The Jaigarh Fort and its cannon ...

fernando · 25th July 2019, 12:24 PM

It is undeniable that, the first efficient component in artillery was not its wished purpose but the noise, that imposed fright among the enemy's hordes.
Aside from the first registered use of artillery in the Peninsula, which took place in the siege of Algeciras (1342-1344) where Yusuf I, Sultan of Granada, "fired iron projectiles from primitive gunpowder bombards, which caused extensive damage*, we have the Battle of Aljubarrota (1385), in which the Spaniards were equipped with 16 trons**, which only managed to kill two Portuguese and a British (ally) in the in the defenders right wing, with one of the volleys; however the trons fuss causing great consternation among the Portuguese horde, as our men of arms did not know such weapon.
* I am not certain of the type of the damage; a plausible inferrement would contextually be the psycho impact, rather than physical.
** Trom is the onomatopoeic name given after the noise caused by these devices (troooom).
In the Portuguese Navy museum, there is a device called Aljubarrota Trom, recognized as neither having being in the Aljubarrota battle, contrary to tradition, nor being a whole trom, but a loading chamber for one of the trom kind. With 1.7 yards in length and weighing 1.5 ton, must have served a 5 to 6 yards gun, basically due for beating walled fortification gates.

In a timeline as from then, artillery pieces were given a countless series of names, from those of birds, beasts, and other, until they ended up being named after their caliber (six pounder, twelve pounder), still not forgetting that, before a caliber 'standardization' was 'imposed', yet long after it was 'idealized', calibers existed for all tastes, through all such timeline, which caused great difficulty to check on what ammunition to introduce in each barrel.
It is amazing to see a (Portuguese, for one) list (never complete) of early cannon variants:
Besides gross an small bombards, bombardetas, and cradles we had ...
Eagles ... large and small,
Falcons and falconetes,
Lions (large cannon),
Camels and cameletes (ex-Moroccan wars and after in India),
1/4 cannon (circa 1/2 ton, for field use by King Dom Sebastião)
Bears,
Dogs (small bronze piece),
Serpentines (short culverins),
Serps,
Culverins and half culverins,
Culverins, bastards and legitimate,
Basiliscs (for siege),
Sacres and half sacres (1/4 and 1/8 culverin, used by Dutch),
Aspides,
Esperas (waits) and half esperas (short cannons),
Espalhafatos (fusses; threw stone balls 5 to 7 spans around ),
Selvagens (savages),
Roqueiras or forneiras,
Pedreiros (after stone projectiles),
Passa-volantes (Italian inspired).
Passa muros (one in Arzila thew 127 pound balls)
Mortars (from Latin mortarium=pestle),
Trabucos,
Esmerilhão (like a falconete, used in Alcacer Quibir)

To be continued ...

.

Jim McDougall · 25th July 2019, 07:15 PM

Hi Philip,
I have been fascinated with weapons of the Spanish colonial era for as long as I can remember, but as I have noted it has been with focus on edged weapons.
With the Mexican Independence of 1821, they had of course huge stockpiles of Spanish weaponry.
What I recall is that the use of the lance as a primary weapon as well as for hunting etc. in 18th century New Spain was due to poorly maintained guns and lack of powder.
With that it does not seem that Mexico had the necessary facilities or resources for producing black powder, and this extended apparently into the 19th c.
While they acquired considerable numbers of British arms in the mid 1820s it is unclear whether the powder was also from them.
With its poor substance it sounds more like they were attempting to produce their own powder, but lacked the necessary skill and materials to do so.
One Texian grumbled that the Mexican powder was 'like ground charcoal'.

The Mexican army did use rifles in degree, which were India pattern Baker rifles, but the bulk of their weapons were India pattern British muskets. There were some French Charleville muskets I believe and of course varying Spanish weapons.

While this subject matter is of course some deviation from the OP cannon in Rajasthan, but the topic concerning powder has led indirectly to this course in discussion. I totally agree that a new thread on the arms of Mexico would be in order, and I will try to put together notes to do that.

Again, I wanted to thank you for the great further insight into the terms used for various guns and artillery, and Fernando for the detailed supporting material on these. I am always intrigued by the terms used in Portuguese parlance in weapons which he always furnishes in these discussions.

Fernando, thank you, and to be continued, YES!!!
Learning a lot here, and I hope to continue much further.

