Ethnographic Arms & Armour

Ethnographic Arms & Armour (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/index.php)
-   European Armoury (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=12)
-   -   16th/17th century chain shot (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=8012)

fernando 8th November 2011 11:46 AM

The Ebay example looks a but phoney to me :confused:
Looking more like a lifting weight, or other sort of thing :o

fernando 8th November 2011 11:54 AM

1 Attachment(s)
How do you like this drawing, Mark ?
The barshot style, "Palanqueta" for the Portuguese, goes in your favor ;).
It comes in a site dedicated to the Portuguese (independence) Restoration War, 1640-1668.

.

Matchlock 8th November 2011 09:04 PM

Hi Mark and 'Nando,

I liked your contributions - thanks a lot, guys! ;)

Best,
Michael/Michl

M ELEY 9th November 2011 09:24 AM

Of course, you are probably right, 'Nando. I was hoping that eBay piece might be legit, because as of now, it is the type of which I speak. My piece is similar, so could be a very old dumbell, but the jury is still out. Most dumbells were marked in some way, either on the individual balls or on the bar. These marks could include patent numbers, maker marks or weight size. Likewise, the old cast iron types, referred to among collectors of such as "circus strongman barbells" typically had..huh hum...huge balls with a very short bar between them just big enough for one hand. Likewise, frequently the bar itself would flair in the middle to allow a better grip.

Barshot had continued use all the way up until the American Civil War and it seems that by this point, the barshot (of the early/mid 19th) might have taken on more of the classic dumbell shape with rounded bar. That being said, this is my "thesis" only and still waiting for some concrete proof in the way of said examples. Anybody??? :D

M ELEY 9th November 2011 12:11 PM

Now these two definitely don't seem right to me. The museum piece, supposedly Rev War, is a hand weight. Note how the bar swells in the middle for a grip. The other piece is also obviously a dumbell with no particular amount of age to it. The bar is also too thin...
http://www.revolutionarywarmuseum.c...annon/main.html

http://www.worthpoint.com/worthoped...onball-74489003

fernando 9th November 2011 12:13 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by M ELEY
...huge balls with a very short bar between them just big enough for one hand ...

According to (translating) Memories for an Artillery Officer in Campaign, the palanqueta (barshot) bar should have 10 1/2 inches. This is a very interesting work on artillery, put up in 1778, and was digitized by the New York Public Library, now available through Google, but its (portuguese) text was not translated.
BOOK
it contains the description of the inumerous types of shot (PAGE 96). Unfortunately it doesn't detail the shot bar cross section, but the term (perno = unthreaded bolt) takes us to consider that the bar is cylindrical.
Browsing the term palanqueta (barshot) one finds that this type of device was vastly used by the Portuguese. I have read about a few coast fortifications stocking these things by the hundred ... but no pictures yet :shrug:

M ELEY 9th November 2011 12:18 PM

Once again, I'm amazed at your resources, Fernando. That description does seem to leave alittle room for a rounded bar. Now that I know the term 'palanqueta', I will try to do some research.

Here's a real one (sorry, Moderators, couldn't download pics from this closed auction). Square barred, but at least it has the full round balls-
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Bar-Shot-Ca...R-/300601305058

M ELEY 9th November 2011 12:49 PM

Pulling all the stops here, gentlemen. From much research over the years, I did turn up this interesting site. Note the cannonball with the raised area where once a round bar might have been before it was cut down? (It's the 15th item down). That's what the site says and mentions Keeler Tavern with the same type of cannonball embedded in it (funny, the pic doen't seem to support it, but anyway, take a look...
www.minutemantreasures.com/5139/11401.html
http://keelertavernmuseum.org/keele...home/battle.php

fernando 9th November 2011 02:53 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Did you know tat barshot was also called "angels" ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cannon_bullets.png
http://www.americanrevolution.org/artillery.html

Here's a picture of various "multi use" shot, this time from George C. Neumann's Illustrated Encyclopedia (Page 12). Some of them have round connections.

.

M ELEY 9th November 2011 11:56 PM

AWESOME!!! Finally, a nod if not absolute proof that these things came in all shapes and sizes. I have several of Neumann'sa books, but none with this illustration. Thank you, my friend!! I'm really attached to these types of specialized naval shot. Yes, I had heard them called 'angels', while the round bar with the flaired ends have another name that slips my mind at the present. Here's one recovered from a military site-
http://images.ourontario.ca/niagara...41/image/176968

One of this type was on the Pass Cavallo shipwreck in TX and thus, some believe this type of shot was popular with Spahish ships. This opinion was seconded on another site concerning another wreck.

