of Mexican artillery.

BTW the powder cannot be transported in it's constituents for mixing when needed. That would give you, at best, very bad firework powder. The incorporation of them needs much time and pressure. To get past transport shaking the constituents parts apart corning was developed generations before this war. The powder being pressed under high pressure into solid cakes which are then broken up and sorted through sieves into solid grains which will not break up if well made. It burns better than the earlier powdery 'meal' as the flash can pass through the interstices between the grains. I will spare you issues about adiabatic heating etc. By this time meal is only made for fireworks, rockets and some blasting purposes. Never for firearms but it would match the observed performances of Mexican powder.

I conclude it was probably made as badly made powder, badly corned, badly packaged, roughly transported and badly stored. Based upon low quality firework powder and deteriorated since making. Soft corning and poor incorporation will result in friable grains which will crumble in transport and be more hygroscopic in storage. I do doubt that even the most venal buyer and military would expect to get away with buying actual meal firework powder.

An absolutely brilliant synopsis Yulzari!! thank you so much.
I think your conclusion perfectly sums up the Mexican powder situation and well illustrates the circumstances that were faced with powder production in wider scope of these times.
Very much appreciated.

[fernando]

My ignorance of experimental or even theoretical knowledge is overwhelmed by my curiosity ... and nonconformism (in lack of a better term). Furthermore my mediocre english impedes me to understand the following paragraph

...BTW the powder cannot be transported in it's constituents for mixing when needed. That would give you, at best, very bad firework powder. The incorporation of them needs much time and pressure. To get past transport shaking the constituents parts apart corning was developed generations before this war.The powder being pressed under high pressure into solid cakes which are then broken up and sorted through sieves into solid grains which will not break up if well made. It burns better than the earlier powdery 'meal' as the flash can pass through the interstices between the grains...
Note that i was diverting from the specific problematic of Mexican gunpowder both because what i had to (or managed to) learn about it is exhausted and because i found ambiance grounds to bring the gunpowder per se to the table, a subject often mentioned in chronicles ... Portuguese for one ;) . This to say that i am perplex at your technical rejection on the possibility (probability) of gunpowder components (constituents) being taken to spots to mixed in opportune occasions. Does the fact that i am quoting events occurred in early periods (XV-XVII) puts things in a different scenario than in the XIX centuries, a period where discussed Mexican powder problems took place ? The thing is that, i keep reading (or inferring) that such procedure was feasible.

" 1626, June 10, letter of the Governor of Sao Tome, to the king about the state of the island ... warning that in the next contract the contractor would have to bring gunpowder, refined saltpeter, sulfur, aguardente (brandy) and lead to the fortress ".

Now, if he had a need for ready gunpowder, why would he also ask for the three separated constituents ?

On the other hand and later in the XVIII century, Alpoim weaves considerations on how to preserve gunpowder using the 'pães' system. Pães translates as breads, as or bread rolls; is this the same you mention as cakes ?

" By spraying the powder with brandy and mixing well, you can mold it into breads that, after drying should be stored in glass vases. Although, according to him, there are those who use vinegar instead of brandy, he prefers brandy, and says, "I and some of my disciples know what it is for, with the Prince's use." The advantage of gunpowder in bread is “it never gets corrupted, even with moisture; It is very good when you grind it in the fires, and you need to be careful in grinding it ".

... And he follows:

" However, it is even better to store saltpeter, sulfur and charcoal ready in the barrels, not prepared gunpowder, “because time wastes it,” as well as being a risk factor. For this, however, it is necessary to have mills to prepare the gunpowder when it is needed ".

Earlier in the XVII centuries in Macao, an interesting passage involving the deteriorated gunpowder problematic may be read:

" In June of the same year (1639), an agreement is made with the Spanish gunpowder maker João de Mosqueira, to repair gunpowder 'danada' (condemned, damaged), so that it can be used again ".

[yulzari]

Oh dear. This could get very technical and involve wide digressions. So, in a short version.

Corning (making the gun powder into grains) used to be done by drying the gun powder into 'cakes' and then rubbing them through sieves or graters into irregular grains. It was only later with improving mechanical technology that the powder was pressed under high pressure in hydraulic presses into rock like cakes that had to be broken up into hard grains which were then sieved into size grades.

The older soft grains were liable to crumble in transport and storage. In 17th century Sao Tome they were probably getting soft grains so the governor was asking for either the cakes, un-sieved, in waterproof containers or for the ingredients to combine and corn in Sao Tome.

I think it quite possible that Mexican powder was of the soft corned variety in our period.

It was, and is, quite normal for the finer dust powder left in processing to be reintroduced into the next batch and damaged powder also. If too damaged, especially by damp, gun powder would be reused as a source of saltpetre for new production.

To me all of this points to Mexican production being of low quality meal powder for the civilian market which was soft corned for firearms use.