Jim McDougall · 25th July 2019, 07:41 PM

From most of what I have been able to find online, there seems to be a lot of myth and hyperbole on this gun. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it seems to have inspired the 1933 CS Forester novel "The Gun", which later was made into a movie in 1957, "The Pride and the Passion", about the travails of trying to transport such a huge cannon.

While most accounts say this gun was fired only once in 1720, others claim it was fired numerous times, as evidenced by fire marks inside the barrel. The disputes over the actual range have apparently been largely exaggerated in accord with the huge size of the gun.

It also seems that a water tank was often placed near guns, particularly large ones, for gunners to literally dive into to avoid the shock wave and it seems the heat from the explosion. I would think more research would be necessary on the validity of that perspective.

With the huge gun, it would seem the very noise of firing it would be a profound declaration of power, and disconcerting to any potential attackers as well as the surrounding populace. We have at times been located near Ft. Hood here in Texas, and often we would hear resounding report booming in the distance, and a sense of concussion almost as the practice firing of their artillery took place. It is very convincing!

Though this is a huge cannon, firing 110 lb ball, it is hard to imagine the explosion from 220 pounds of powder! I would not wish to be standing next to this kind of explosion as these poor gunners must have. Another account claimed the gunner was killed by the detonation of this huge gun before he could make the water tank. Naturally it is hard to determine the truth from the lore in these things.

fernando · 25th July 2019, 09:01 PM

Jim, just an intermediate note to say that, it was already established that, the 220 pounds gunpowder load is definitely unreal data, in the best, a miswriting flaw from the article author or of the article text itself.
More to come

.

Jim McDougall · 25th July 2019, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

Jim, just an intermediate note to say that, it was already established that, the 220 pounds gunpowder load is definitely unreal data, in the best, a miswriting flaw from the article author or of the article text itself.
More to come

.

Thanks Fernando, it seems there have been a lot of those in these many entries I have come across...kinda like the 25 mile range. 220 pounds.....yikes, wouldn't want to be within blocks let alone next to it...not even in a water tank!

Philip · 26th July 2019, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

It also seems that a water tank was often placed near guns, particularly large ones, for gunners to literally dive into to avoid the shock wave and it seems the heat from the explosion. I would think more research would be necessary on the validity of that perspective.

With the huge gun, it would seem the very noise of firing it would be a profound declaration of power, and disconcerting to any potential attackers as well as the surrounding populace.

So true, Jim. Consider that when guns appeared at the close of the Middle Ages, their mechanical inefficiency, slow rate of fire, and general unreliability was more than offset by their psychological power. Think noise, smoke, flames, and the stink of sulphur -- just the way that the clergy had been describing Hell from the pulpit for centuries, to an impressionable and superstitious populace. It is not hard to imagine the poor Turkish women miscarrying their babies from sheer fright after a test shot from the bombard that Orban made for Sultan Mehmet II's assault on Constantinople.

The water tank idea is worth researching. I can imagine its utility for gun emplacements in confined quarters within a system of fortifications, such as covered casemates in bastions and towers, or from embrasures located at the base of adjoining ramparts that would confine the effects of muzzle blast on the gun crews. (Recalling, from previous posts, that cannons recoiled some distance when fired and black powder emits a tremendous amount of flame and smoke which open air can only partially dissipate)

Siege narratives from the period describe the hellish conditions to be expected. Especially graphic are the memoirs of knights and soldiers who defended Malta during the Ottoman siege of 1565, where the impact of incoming cannonballs and the detonations of return fire made it feel like the massive walls of Fort Sant' Angelo were rocking like a boat at sea. Losing one's hearing for days afterward was probably just the beginning of some men's misfortunes after enduring this and other privations, especially in a siege which lasted for many weeks, in the heat of a Mediterranean summer no less.

fernando · 26th July 2019, 01:48 PM

On the Mons Meg ...
I know you guys are more focused on why it cracked, but i find it also interesting to find when it cracked... as attached down below.

On the cannons recoil ...
A problematic issue with artillery aboard ships; even considering that their carriages were tied to the ship walls, to limit their course.
This fell into the complexity of bringing gross artillery aboard, as opposed to earlier conviction that ships could only carry relatively small guns, given to their structure, namely then vessels width (narrow breadth).
In order to achieve success in their sea adventures, the Portuguese invented or took advantage of previous inventions, upgrading their basics. For a start, the heavier guns (camelos) * were mounted aboard the lower board ships (caravels) thus avoiding the tilt caused by such guns on high board carracks (naus), those which were equipped with smaller ordnance for their defense purposes. This was the start of advantage in sea warfare.Then a new idea was to build watertight gunports ** in the ships hull by a lower deck level, thus gaining more fire power and the possibility to shoot fire at the waterline (ao lume d'água), an extraordinary asset, as the ball would take a horizontal trajectory, keeping to bounce off the water surface and hitting the enemy's more lightly built (Turc) ships at water level, causing their quick sinking.

