another breech-loading post
 

Since breech-loading cannons are being discussed right now, here’s something I’ve recently been thinking about.

This is in the Castle in Newcastle. It was on loan to the Tower armouries until about 5 years ago, when it was returned. [while in the Tower, it was photographed by Matchlock for his post on breech loading 1450-1550].

It was mentioned by RC Clephan in a paper in 1904 on ‘Early Ordnance in Europe’. Clephan noted that the piece was sent to Newcastle in exchange with Woolwich. In fact, the exchange happened in 1863.

In Lefoy’s (1864) catalogue of the Rotunda the gun sent from Newcastle (wrought iron, of ‘comparatively modern date’) is numbered as Class I no. 20.

I haven’t yet seen the earlier Official Catalogues of the Rotunda, so cannot trace the history of this gun earlier than 1863.

But here is a puzzle. Why would somebody at Woolwich be prepared to send a 16th century iron breech-loading swivel gun in exchange for one ‘of comparatively modern date’? Lefoy’s catalogue shows that they didn’t have any guns like this one in Woolwich in 1864. Indeed, in later years the Tower Armouries had to borrow this one as a display example. And I don’t believe the curators at Woolwich were ever so stupid as to make such an unequal exchange.

When listing the wrought iron breech loading swivel guns in the Rotunda captured at the Taku Forts, Lefoy noted that their “construction is similar to that of European guns of the 15th Century”. So here is my question ... is this gun in fact not European at all, but Chinese in manufacture, and one that had been recently received at Woolwich from the Taku Forts.

If this sounds a stupid question, I would ask in turn whether anybody has made a close study of Chinese iron ordnance so that we can look at the details of manufacture and say for certain “this is Chinese” or “this is not Chinese”. I’ve looked at Needham’s book on Science in China, and that doesn’t give an answer. Can anybody point me to a reference ?

Interesting question.

I would look at early photographs by Beato of the Taku Forts after battle. Somewhere I have a book with these images, but my books are still in disarray since my move recently.

Beato was one of the first combat /propaganda photographers, and the first in China.

Today he has been excoriated by academics for "posing", or staging his shots for better effect.

That said, they are still a wonderful record of that time.

I will see what I can turn up, but it might not be for a few days.

Were in luck!

I found the book forts place I looked.

Beato's title to this image is:

"Head Quarter Staff- Pegtang Fort, between August 2-12, 1860."

This is one of his staged photos. He did several pictures from different vantage points, and, indeed, you can see things were shifted for effect.

But I digress.

There is a large gun made of wood and leather in the foreground that I think may be in the Invalides in Paris. If it's not the samegun, it is very close. Next to it is a small breech loading gun. The image is somewhat fuzzy, and my scan ain't much better, but it appears to be iron, as it appears to be banded.

There might be a small, iron breech loading gun similar to the one you're researching in the Invalides as well. (If my memory serves me.)

Next time I go there I will try to get pictures, but that will not be for some time.

Maybe another forumite living closer might be able to get a picture.

Many thanks for the comments. The Taku Forts pictures are very interesting, I'd seen a few on the internet. It would of course be have been MORE interesting if they'd arranged a load of cannons in the foreground !

The most useful general text I've used on old cannons was Blackmore 1976 The armouries of the Tower of London. v1 Ordnance.

This led me to a very thick volume : Needham 1974 Science and Civilisation in China: Military technology : the gunpowder epic.

There is also an article - with drawings - on cannon from the Taku forts in the Illustrated London News for April 1861 [this is available online].

The series of rings strengthening the barrel seem to be common in China, and they also made breech-loading guns. It is really a question of whether there is a distinguishing feature in manufacture between Chinese and European types.

Of course, it is easy to work your way up a dead-end street by grabbing hold of the "made in China" idea. The gun in Newcastle could be European after all, and I would love it to be from a Tudor wreck : especially the Mary Rose ! But, I can't see the people at Woolwich giving such a thing away in 1863.

Incidentally, Clephan got a very experienced worker from a local iron works to look at it in 1904. He said the barrel was cast iron, and the wrings are wrought iron (and shrunk on, as you would expect); the tail piece and trunnions are of forged iron. Were the barrels of European cannons of this type usually made with bars of wrought iron ... or were cast iron barrels common ?