M ELEY 10th November 2011 12:34 AM

Speaking of shipwrecks, one of the most informative sources I've yet found are on actual archaeology sites with surviving examples. These papers are like free down-loadable books with exacting information on the length, construction and origin of patterns. For future historians who are interested in this thread, I wanted to attach 3 such sites with info. The first, based on the dive of the French ship Machault (Fernando, you recently posted a pic on another thread about boarding axes with this ship in context). This article by Douglas Brice is long, but absolutely worth it concerning the differing construction (solid cast, cast balls with full bar, etc)-highly recommended.

http://www.sha.org/research_resourc...%20Machault.pdf

www.history.navy.mil/branches/UA_Penobscot.pdf

http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstrea...H-Borgens-1.pdf)?sequence=1

Matchlock 10th November 2011 12:45 AM

Excellent inputs, guys!

Please hang on! :)

Best,
Michael

fernando 10th November 2011 03:48 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by M ELEY
...For future historians who are interested in this thread, I wanted to attach 3 such sites with info...

Even not aspiring to be an historian, this material is always precious for one's general culture.
But i also enjoy it in that, being you defending the thesis that barshot shaft cross section is not only square but also round, you are now to deal with it also ... hexagonal ;) :cool: :eek: .

... If you don't mind my (Latin) humour :o .

.

M ELEY 11th November 2011 05:50 AM

Touche, my friend. What's next, a triangular bar? My personal favorite is the deadly 'tiki bar'- :p :D :rolleyes:

M ELEY 13th November 2011 01:07 AM

Sorry, have been away. Actually, Fernando, upon thinking seriously ( :cool: )about your comment, you do make an important observation that these things had all different styles and shapes (Neuman has one above that looks like it has door knobs for weights!). I've seen the square bars on the full/half shot types, round bars on expanding bar shot and now octogonal on the type previously mentioned. With such variety, it might be hard to pin-point all the types. I'm going to post pics of mine soon...

M ELEY 13th November 2011 12:12 PM

Site deleted/no longer valid. Too bad as it had some interesting barshot, including an alleged "exploding" barshot. Oh well... :( :shrug:

M ELEY 16th November 2011 01:33 AM

3 Attachment(s)
Here goes...
The piece measures 13" long total, ball diameter 11", bar length alone is 6", and bar is 4 1/2" wide. In my defense, this piece is unmarked, made of forged iron with balls braised to the bar. forging flaws are evident. Patina is chocolate brown. A 2 lb and 4lb cannon ball in pic for comparison. The only thing that didn't come out well in the pics is the roundness of the balls. The pics make them look more ovoid, but in real life they are as round as any of the other artillery shot I have. My argument is that this is what barshot looked like toward the mid/late 19th c. Easier to make than the hand-wrought square barred type of the previous century- :shrug:
Dumbells were typically marked, cast as one piece, just as often made of steel than iron, and didn't have bars this thick or long.

Matchlock 16th November 2011 02:26 AM

Hi Mark,

Very interesting additions, thank you!

Yeah, mid-19th c. would also be my guess.

Best,
Michael

M ELEY 16th November 2011 03:02 AM

Thanks, Michael. And thank you for starting this discussion and much of the materials herein. Hopefully, I can acquire an older piece at a later time, but in the meantime, I love coming back to this thread. Perhaps this one might be added to the 'Sticky' section? :D :shrug:

fernando 16th November 2011 12:43 PM

Hi Mark,
I would adventure to suggest, within the whole of my ignorance, that your item might not be a barshot; i don't know, the proportions of the bar (thickness+length) in relation to whole setup ... the way it is connected to the balls. But don't pay much notice to my impressions :o .
I like that solid shot wooden base, by the way ;) .

M ELEY 16th November 2011 07:12 PM

Ahh yes, the solid shot on the wooden base...it came from a land far, far away- ;)

I see your point on the construction and in the end simply need to continue doing research on this puppy. It is not absolutely proven to be a barshot, nor is it absolutely proven not to be a dumbell (I must say, though, that it probably is one or the other versus a third option of counterweight, machine part, etc).

The best proof I had that it was mid-19th was the last site I listed which, unfortunately, is no longer accessible. That gent sold a number of cannons from all age and nationalities and had barshot EXACTLY like mine listed as 19th c. His site wasn't above some controversy, though, being a seller after all (some of his lanaka appeared more modern and poorly cast to be original), sooooo....hopefully, I'll run across a Civil War artillery expert someday who will finally end the speculation.

fernando 16th November 2011 09:34 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by M ELEY
....hopefully, I'll run across a Civil War artillery expert someday who will finally end the speculation...