On the water tank episodes ...
Not that this did not take place but, there would be a difference between shooting a gigantic gun in confined spaces, which dual occurrence is not the general rule, and shooting them in the open field, like in siege or beating situations where, apart from the environmental fuss ***, somehow the smoke burn and air dislocation find ways to escape. Notwithstanding that, during artillery primitive ages, all kinds of accidents would take place, where hardly gunners stood safe. For come reason the French used convicted men to operate them

.

On the gunpowder quality, Alamo and all ...
It takes a few contextual reasons for gunpowder not being successfully effective; from early times where the invention still had an incipient condition, passing by the difficulty in acquiring the ideal ingredients ***, and ending wth the ineptitude of non specialized makers ... not forgetting climate conditions (humidity) most depending in the place where it is stored.

* As these guns shot stone projectiles (pelouros), their lower density, as opposed to iron, made thin barrels feasible, and the resultant pieces were remarkably light when compared to their destructive power.

** This revolutionary idea is attributed to a Descharges, but other nations started by declining it, with fears to weaken the ships hull structure. But the Portuguese, circa four years earlier, took the risk, by placing them in pondered hull spots, as it was fundamental to lower the artillery center of gravity.

*** Philip is right in that the Constantinople crowd ran for their lives over Mehmed's massive cannon firing endlessly on the walls, but maybe the effect from the assailants side was not so unbearable, specially spaced by the extremely slow rate of its reloading; adding by the way that (as i've read), its imprecision gave the besieged the opportunity to repair most of the damage after each shot, limiting the cannon's effect.
Is such story plausible, Philip ?
This being true, such cannon reloading procedure gave a chance for the Turcs to dry their bodies between each diving into water tank.

**** Such look for precious gunpowder raw materials may be observed in the third attached text.

So long

...

.

kronckew · 26th July 2019, 06:42 PM

Cannons were usually fired with the muzzles outside their embrasures, and the heat, smoke and pressure waves were mostly (but not all) directed forward away from the crew, who learned quickly not to stand forward of the muzzle, or behind the carriage. A 'loose cannon' was a danger to all.

Any excess powder un-burnt outside the barrel is essentially wasted as it has no effect on propelling the projectile, just in making noise and heat. Establishing the correct charge would require a few firings of it or a close 'standard'relative and would also depend on the quality of the powder. Originally the overly hygroscopic powder was rather finely ground before mechanically mixing and tended not only to absorb moisture, but would rapidly separate if shaken during transport or storage. It also had a nasty habit of exploding and killing the mixers. Early Cannon masters on average were not old men as they had their own secret and personal recipes as to it's constituents and how to grind and mix the stuff. They learned not to use any iron/steel fittings, tool, nails, just brass or bronze, which is non-sparking. (felt slippers, as iron boot nails were also a no-no.)

Wet mixing and extrusion into known sized strings of known lengths along with sieving, corning, was not only more consistent, but less hygroscopic, and did not settle out. standardising the grains into the F system resulted in standard and consistent results. As did sealing it into tins rather than wood barrels. Even ww2 Iowa class battleships stored their bagged powder in non-sparking sealed tins in their magazines.

Now on to the mystery behind the letter 'F'. The letter 'F' stands for "Fine" and dates back to the time when the grains were designated F or C (for "coarse" grains). The number of times the letter F occurs in the powder grade shows the average size of the powder grains. The more times the letter F occurs in the name, the smaller the grains. What this means is that the size of "FFFg" grains are smaller than "FFg" grains, and "FFFFg" is even smaller than these two. When black powder is manufactured, the grains are sorted through sieves of standard sizes and classified that way.

Powder-Grade----Mesh-Size----Average-Size-in-mm.

Whaling------------4-mesh-------4.750-mm.-(0.187-in.)
Cannon-------------6-mesh-------3.35-mm.-(0.132-in.)
Saluting-(A-1)----10-mesh------2.0-mm.-(0.079-in.)
Fg-------------------12-mesh------1.7-mm.-(0.0661-in.)
FFg-----------------16-mesh------1.18-mm.-(0.0469-in.)
FFFg---------------20-mesh------0.85-mm.-(0.0331-in.)
FFFFg-------------40-mesh------0.47-mm.
FFFFFg-----------75-mesh------0.149-mm.

