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?

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.

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.

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?

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.


.

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.

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.

-

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.

Sorry Jim; not Mexican ... but still gunpowder
 

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.


.

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.

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.

.

A bit more than raining in the wet ...
 

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.

.

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.

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.

... And what did i remind you the other day ? ;)

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.

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

Back to the gunpowder dilemma
 

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).

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.

the importance of spears and lances in Spanish service
 

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..."

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.

Jim, was i a documented historian and would question the "long after it had fallen into disuse elsewhere" statement :o .

Yes indeed; an Iberian resource ... for one.

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 ;) .



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.

.

Jim's Runka ...
 

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.


.

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.

Just by the way ...
 

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.

.

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

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.

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 ;).

You got it right from my previous short synopsis ;)

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 ;) .

I guess that no way is simple, Jim. When you have time, you may feel like submitting THIS ARTICLE to your translating engine

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 .

Runkas and tridents
 

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.

terminology can be confusing
 

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

As said above; the towel is on the canvas floor:shrug:.


.

Terminology can be confusing
 

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.

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.

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!!

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.

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/..._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.