I have registered in a Spanish Naval History forum in purpose to ask details on palanquetas, namely their cross section profile; but no answer so far :shrug: .
http://todoababor.mforos.com/155631...20-palanquetas/

kronckew 17th November 2011 03:07 AM

i posted a copy of the US artillery manual for the civil war period on the forum before. it mentions bar and chain shot only in passing, for naval use. it goes into great detail on all other civil war era projectiles, their wooden sabot, the tin bands used to hold same to the shot, pre-made cartridges, etc. etc. worth doing a search for & reading it.

Linky to Gibbon Artillery Manual of 1863

the full 1862 army ordinance manual, scanned, is available thru google books as a .pdf if interested... it's too big to attach here. (19MB) it has sections not only on artillery, but small arms and horse saddles, and tackle, swords and bayonets, etc. and also tables on ballistics and on 'foreign' ordinance.

Linky to google books ord. manual (click the .pdf item upper left to download)

Matchlock 17th November 2011 04:42 AM

Hi Kronckew,

Those latter contributions seem to kind of lead to a considerably later period of time than I intended to cover when posting the thread and staking its claim. I have to admit though that I don't mind the current evolution at all, and I sure wish you to go on both researching and updating, guys! :)

And don't worry: I promise you I'll hang on bringing in the earliest points of view on my favored subject! After all, all topics need evolution and fresh minds, just in order to stand up to scientific evaluation! :rolleyes: :cool: I'm glad our community is taking the topic to further boundaries! ;)

Best,
Michael

Matchlock 17th November 2011 05:17 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Hi there,

I found this barshot specimen attributed to the American Revolutionary War in a Cowans', Ohio, catalog of 28-29 April 2010.

Best,
Michael

fernando 17th November 2011 12:51 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matchlock
Hi Kronckew,

Those latter contributions seem to kind of lead to a considerably later period of time than I intended to cover when posting the thread and staking its claim. I have to admit though that I don't mind the current evolution at all, and I sure wish you to go on both researching and updating, guys! :)

And don't worry: I promise you I'll hang on bringing in the earliest points of view on my favored subject! After all, all topics need evolution and fresh minds, just in order to stand up to scientific evaluation! :rolleyes: :cool: I'm glad our community is taking the topic to further boundaries! ;)

Best,
Michael


Most kind and Gentlemanly of you Michl :) :cool: .

fernando 17th November 2011 01:36 PM

Hi Wayne

Quote:
Originally Posted by kronckew
... Linky to google books ord. manual[/URL] (click the .pdf item upper left to download)


I find no .pdf item in the upper left when i open the link; only one .pdf button in the upper right but it doesn't enable the download. Could it be because we have a different operative system ?

M ELEY 18th November 2011 03:15 AM

I have a huge appreciation for these naval types of shot and it was never my intention to steer attention away from the primary focus. I assure all that if I had my way, I'd own all the specimens already presented ( :D ), nor do I have a particular interest in post- Age of Fighting Sail armament. It's just that it's so frustrating and amazing that there is an absence of clarity of this area pertaining to the 19th c. I was hoping to find out for sure and thus, I posted here. I feel anyone who researches specialty shot may find this thread informative from beginning to end (i.e. early shot to it's extinction in the latter half of the 19th century).

Kronkew- thank you very much for those links. You bring my exact point to light with this, though. Here are manuals detailing every aspect of artillery from gunpowder grain, combustion forces, exact propulsion with estimation of droppage with firing, specific ordenance, the wood used to make cannon carriages, etc, etc. Yet, when it comes to our little friend, the bar and chain shot, there is a generic 4 or 5 word description. Understandably, these were on their way out, but still, no valid description for something still carried on ships and such? I just read an article on a land-based installation on the Atlantic coast that fired barshot at attacking ships circa 1860's, yet no pics, no descriptions? It's like this with every book and online source I've come across thus far. It's not just the Amer CW either. Other countries still carried forms of bar/chain shot. Were these just recycled from previous centuries, or is my guess right that with modern forging came easier models of barshot (two cannon balls braised to a round bar). That'ss my tirade for the night, just wish someone would definitively prove me right or wrong. :cool:

M ELEY 22nd November 2011 12:21 PM

Hmmm...another clue to look into if it's correct.

http://cwbullet.org/bullet-relic-fo...php/t-6189.html

fernando 7th December 2011 02:06 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by fernando
I have registered in a Spanish Naval History forum in purpose to ask details on palanquetas, namely their cross section profile; but no answer so far :shrug: .
http://todoababor.mforos.com/155631...20-palanquetas/


I have got an answer from a word keeping Spaniard. Not much of a help for your case, though; but a great article on XVII ships artillery;
http://www.aammb.cat/9034%20galeon%...0artilleria.pdf

.


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:55 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.