Note that the first 3 grades are intended for use with cannon. The A-1 grade is generally used for artillery blanks used for firing gun salutes. Fg is made for using in large bore rifles and shotguns (8-gauge and larger). FFg powder is used for historical small arms such as muskets, fusils, rifles and large pistols. FFFg powder is for smaller caliber rifles (below .45 caliber), pistols, cap-and-ball revolvers, derringers etc. FFFFg and FFFFFg are mostly used as priming powder for flintlocks. In the image above, the two grades of powder were intended to be used in a historical re-enactment and the FFg powder was meant for the main powder charge of a flintlock rifle, while the FFFFg powder was intended to be used in the pan of the flintlock as a priming powder.

Jim McDougall · 26th July 2019, 06:44 PM

Guys, these are amazing and powerfully informational entries, thank you so much! I have been hitting the books for it seems countless hours of every day trying to augment the thorough detail and insight you have both been adding here. As someone who has studied weapons most of my life, it is amazing to finally have growing understanding of these dynamics.
Fernando, your post of 'interest' in an unusual cannon has led this thread to develop into a diverse discussion on artillery which I think will warrant intriguing discussions on separate threads on these diverse topics.
Gratefully, may I say,well done...again it is exciting to learn from you guys which bolsters the research I am doing as well.

Philip, thank you for your detailed response!
As you note, the psychological effect of these huge guns must have been powerful, as the dramatic effect of gunpowder from its early development in China to the advance of firearms eventually in Europe are well known.

From what I have learned on gunpowder (I know that technically it was 'black powder' ironically not really black but grayish)..this compound of varied components was often termed 'serpentine'.
This goes to the nicknaming of many cannon using that term, and perhaps allusion to fire breathing dragons etc.
With that, the curious gun terms we have discussed brings to mind, the 'dragon' a term for a cavalry (?) firearm, hence the term 'dragoons' for mounted soldiers.

As you have described, it must have been hellish in confined spaces no matter in what degree with the expulsion not only of heat, but the debilitating if not deadly gasses discharged with firing. The shock wave and deafening noise had to have been equally threatening.

In early times and in cultures even into the Middle Ages, the susceptible nature of people to superstition, myth and lore must have brought to mind the same 'hellish' associations as with blacksmiths who worked with fire and mysterious materials in their craft. These aspects of warfare and weaponry are fascinating historically, and certainly come to mind with these huge cannons.

Fernando, absolutely intriguing synopsis of the elements of this discussion and its diverse topics featured. I especially very much appreciate learning more on the appropriate placement of the cannon aboard ships, which is something I don't think is often thought of in the study of naval warfare.
I think the Portuguese were way ahead of the game in these considerations as it seems ships like the 'Vasa' in Sweden toppled over due to improper distribution of weight, most likely the abundance of cannon.
I believe I once read that the curious numbers marked on naval cannon (besides weight) were indicating what position on the ship the guns were to be placed.
Lowering the CG (center of gravity.....I well learned in the airline business with weight and balance for aircraft) is brilliantly noted as well as its additional purpose in hitting the target at the water level ).

I agree that the numbers and sorts of accidents taking place with the firing of artillery must have been many, as the volatility and conditions involved were pretty much the recipe for disaster with the slightest oversight. I think that accidental explosion with too fast reloading and possibility of residual embers sparking ignition was probably a problem. It makes sense that a certain and timely procedure was prudent if not essential to complete the protocols of loading properly.

With the considerations of powder, as has been noted in the Alamo context, the production of gunpowder is a curiously overlooked figment of history as far as many military situations. Saltpeter, an essential component, was a tightly controlled commodity, and while it can feasibly be processed 'naturally' using handy and openly available materials, it takes skill and knowledge to compose it effectively.

I have noted that in the positioning of the Texian forces in the Alamo compound, ironically there were numbers of weapons, guns, and materials captured from General Cos who had previously held the Alamo earlier. Again, ironically, the Texian forces had captured it from him, and in their assault had pummeled the structure with their cannon.

When the decision came to defend the Alamo came months later, the order was to remove the guns and destroy the remaining structure. When Neill, the commander of Texian troops realized he had insufficient means to transport the guns, that bolstered the decision to stay.

