The Mexican gunpowder dilemma

fernando · 28th August 2019, 07:29 PM

Wile i take the opportunity to show a third plaque with a soldier holding a weapon (now) admittedly called a Trident, as per description in a Catalog of the ENCOMPASSING THE GLOBE, Portugal and the World in the 16th & 17th centuries, an exhibition held in the Smithsonian Museum, i concur with the idea that the sword is the 'star', while in fact was the 'humble' lance the weapon that prevailed in statistic terms. Have a look to the famous Pastrana tapestries, picturing the fall of Tangier by the Portuguese (1471), and watch how many lances are there for a sword.

.

David R · 28th August 2019, 07:54 PM

A western Runka is less a trident and more a side bladed weapon... Unable to load a picture, which is annoying.

Jim McDougall · 28th August 2019, 08:45 PM

I agree with David, the trident is more a shorter hafted stabbing weapon, mindful of course of its use with gladiators (and recalling its symbolism with mythical figures like Poseidon)…..while these versions (runka) tri bladed polearms are variations of multi bladed weapons on long shafts.

Fernando, I often reread these posts and just realized in the reference to 'ancients' toward the use of older types of weapons, including the lance, I had been thinking the Indians were what was meant. I honestly had not even thought of the Conquistadors as 'ancients', and turned to the early indigenous inhabitants of these regions.....thinking of the atlatl.

Pretty far down the rabbit hole from gunpowder

mea culpa.

In again returning to the Mexican gunpowder 'dilemma', which I believe was in fact a proper term given the consistent reports of the terrible nature of the Mexican gunpowder in most of the resources I have consulted, it is most interesting to see less negative reports as you have entered here.

I would point out that the period described here was much earlier than the time of Santa Annas campaigns against the Texians, and for that matter the later development of the Mexican war. Much as the circumstances in the American Revolution I previously mentioned, there were considerable quantities of materials necessary for mixing gunpowder left over from the regular supplies of the previously dominant nations.

With Mexico, after independence, and after these battles such as Los Remedios, over time these 'abundant' supplies began to dwindle and the now independent Mexicans needed to rely on their own resources to produce renewable supplies. While these forts (in 1817) were well supplied at first, Fuerto del Sombereo was abandoned by the peasantry after lack of provisions rendered the position untenable. Martin Javier Mina y Larrea (1789-1817) went to defend Fuerto de los Remedios after the fall of Sombrero but that too fell, and he was executed Nov. 11, 1817.
I knew an archaeologist who has long worked regions in Mexico, and who believed he had found the site of the execution. Mina was a brilliant officer and revolutionary who was also a lawyer and was known as el Mozo (the student).

Naturally there are many processes to produce the essential saltpeter which is the key ingredient in gunpowder (comprising 75% of the mixture) however most of these are somewhat time consuming and often less effective. In essence, there is far more room for failure or inadequately functioning compound.
That was why I was focused on the availability of 'natural' resources , primarily bat guano, which provided an already combined source which was typically inherently ready to be included in gunpowder after relatively simple processing.

What my thoughts were toward the use of these natural sources of saltpeter was that there surely must have been quantities of this resource which were perhaps inadequately leached or improperly prepared for mixing. With this, possibly that was the cause of the poor powder the Mexicans had apparently become burdened with.

The wonderful wealth of supply enjoyed at the time of Los Remedios had in effect, petered out (no pun intended) by the time of the 1830s campaigns, and the notorious 'terrible' powder of the Mexican forces had become well known. In many resources I checked, it was noted that it had too much charcoal and sulfur, not enough saltpeter. In one reference, one writer described it as 'charcoal' derisively.

That there must have been 'some' good powder was illustrated by a note that General Cos, when marched out of the Alamo after surrender, took the 'good' powder in supplying his men (though only limited quantity was allowed).
This falls in place with the comments of Susana Dickinson (the wife of Texian gunner) who survived and noted the powder left by Mexicans was 'damaged'.
Perhaps he deliberately adulterated the powder just as he spiked and disables cannon left there.

