Very good points Anandalal, and I share those thoughts...why go to these lengths for a false cannon to intimidate potential invaders? The answer is most plausibly, they probably wouldn't, which brings us to why would guns be made of this primarily inviable material?
First of all, I think leaving the thread here is OK, as the European leather cannons were essentially an anomaly which did not prove very effective, except in prompting introduction of a lightweight intermediate form of light artillery, of more suitable material.
The fact that these were captured in Nepal leaves them squarely in the ethnographic sector.
I think that there is always the possibility of apotropaic or votive use in temples, which also served as fortresses if I understand correctly. I do know that they were often repositories for weapons in Nepal.
As you have observed, these stitched barrels would not have withstood any significant powder charge, and I do not see any evidence of metal that might have added the rigidity for detonation.
Perhaps these might have held limited powder firing only for dramatic effect such as signal cannon, only these would have been intended for frightening away demons.
That is at this point the only possible use I can imagine for these as they clearly have no potential for combat.
I have heard of leather type guns it seems of this type, but cannot place the reference (other than the posts on these very guns years ago). I'll keep looking.
All best regards,
Jim
|