Unfortunately , the pummeling of much of the Alamo structures by the Texians had weakened them so they were difficult to fortify when the decision to stand was made. In actuality, the consistent bombardment of Santa Annas weak artillery contingent was more of an annoyance than effective barrage. The guns were antiquated, insufficient in size and the miserable powder (as discussed) was entirely inadequate. Only minimal damage was caused mostly in already weakened sections.

I had though that perhaps General Cos, in his departure from the Alamo, might have purposely 'fouled' the powder stores left there as he had a penchant for disabling abandoned material. However it sounds as if the Mexican powder was so bad that it was hardly necessary to try to make it worse. This store of powder was unfortunately the stock that the Texians had left to use, and one of the reasons the idea of abundant artillery as a factor in a potential siege in this case was pure folly.

On that note, I hope to start another thread on the Alamo topic, pending further research, as has been suggested to keep the focus here on the original topic, which as I say is a fascinating foray into the subject of artillery.

Thank you again guys!!!

Wayne, we crossed posts and I just saw yours. Outstanding!! This is just the kind of information I was up half the night trying to find on powder grade and composition...thank you!!!

fernando · 26th July 2019, 08:29 PM

Wayne, interesting entry and wise words on what concerns risks involving proximity to cannon discharges and fabrication of gunpowder. Let me guess however that your last paragraph/s on powder classification and those 'FF' specs skip over a few centuries to a fresh context ... re-enactment purposes and all

.
On the saluting and warning salvos, i wouldn't know whether (Portuguese) gunners used weaker powder for those or, even if that used with the warning discharges was 'convincingly' accompanied by ammo; i have read about both salvos in chronicles, but it would be such a task to go looking for such details in bulky books.
Still we can not forget that gunners in such (discoveries) period would not leave home without doing their home work. To add that they would be competent enough to empirically deal with the necessary components they had to resource in wherever location with whatever quality out there, when running out of the stocks they took with, at departure ... something i know for sure did happen. We also know that eventually they also taught locals here and there how to mix the stuff; no secrets resist a fair price

.

fernando · 26th July 2019, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... I especially very much appreciate learning more on the appropriate placement of the cannon aboard ships, which is something I don't think is often thought of in the study of naval warfare...

Professor John F. Guilmartin Jr. (deceased) is one that weaved comprehensive considerations about these issues, having eventually present them in congresses. However he is himself the one surprised for such basic historical stuff not being more widespread

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... I think the Portuguese were way ahead of the game in these considerations ...

Indeed the Portuguese experienced naval hegemony with such advanced gains ... but for no more than two short centuries. Still, what could they do, coming from a nation the side of a backyard, having to provide for human and material means for the zillion places they were in, at the same time.
Still, they had their moments of glory ... even if ephemeral.

Philip · 27th July 2019, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I agree that the numbers and sorts of accidents taking place with the firing of artillery must have been many, as the volatility and conditions involved were pretty much the recipe for disaster with the slightest oversight. I think that accidental explosion with too fast reloading and possibility of residual embers sparking ignition was probably a problem. It makes sense that a certain and timely procedure was prudent if not essential to complete the protocols of loading properly.

Yes, Jim, gunnery drill was a pretty intensive exercise requiring a high degree of coordination and teamwork on the part of the crew, with requisite attention to sequence and detail. Elements of the process that modern gun crews are free of include loading and seating the powder, wads, and projectile separately and in correct order from the muzzle, and (due to the lack of recoil-dampening mechanisms) rolling the piece back "to battery" before firing.

Black powder combustion creates not only a thick cloud of smoke, but also deposits a lot of residue in the bore and touchhole, which build up noticeably with each shot. If not properly addressed at prescribed intervals, this can lead to some undesirable effects. Seating the projectile and the wads with the rammer can be impeded; ideally the components should be in contact, without excessive tamping nor (more seriously) air spaces in between which could result in a dangerous rise in internal pressures causing the barrel to burst. A clogged touchhole is a recipe for a misfire.

The residue, being largely carbonaceous, can also harbor hot spots or embers left after firing, creating the hazard that you mention.

The proper and timely use of some important tools made this problem manageable. The cannonier, in addition to his quadrant, firing tables, and other aiming equipment, carried a pricker to clear out the touchhole between shots. The crew needed several long-handled implements besides the linstock, rammer and powder scoop -- these included a stiff-bristled bore brush, a cylindrical swab surfaced with sheeps-wool, and a barrel scraper consisting of opposed semi-circular blades spring-mounted on a staff. Old military prints also show a bucket swinging under the axle-tree of a caisson (the two wheeled ammo and equipment cart hitched to the gun carriage for transport). Water was essential for washing out the bore after use, and also to cool down a barrel which became too hot from firing in succession.

