The 'CANNON PATIO"! Now THERE is an idea for redecorating my patio!
Fernando, there is no competition here of course, just sharing ideas and information and you have always been an intrepid researcher with resources typically unknown to most of us. So stay with us, and 'fire at will' !
What was meant in my suggestion is that De Sosa's 'expedition' was hardly an officially sponsored venture, and more of a planned exodus to 'get out of Dodge' as he was in trouble with the officials in Nuevo Leon.
In my reading on the 'culverin' as a 'type' of cannon, there seem to be three (at least) sizes, and one was the 'LEAST' sized. Now that category would certainly include a number of small types which probably might have at least been the same size as 'esmeril' .
The 'point' was that these smaller pieces would have been more 'available' to an assembled group outside the auspices of the 'government' and as such more mobile for such a foray into the unknown.
The large cannons would obviously require much more organization and effort with the particulars and specialized crews needed, which would be available only through military overseeing.
The other two types of 'culverin' listed were the ORDINARY , which implies standard, or the more regularly sized cannon of the day, and more the type as noted requiring militarily trained gun crews.
and the EXTRAORDINARY, which I presume were the huge siege cannon which would be positioned (with great effort) in pitched fortifications well established.....hardly the kind of 'Big Bertha' one would take on an ad hoc venture into unknown territory with expedience the key factor.
All three of these are listed in the culverin category, which suggests that the term was widely used in a general sense for 'cannon', and was probably a prevalent term used somewhat colloquially. With that the case, someone such as DeSosa, not necessarily experienced in the specific classifications or categories of cannon, and grabbed that term as most familiar.
In many accounts of the wild west etc. the descriptions use general terms, such as 'he went for his gun', completely avoiding that the 'gun' was a Smith & Wesson #2 in .44 caliber, or a revolver (often the term pistol is used for many of these, which could have been a single shot breech loader like a Remington Navy).
Lou, Peterson of course is one of the best sources for these kinds of historic details. As noted the DEMI CULVERIN seems to be a pretty good sized piece, and the qualifying note of 'culverins' of small bore, well illustrates the broad use of the term.
As mentioned, often descriptions of cannon (and often most specific details in period accounts) will use terms not necessarily 'correct' specifically, for example saying a cannon was bronze, when in fact it was iron. For many years with the 'Gonzalez' cannon, people thought the small 'esmeril' (or whatever it might be called) was THE cannon the big fight was over.
Actually it was the much larger SIX pounder the Mexicans were after, and the one the Texians actually used with some effect.
This one ended up at the Alamo later, and along with others being buried by the Mexicans after the battle.
Years later it was found and later was melted down into a church bell, for its bronze!!
The tiny gun (esmeril?) also found many years later remained symbolically in place for the key events and the brave defenders at Gonzalez, and its legacy remained despite the disparity in historic descriptions.