There are of course many possibilities, but the recurrent theme of most of the many accounts I have read, describe 'poor quality Mexican powder'.
With that critical assessment being so prevalent......it WAS a dilemma.

fernando · 28th August 2019, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...the trident is more a shorter hafted stabbing weapon, mindful of course of its use with gladiators (and recalling its symbolism with mythical figures like Poseidon)…..while these versions (runka) tri bladed polearms are variations of multi bladed weapons on long shafts...

You are pulling leg, Jim ...and Poseidon is wondering whether his trident is what we are talking about. There are tridents and tridents ... even non weapon tridents

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... With Mexico, after independence, and after these battles such as Los Remedios, over time these 'abundant' supplies began to dwindle and the now independent Mexicans needed to rely on their own resources to produce renewable supplies...

You got it right from my previous short synopsis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... was a brilliant officer and revolutionary who was also a lawyer and was known as el Mozo (the student)...

In a way he had it coming. He could as well remain as a lawyer; instead, and not satisfied to have fought the French in the Peninsular war, he later went to Mexico looking for glory ... or failure. Options ! and by the way Jim; El Mozo means the young, not the student

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... Naturally there are many processes to produce the essential saltpeter which is the key ingredient in gunpowder (comprising 75% of the mixture) however most of these are somewhat time consuming and often less effective...That was why I was focused on the availability of 'natural' resources , primarily bat guano, which provided an already combined source which was typically inherently ready to be included in gunpowder after relatively simple processing...

I guess that no way is simple, Jim. When you have time, you may feel like submitting THIS ARTICLE to your translating engine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...There are of course many possibilities, but the recurrent theme of most of the many accounts I have read, describe 'poor quality Mexican powder'.
With that critical assessment being so prevalent......it WAS a dilemma.

You know i am not a schooled character Jim, but i dare propose that, perhaps one of us has a less objective interpretation of the term dilemma. Back to the dictionaries

.

Philip · 28th August 2019, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David R

A western Runka is less a trident and more a side bladed weapon....

I agree, a trident's lateral tines extend forward more, their tips are not far to the rear of the central spike. The images in Fernando's post above depict several examples of weapons that fit this description -- the one with sheathed tips is Siamese, and the assemblage of tridents in outdoor display reminds me of a votive array at a Hindu temple. The trident has a long symbolic history in the East (called a trisula in Sanskrit, it is the emblem of mendicant holy men or sadhus and is also a part of Buddhist iconography as well. We in the West know it as the symbol of Neptune.

Monte's description of the runka / spetum which I quoted in my prior post matches the examples to be seen in the Real Armeria in Madrid, the Metropolitan Museum, and elsewhere. The crescentic ears do not extend forward nearly as far as the tines of a trident. Furthermore, the spetum is edged on all its contours and is thus capable of cutting in a number of directions in addition to stabbing and grappling. This is not the rule on a typical trident.

Jim McDougall · 28th August 2019, 10:46 PM

"Dilemma" (definition) : A difficult situation or problem.

In the thesis (if I am using the right term) of this thread, the objective was to determine the accuracy and possible causes for the apparent extremely poor quality and effectiveness of Mexican gunpowder. This question was brought about by repeated references to the extremely inadequate quality of the gunpowder of Mexican forces in the time of the Texas Revolution and into the campaigns of the Mexican War (1846).

The fact that the powder was of such poor quality had a dramatic effect on the circumstances and many aspects of battles and conflicts as described in many accounts of these.

With the efforts to obtain better quality powder, as seen in the supplies confiscated in the vessel Pelican, it would seem that the Mexicans were aware of the deficiencies of their powder, however it was obtained, and were trying to resolve the matter. This appears the case as powder from New Orleans was likely either the premium Dupont powder much favored in America or perhaps even French powder traded there. Which is unclear.

Whatever the case, the issue with faulty powder was certainly a dilemma which needed resolution. In campaign this problem may result in completely ineffectual fire to even the unfortunate explosion of weapons and wounding or fatally injuring troops using them.
It is noted that the Mexican artillery pounding the Alamo was more of a nuisance than effective bombardment, as the shot barely even made the walls. Most of the damage done to the Alamo structure was done by the Texian bombardment when the Mexicans were besieged there the previous December.

The Mexican soldiers in the 'ranks' were poorly trained in the use of their muskets, presumably due to lack of ammunition and powder rather than oversight of officers, however that is perhaps simply a gratuitous perspective.
Whatever the case, the troops were often issued incorrect ammunition by ordnance officers, and the poor powder quickly fouled the barrels, so smaller ball with added buck were employed.
Also, the additional charge of powder to compensate for the poor quality powder forced the men to lower the guns and fire from the hip due to the inevitable flash and sparks (not to mention possible explosion) .
This resulted in firing low into the darkness and decimating their own forces ahead.

Most of the Mexican casualties (perhaps as many as 90%) were caused by friendly fire, in turn caused by poor powder and resultant poor shooting.

All of these issues would likely have had notably catastrophic effect had the defenders been military and of more significant number properly emplaced, and the Mexican forces would have faced possible defeat due to these powder related circumstances.

So, with these considerations, I would submit that the word dilemma does accurately describe the Mexican gunpowder issues.

fernando · 29th August 2019, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

"Dilemma" (definition) : A difficult situation or problem....

Definitely Jim, our dictionaries are in conflict over such term and/or its pretended attribution to the exposed topic; i will sow you by PM what mine says:
But i resist no more; i throw in the towel over this one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...With the efforts to obtain better quality powder, as seen in the supplies confiscated in the vessel Pelican, it would seem that the Mexicans were aware of the deficiencies of their powder, however it was obtained, and were trying to resolve the matter. This appears the case as powder from New Orleans was likely either the premium Dupont powder much favored in America or perhaps even French powder traded there. Which is unclear...

Judging by the enormous difference in distances, specially in the sailing era, it appears more plausible that the powder came from Delaware ... whether the story of this cargo was indeed what it is presumed to have been.
But speaking of gunpowder setbacks, also Du Pont does not escape 'clean' from such episodes; they have a record of 288 explosions between 1802 and 1921, leading to the deaths of 228 people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...This resulted in firing low into the darkness and decimating their own forces ahead....Most of the Mexican casualties (perhaps as many as 90%) were caused by friendly fire, in turn caused by poor powder and resultant poor shooting...

I have read about episodes of friendly fire; i have been myself directly involved in such things but, 'perhaps as many as 90%', is worth a mention in the Guinness book of records

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... So, with these considerations, I would submit that the word dilemma does accurately describe the Mexican gunpowder issues...

As said above; the towel is on the canvas floor

.

.

fernando · 29th August 2019, 02:11 PM

Thanks for the comprehensive input, Filipe. My issues were more towards the identification of the weapon those guys carry in the Benin plaques. Being (at least)three of a kind, this must not be only artist's imagination. And if it exists, by association, would also be used by our neighbor Spaniards.

Jim McDougall · 29th August 2019, 06:16 PM

Fernando, no towel throwing allowed

The term use is in this case simply a matter of perspective, and relatively moot it would seem if it brought such consternation.It would seem the word was unnecessary in the title but I used it to suggest the issues resulting from the notoriously poor powder, and the point of trying to find out why it was so.

Agreed that the Dupont was more likely the powder being sought, which ironically was that which the defenders had originally at the Alamo.In their case, their supply of that powder was depleted when the number of the contingent left there on the Matamoros expedition prior to the siege. They took most of this 'good' powder, leaving the unfortunate defenders with what remained, and the store of Mexican powder left by Cos in December.

With the Dupont powder, which was indeed from Delaware, it had been notably sold and traded throughout the states, which certainly included the New Orleans entrepot, where the barrels of powder on the Pelican had originated.