(The messy nature of the propellant made frequent cleaning necessary on users of small arms as well. Since we started out on the subject of India, I'd like to close by mentioning the common appearance of touchhole pricks on little chains attached to the stocks of Indian matchlocks or toradors. On specimens where these are missing, you can often see the eyebolt which held the chain as well as the slender conical metal pocket to hold the pick when not in use.)

Philip · 28th July 2019, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

*** Philip is right in that the Constantinople crowd ran for their lives over Mehmed's massive cannon firing endlessly on the walls, but maybe the effect from the assailants side was not so unbearable, specially spaced by the extremely slow rate of its reloading; adding by the way that (as i've read), its imprecision gave the besieged the opportunity to repair most of the damage after each shot, limiting the cannon's effect.
Is such story plausible, Philip ?

.

Nando, the incident with Mehmet's cannon that I summarized in the earlier post was taken from Turkish chronicles much-quoted by historians such as Runciman, Babinger, and Lord Kinross writing about Mehmet the Conqueror and his career. The description was not from a siege memoir, but rather focuses on the pre-siege test-firing of the largest gun (named Basilisc) that the renegade Hungarian Orban made for Mehmet at the foundry at Edirne (former Greek Adrianople, by then in Ottoman hands). The populace had been warned of the test shot in advance and told not to panic, but apparently the noise (said to be audible for 100 stadia or 10 miles) and the massive amount of smoke did cause a lot of consternation. Measurements in the chronicle allow us to picture a 26.5 foot barrel with a bore roughly 30 in. in diameter, shooting a stone ball weighing 12 hundredweight (over half a ton). Fifteen yoked pair of oxen and 700 men were required to shlep this thing from foundry to test site and ready it for firing. The first shot was said to propel the huge sphere for about a mile, and it buried itself six feet into the earth on impact.

It is believed that the guns used to batter Constantinople's Theodosian ramparts (visible in restored condition today) were not mounted in carriages as we know them, but rather propped on earthen berms to provide the requisite elevation. As such, accuracy was nil but Orban was not idly boasting when he told the Sultan that his creations could batter the walls of Babylon into ruin. The projectiles did tremendous damage when they did connect. A slow rate of fire and susceptibility to damage (such as bursting) also compromised the effectiveness of these cannon. Basilisc only managed three shots daily, and became inoperative after several weeks.

Nando, your observations are spot on. The effect on defenders' morale, not to mention that of the civilian non-combatants within the walls, must have been horrendous. Weapons of this size and power were a relative novelty to most people of the era, even seasoned soldiers. It's true that a very slow rate of fire allowed the defenders to shore up the breeches to help repel infantry assaults, but repeated exposure must have been wearing. Considering that...

...According to historian Steven Runciman, under 7000 Byzantine soldiers and foreign Christian volunteers and mercenaries had to defend 14 miles of walls and gates(counting both landward and seaward defenses) against some 80,000 Turks (inclusive of elite troops, regular troops, and irregulars) who attacked on land and water, with the help of cannon. Guns which Orban originally offered to the Byzantine emperor, who refused to pay his asking price!

One would imagine that the Turkish rank and file got used to the presence of these monsters especially the infantry who saw how they could make the job of taking a massively-walled city somewhat easier on them. However, as in Europe, guns and the men who served them must have engendered fear and mistrust for reasons given in prior posts. Another history of the siege which I have read states that Basilisc actually exploded at one point -- reinforcing the idea that the dicey metallurgy and design of early cannon could make them as dangerous to shooters as to the intended targets.

Which brings me to admit an oversight that I made earlier -- in that the bombards used in Europe, with their forged wrought iron stave-and-hoop construction, were quite a different breed of cat from Orban's creations. The period documentation indicates that Mehmet's siege cannon were cast -- in the case of Basilisc, in a foundry at the Ottoman capital. Although Basilisc has not survived, a huge Turkish cannon made just a decade or so later has -- the so-called Dardanelles Gun which can be seen today at Ft. Nelson, above Portsmouth. It's safe to conclude that its construction mirrors that of Orban's designs (he didn't live beyond the year of the siege). Even more remarkable is the fact that this gun, and smaller ones of the era still existing in Turkey, are of two -piece construction, the chamber section is screw-threaded into the barrel proper with remarkable precision for the day. Amazing!

fernando · 28th July 2019, 04:55 PM

Quote: