Wrought (!) and cast iron cannon balls, 16th century

[fernando]

Let me show you my just arrived example of wrought iron ball, most certainly forged by the same Peter Pögl. Its provenance is a German auctioner and its acquisition had the support of a Bavarian member we know very well .
Its weight is about 1400 grams; with a diameter of 7-7,5 centimeters, we could colloquially call it a 3 pounder ... could we, Michl ?

The strange thing is that this ball was included in a auction lot, comprehending two items, the other one having a rather strange aspect, the kind of thing i may never know what it is. Destiny had a great part in this event as, considering this iron (so heavy) artifact was too obsolete and senseless to compensate for the shipping cost, we gave instructions to leave it behind and just ship the ball. Guess what? for some reason they ended up shipping it together with the cannon ball and now here i am, punishing you guys with some photos, wondering whether someone around (a metallurgist?) would tell what (the hell) this is.
For myself i can't go further than guessing this is some kind of casting box, or(counter) mould, left out from a specific casting job.
But then, why should it appear in an auction together with an early cannon ball ? .
Its diameter is 18 cms (7") and its height is 7 cms ( 2 3/4") and it weighs nearly 2 Kgs. (4 1/2 pounds.)

.

[fernando]

The name for this thing in the auction was gießkelle.
A casting ladle ... something like a crucible ?
... Plausible?

[Jim McDougall]

Fantastic acquisition Fernando! and it is wonderful to have this fascinating thread revived with this kind of enhancing new material.
I am really looking forward to hear from Michael, and I am really curious on how the ordnance made by Pogl is identified...in there a marking so indicating?

[fernando]

Hi Jim,
Glad you are aware and came in .

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... I am really looking forward to hear from Michael, and I am really curious on how the ordnance made by Pogl is identified...in there a marking so indicating?

Michl has already posted his conclusions on this issue; take a look to the last paragraph of post #3 .

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks so much Fernando. I hadnt reread (obviously but appreciate the direction. It is hard to realize the difficulty in producing these, but when reviewing the dynamics and 'technology' at hand it becomes understandable.
So basically, though unmarked, only these two makers were producing at this time so other subtle characteristics must lead to differentiation.

Best,
Jim

[Matchlock]

Hi 'Nando,


Congrats, and I'm so glad it finally arrived!

Personally I don't believe we'll ever find out what exactly that bowl shaped iron item originally was. As I told you before I don't think it has anything to do with the process of casting iron as the object itself seems to be cast, telling from the porous surface and the relative thickness of the iron. I would expect such an item to be of thin wrought iron. Even if it were so, and the long handle were missing, it would not belong to a wrought iron cannon ball.

As I stated when authoring this thread I own the only other sample known so far. We only know of their existence and their makers, the Pögl workshop in Thörl near Innsbruck/The Tyrol, where the Maximilian main armory was 500 years ago, by written sources when the - then king - Maximilian I ordered thousands of these wrought balls because he believed in their greater effect as compared to cast balls.

Though I am not much of an ordnance expert, I think calling it a three pounder ball would fit. In this case I would attribute it to one of the smaller types of Maximilian artillery, e.g. a wroughht iron falconet.


Best,
Michl

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Thanks so much Fernando. I hadnt reread (obviously but appreciate the direction. It is hard to realize the difficulty in producing these, but when reviewing the dynamics and 'technology' at hand it becomes understandable.
So basically, though unmarked, only these two makers were producing at this time so other subtle characteristics must lead to differentiation.

Best,
Jim

Hi Jim,

I should like to point out the obviously visible main difference between cast and wrought iron in that cast iron items usually have a relatively regular and porous surface and, when 500 years old, tend to losses, while wrought iron has a quite irregular but smooth surface, and the traces of the hammering process can be identified. As the iron is much harder and very compact, it will grow less rust and is more stable.

I repost my sample by Peter Pögl, 1490's, for easier comparison.

Just imagine the tremendous amount of muscular toil when three or four smiths had to hammer a white or red hot iron lump to a more or less round shape ...

Best,
Michael

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Michael,
Thank you so much for your patient and explicitly explained response, and for posting again this example. Now I understand perfectly! As always, you're a great professor!!!

All the best,
Jim