The production of gunpowder of course, must be regarded as appropriately volatile, and in volume production such as was carried out at Dupont, the inevitability of explosion must have been a constant threat.

The Mexican powder left in the Alamo, in further reading, I found was seriously damaged even to add to its poor quality, by the effects of what is known as 'creeping damp'. This natural situation is something well known in Texas and in which the dampness permeates relentlessly regardless of precautions attempted.

This same circumstance was why the men left at the Alamo were caught as they slept with guns unloaded, the same dampness would have effected powder left in the pans. By the time they reacted, the compound was overrun, and they had little to do but try to flee. These defenders were not the seasoned veterans and frontiersmen who indeed comprised the less predominant faction of the contingent, and those fewer do seem to have tried to stand as the others fled.
It does seem that historians are often not entirely correct on many aspects of this tragic event, and the true number of defenders are not accurately known, but simply estimated.

It is the same with the numbers of Mexican forces, typically largely exaggerated by those emphasizing the more heroic perspectives of the siege itself. However, this same embellishment seems to concern the numbers of Mexican casualties.

As with much of the research I have done here, my primary source has been "Exodus from the Alamo", Philip Thomas Tucker, 2010, where it notes the accounts of Santa Anna's 2nd in command Gen. Vincente Filisola, who regarded the Alamo engagement as 'useless'.

Tucker notes on p.3, "... while historians have grossly inflated the number of Mexican losses, the Filisola document shows that most of the attackers losses were due to fratricide. In all truth the Mexicans lost fewer men than traditional documents have claimed : in all less than three hundred casualties.
The large percentage of fratricide casualties means that the entire Alamo garrison may have killed or wounded barely a hundred of their opponents.".

My comment on the percentage of such Mexican casualties being as much as 90% was admittedly far beyond what numbers here reveal, and probably from my initial reaction of surprise at this clearly remarkable revelation.

While clearly the gunpowder issues of the thread topic, while playing a key role in many dynamics of this historic and tragic event, the true 'dilemma', at least for me, has been trying to better understand it.
While the tragedy was as put by Gen. Filisola, a useless engagement, the heroism of the forces on both sides was indisputable.

28th August 2019, 07:29 PM	#1
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Just by the way ... Wile i take the opportunity to show a third plaque with a soldier holding a weapon (now) admittedly called a Trident, as per description in a Catalog of the ENCOMPASSING THE GLOBE, Portugal and the World in the 16th & 17th centuries, an exhibition held in the Smithsonian Museum, i concur with the idea that the sword is the 'star', while in fact was the 'humble' lance the weapon that prevailed in statistic terms. Have a look to the famous Pastrana tapestries, picturing the fall of Tangier by the Portuguese (1471), and watch how many lances are there for a sword. . Attached Images

28th August 2019, 08:45 PM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,292	I agree with David, the trident is more a shorter hafted stabbing weapon, mindful of course of its use with gladiators (and recalling its symbolism with mythical figures like Poseidon)…..while these versions (runka) tri bladed polearms are variations of multi bladed weapons on long shafts. Fernando, I often reread these posts and just realized in the reference to 'ancients' toward the use of older types of weapons, including the lance, I had been thinking the Indians were what was meant. I honestly had not even thought of the Conquistadors as 'ancients', and turned to the early indigenous inhabitants of these regions.....thinking of the atlatl. Pretty far down the rabbit hole from gunpowder mea culpa. In again returning to the Mexican gunpowder 'dilemma', which I believe was in fact a proper term given the consistent reports of the terrible nature of the Mexican gunpowder in most of the resources I have consulted, it is most interesting to see less negative reports as you have entered here. I would point out that the period described here was much earlier than the time of Santa Annas campaigns against the Texians, and for that matter the later development of the Mexican war. Much as the circumstances in the American Revolution I previously mentioned, there were considerable quantities of materials necessary for mixing gunpowder left over from the regular supplies of the previously dominant nations. With Mexico, after independence, and after these battles such as Los Remedios, over time these 'abundant' supplies began to dwindle and the now independent Mexicans needed to rely on their own resources to produce renewable supplies. While these forts (in 1817) were well supplied at first, Fuerto del Sombereo was abandoned by the peasantry after lack of provisions rendered the position untenable. Martin Javier Mina y Larrea (1789-1817) went to defend Fuerto de los Remedios after the fall of Sombrero but that too fell, and he was executed Nov. 11, 1817. I knew an archaeologist who has long worked regions in Mexico, and who believed he had found the site of the execution. Mina was a brilliant officer and revolutionary who was also a lawyer and was known as el Mozo (the student). Naturally there are many processes to produce the essential saltpeter which is the key ingredient in gunpowder (comprising 75% of the mixture) however most of these are somewhat time consuming and often less effective. In essence, there is far more room for failure or inadequately functioning compound. That was why I was focused on the availability of 'natural' resources , primarily bat guano, which provided an already combined source which was typically inherently ready to be included in gunpowder after relatively simple processing. What my thoughts were toward the use of these natural sources of saltpeter was that there surely must have been quantities of this resource which were perhaps inadequately leached or improperly prepared for mixing. With this, possibly that was the cause of the poor powder the Mexicans had apparently become burdened with. The wonderful wealth of supply enjoyed at the time of Los Remedios had in effect, petered out (no pun intended) by the time of the 1830s campaigns, and the notorious 'terrible' powder of the Mexican forces had become well known. In many resources I checked, it was noted that it had too much charcoal and sulfur, not enough saltpeter. In one reference, one writer described it as 'charcoal' derisively. That there must have been 'some' good powder was illustrated by a note that General Cos, when marched out of the Alamo after surrender, took the 'good' powder in supplying his men (though only limited quantity was allowed). This falls in place with the comments of Susana Dickinson (the wife of Texian gunner) who survived and noted the powder left by Mexicans was 'damaged'. Perhaps he deliberately adulterated the powder just as he spiked and disables cannon left there. There are of course many possibilities, but the recurrent theme of most of the many accounts I have read, describe 'poor quality Mexican powder'. With that critical assessment being so prevalent......it WAS a dilemma. Last edited by Jim McDougall; 28th August 2019 at 09:03 PM.

29th August 2019, 02:11 PM	#8
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Terminology can be confusing Thanks for the comprehensive input, Filipe. My issues were more towards the identification of the weapon those guys carry in the Benin plaques. Being (at least)three of a kind, this must not be only artist's imagination. And if it exists, by association, would also be used by our neighbor Spaniards.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

28th August 2019, 07:54 PM	#2
David R Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 1,120	A western Runka is less a trident and more a side bladed weapon... Unable to load a picture, which is annoying.

28th August 2019, 10:46 PM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,292	"Dilemma" (definition) : A difficult situation or problem. In the thesis (if I am using the right term) of this thread, the objective was to determine the accuracy and possible causes for the apparent extremely poor quality and effectiveness of Mexican gunpowder. This question was brought about by repeated references to the extremely inadequate quality of the gunpowder of Mexican forces in the time of the Texas Revolution and into the campaigns of the Mexican War (1846). The fact that the powder was of such poor quality had a dramatic effect on the circumstances and many aspects of battles and conflicts as described in many accounts of these. With the efforts to obtain better quality powder, as seen in the supplies confiscated in the vessel Pelican, it would seem that the Mexicans were aware of the deficiencies of their powder, however it was obtained, and were trying to resolve the matter. This appears the case as powder from New Orleans was likely either the premium Dupont powder much favored in America or perhaps even French powder traded there. Which is unclear. Whatever the case, the issue with faulty powder was certainly a dilemma which needed resolution. In campaign this problem may result in completely ineffectual fire to even the unfortunate explosion of weapons and wounding or fatally injuring troops using them. It is noted that the Mexican artillery pounding the Alamo was more of a nuisance than effective bombardment, as the shot barely even made the walls. Most of the damage done to the Alamo structure was done by the Texian bombardment when the Mexicans were besieged there the previous December. The Mexican soldiers in the 'ranks' were poorly trained in the use of their muskets, presumably due to lack of ammunition and powder rather than oversight of officers, however that is perhaps simply a gratuitous perspective. Whatever the case, the troops were often issued incorrect ammunition by ordnance officers, and the poor powder quickly fouled the barrels, so smaller ball with added buck were employed. Also, the additional charge of powder to compensate for the poor quality powder forced the men to lower the guns and fire from the hip due to the inevitable flash and sparks (not to mention possible explosion) . This resulted in firing low into the darkness and decimating their own forces ahead. Most of the Mexican casualties (perhaps as many as 90%) were caused by friendly fire, in turn caused by poor powder and resultant poor shooting. All of these issues would likely have had notably catastrophic effect had the defenders been military and of more significant number properly emplaced, and the Mexican forces would have faced possible defeat due to these powder related circumstances. So, with these considerations, I would submit that the word dilemma does accurately describe the Mexican gunpowder issues.

29th August 2019, 06:16 PM	#9
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,292	Fernando, no towel throwing allowed The term use is in this case simply a matter of perspective, and relatively moot it would seem if it brought such consternation.It would seem the word was unnecessary in the title but I used it to suggest the issues resulting from the notoriously poor powder, and the point of trying to find out why it was so. Agreed that the Dupont was more likely the powder being sought, which ironically was that which the defenders had originally at the Alamo.In their case, their supply of that powder was depleted when the number of the contingent left there on the Matamoros expedition prior to the siege. They took most of this 'good' powder, leaving the unfortunate defenders with what remained, and the store of Mexican powder left by Cos in December. With the Dupont powder, which was indeed from Delaware, it had been notably sold and traded throughout the states, which certainly included the New Orleans entrepot, where the barrels of powder on the Pelican had originated. The production of gunpowder of course, must be regarded as appropriately volatile, and in volume production such as was carried out at Dupont, the inevitability of explosion must have been a constant threat. The Mexican powder left in the Alamo, in further reading, I found was seriously damaged even to add to its poor quality, by the effects of what is known as 'creeping damp'. This natural situation is something well known in Texas and in which the dampness permeates relentlessly regardless of precautions attempted. This same circumstance was why the men left at the Alamo were caught as they slept with guns unloaded, the same dampness would have effected powder left in the pans. By the time they reacted, the compound was overrun, and they had little to do but try to flee. These defenders were not the seasoned veterans and frontiersmen who indeed comprised the less predominant faction of the contingent, and those fewer do seem to have tried to stand as the others fled. It does seem that historians are often not entirely correct on many aspects of this tragic event, and the true number of defenders are not accurately known, but simply estimated. It is the same with the numbers of Mexican forces, typically largely exaggerated by those emphasizing the more heroic perspectives of the siege itself. However, this same embellishment seems to concern the numbers of Mexican casualties. As with much of the research I have done here, my primary source has been "Exodus from the Alamo", Philip Thomas Tucker, 2010, where it notes the accounts of Santa Anna's 2nd in command Gen. Vincente Filisola, who regarded the Alamo engagement as 'useless'. Tucker notes on p.3, "... while historians have grossly inflated the number of Mexican losses, the Filisola document shows that most of the attackers losses were due to fratricide. In all truth the Mexicans lost fewer men than traditional documents have claimed : in all less than three hundred casualties. The large percentage of fratricide casualties means that the entire Alamo garrison may have killed or wounded barely a hundred of their opponents.". My comment on the percentage of such Mexican casualties being as much as 90% was admittedly far beyond what numbers here reveal, and probably from my initial reaction of surprise at this clearly remarkable revelation. While clearly the gunpowder issues of the thread topic, while playing a key role in many dynamics of this historic and tragic event, the true 'dilemma', at least for me, has been trying to better understand it. While the tragedy was as put by Gen. Filisola, a useless engagement, the heroism of the forces on both sides was indisputable.