![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: California
Posts: 1,036
|
![]() Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,192
|
![]()
"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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | ||||
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]() Quote:
But i resist no more; i throw in the towel over this one. Quote:
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:
![]() Quote:
![]() . |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]()
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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,192
|
![]()
Fernando, no towel throwing allowed
![]() 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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Limousin France
Posts: 19
|
![]()
If Mexican powder was prone to suffer from dampness it could point to using guano derived sodium nitrate instead of potassium nitrate as the saltpetre portion of the gun powder.
Sodium nitrate is a workable alternative to potassium nitrate saltpetre but is less effective and is notably hygroscopic so goes soggy when exposed after a while. It needs to be kept sealed until used. Often turned to as a cheaper ingredient or when the better is not accessible. OK as long as you use it up fast but goes soggy in storage and definitely in a weapon, especially the pan of a firelock, overnight. OK-ish for blasting or fireworks where the buyer uses it soon after purchase but firearm powder is stored until used in the future so not a good choice. Not conclusive evidence but makes it valid to examine the possibility seriously and is at least consistent with the reports made here. There is a process to convert sodium nitrate to potassium nitrate but that is chemistry knowledge out of period and beyond the Mexican technology of the day. A less direct route is to use the guano in 'nitre beds' but I am not aware of any being created in Mexico and is a slower and more wasteful method. Not to mention unpleasant. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,192
|
![]() Quote:
Again, I join Fernando in very much appreciating your valuable insight and expertise here!! The differences in the chemical properties of these two compounds in the 'nitre' is profoundly explanatory in the circumstances they clearly faced here. Absolutely fascinating Yulzari, thank you!! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|