Come and Take It! The Gonzalez Cannon

Jim McDougall · 24th July 2023, 03:21 PM

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.

LouG · 24th July 2023, 08:48 PM

Fernando---Many thanks for posting these cannon photos. Most impressive, and a valuable addition to this thread.

Jim McDougall · 25th July 2023, 06:53 AM

In support of what Fernando notes in #23;
From Tartaglio, "The Arte of Shooting" (1588),
"....through the intolerable fault of careless or unskillful gunfounders all of our great pieces of one name are not of one length, nor of one weight, nor of one height in their mouths, and therefore the gunners books and tables which do show that all of our pieces are of one name...are of equal length, and of one equal weight and are of an equal height in their mouths, are erroneous".

Cited in "Armouries of the Tower Of London: the Ordnance".
H.L.Blackmore, HMSO, 1976, p.391

As we are discussing the term culverin in 1590 as used in accounts of the DeSosa 'expedition' and what size gun probably referred to considering the transport and movement in terrain of said gun, it would seem the dilemma of terms used broadly for varying size guns was notably present in those times.

fernando · 25th July 2023, 12:41 PM

Concerning de Sosa and his adventures, we can read out there about his artillery, with some contradictions, but none mentioning the cannons as being of the culverin type. Or still i am missing further sources.
For the record, as you guys are most probably aware, de Sosa real name was Gaspar Castanho de Sousa, born in Portugal circa 1550.
From the Spanish 'Miguel de Cervantes Virtual Library', we can read the "Memory of the discovery that Gaspar Castaño de Sosa made in New Mexico, being lieutenant governor and captain general of the New Kingdom of León (July 27, 1590)"

"He ordered the Field Master to have the Royal box kept within short distance from the town, in that part where the town seemed to be strongest; And they did so, and he ordered two bronze shots* to be fired, and for this he ordered Joan Rodríguez Nieto, to be with the said guns and with their fuse ready, and he ordered Joan Rodríguez Nieto to fire one of the shots high *and so it was fired, and with it the harquebus, to see if this would scare them ... and for our safety the said Lieutenant told the Field Master to go to one side of the town, to a barracks that was there without people, and made Diego de Viruega, Francisco de Mancha, Diego Díaz de Berlanga, Joan Rodríguez Nieto go up to the top, with one of the said artillery pieces; And so they went up, although with a lot of work, because the Indians gave them a lot of war from behind a sleeve and trenches".

* I infer this was his bronze artillery; old idiomatic Castilian with no available translation.
So these pieces had to have some carrying or stand devices, but certainly not of big heavy dimensions; whether of a determined class or even local atypical casting ?

fernando · 25th July 2023, 01:00 PM

From the Spanish Royal Academy ... Historical dictionary of the Spanish language.

" The culevrina is documented for the first time, with the meaning 'artillery weapon with a barrel longer than 30 muzzle diameters * that throws projectiles, generally metallic, at a great distance', in the 15th century, in an anonymous Sales Letter (1451) and with the culubrine variant. It is recorded for the first time in the Recveil de dictionaires francoys, espaignolz et latins (1599), by H. Hornkens; In addition, it is collected in the Dictionary of Authorities of 1729. There are a large number of testimonies of the various types of culverin that have existed; among them, the most common is the medium (half) culverin. Like other ancient artillery weapons, they could be legitimate or bastard, depending on whether or not they met the established standards for their length and caliber. These standards have varied over time, so the characteristics of each piece must always be considered in context."

*
A typical way to determine artillery dimensions. Culverin barrels being equivalent to (also called) 30 calibers, their lengths, as already mentioned, measure circa 3 meters.

fernando · 25th July 2023, 05:47 PM

From Investigation Concerning Gaspar Castaño de Sosa’s
Unauthorized Expedition to New Mexico in 1590-1591,
Conducted by Captain Juan Morlete in 1591

Finally an exhaustive mention of de Sosa's artillery. I will not bore you to death with transcription of all details over this issue. I will just say that, the number of times that his artillery is mentioned in this paper, is countless. No typologies approached, only that he had at least three "artillery pieces", defined as (two) small and (one) gross. Whether they were of this or that specific type, it will be up to our imagination. I seem to understand that they were transported in the carts.
According to what is recorded, he either used them to assault natives and also to set defence from his national oppositors.

Jim McDougall · 26th July 2023, 06:08 PM

Masterfully researched and explained Fernando.

While understanding that trying to elaborate on the extraordinarily recorded details of this expedition, your summarizing them is much appreciated.
Lou brought to my attention the recent discovery of a Spanish gun found in southern Arizona which was referred to as a hackbus (haakbus, Dutch=hook gun). This was the root word for arquebus, basically the ancestor of the culverin, as I understand (corrections welcomed).

These haakbus were rampart guns (wall guns) and the hook was the feature extending in a hook or lug to steady the gun when firing by securing on a wall or battlement. In the field tripods or other makeshift devices worked as well.

Apparently Coronado in his 1541 expedition northward through Arizona had 6 of these guns, and archaeologists are confident this is one of them. These 40 pound pieces it notes were called 'versillos' (linguist assist plz), and it is noted such items had to be carried by horse or mule as larger equipment like carraiges or wagons would be impractical through unknown terrain.
Surely DeCosa had similar thinking, but it is noted he did have wagons of some sort.

The article noted was from "American Rifleman" , April 2023 by William Mapoles and Deni Seymour, as are the photos attached noting this gun is the earliest example of one forged in the New World (as shown in period woodcut).

25th July 2023, 12:41 PM	#4
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Concerning de Sosa and his adventures, we can read out there about his artillery, with some contradictions, but none mentioning the cannons as being of the culverin type. Or still i am missing further sources. For the record, as you guys are most probably aware, de Sosa real name was Gaspar Castanho de Sousa, born in Portugal circa 1550. From the Spanish 'Miguel de Cervantes Virtual Library', we can read the "Memory of the discovery that Gaspar Castaño de Sosa made in New Mexico, being lieutenant governor and captain general of the New Kingdom of León (July 27, 1590)" "He ordered the Field Master to have the Royal box kept within short distance from the town, in that part where the town seemed to be strongest; And they did so, and he ordered two bronze shots* to be fired, and for this he ordered Joan Rodríguez Nieto, to be with the said guns and with their fuse ready, and he ordered Joan Rodríguez Nieto to fire one of the shots high and so it was fired, and with it the harquebus, to see if this would scare them ... and for our safety the said Lieutenant told the Field Master to go to one side of the town, to a barracks that was there without people, and made Diego de Viruega, Francisco de Mancha, Diego Díaz de Berlanga, Joan Rodríguez Nieto go up to the top, with one of the said artillery pieces;* And so they went up, although with a lot of work, because the Indians gave them a lot of war from behind a sleeve and trenches". * I infer this was his bronze artillery; old idiomatic Castilian with no available translation. So these pieces had to have some carrying or stand devices, but certainly not of big heavy dimensions; whether of a determined class or even local atypical casting ? Last edited by fernando; 25th July 2023 at 02:58 PM.

25th July 2023, 01:00 PM	#5
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Further on the culverin typology ... From the Spanish Royal Academy ... Historical dictionary of the Spanish language. " The culevrina is documented for the first time, with the meaning 'artillery weapon with a barrel longer than 30 muzzle diameters * that throws projectiles, generally metallic, at a great distance', in the 15th century, in an anonymous Sales Letter (1451) and with the culubrine variant. It is recorded for the first time in the Recveil de dictionaires francoys, espaignolz et latins (1599), by H. Hornkens; In addition, it is collected in the Dictionary of Authorities of 1729. There are a large number of testimonies of the various types of culverin that have existed; among them, the most common is the medium (half) culverin. Like other ancient artillery weapons, they could be legitimate or bastard, depending on whether or not they met the established standards for their length and caliber. These standards have varied over time, so the characteristics of each piece must always be considered in context." * A typical way to determine artillery dimensions. Culverin barrels being equivalent to (also called) 30 calibers, their lengths, as already mentioned, measure circa 3 meters.

25th July 2023, 05:47 PM	#6
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	And with this one, i am done ! From Investigation Concerning Gaspar Castaño de Sosa’s Unauthorized Expedition to New Mexico in 1590-1591, Conducted by Captain Juan Morlete in 1591 Finally an exhaustive mention of de Sosa's artillery. I will not bore you to death with transcription of all details over this issue. I will just say that, the number of times that his artillery is mentioned in this paper, is countless. No typologies approached, only that he had at least three "artillery pieces", defined as (two) small and (one) gross. Whether they were of this or that specific type, it will be up to our imagination. I seem to understand that they were transported in the carts. According to what is recorded, he either used them to assault natives and also to set defence from his national oppositors.

26th July 2023, 06:08 PM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,730	Masterfully researched and explained Fernando. While understanding that trying to elaborate on the extraordinarily recorded details of this expedition, your summarizing them is much appreciated. Lou brought to my attention the recent discovery of a Spanish gun found in southern Arizona which was referred to as a hackbus (haakbus, Dutch=hook gun). This was the root word for arquebus, basically the ancestor of the culverin, as I understand (corrections welcomed). These haakbus were rampart guns (wall guns) and the hook was the feature extending in a hook or lug to steady the gun when firing by securing on a wall or battlement. In the field tripods or other makeshift devices worked as well. Apparently Coronado in his 1541 expedition northward through Arizona had 6 of these guns, and archaeologists are confident this is one of them. These 40 pound pieces it notes were called 'versillos' (linguist assist plz), and it is noted such items had to be carried by horse or mule as larger equipment like carraiges or wagons would be impractical through unknown terrain. Surely DeCosa had similar thinking, but it is noted he did have wagons of some sort. The article noted was from "American Rifleman" , April 2023 by William Mapoles and Deni Seymour, as are the photos attached noting this gun is the earliest example of one forged in the New World (as shown in period woodcut). Attached Images

24th July 2023, 03:21 PM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,730	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.

24th July 2023, 08:48 PM	#2
LouG Member Join Date: Apr 2022 Posts: 5	Cannon Pix Fernando---Many thanks for posting these cannon photos. Most impressive, and a valuable addition to this thread.

25th July 2023, 06:53 AM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,730	In support of what Fernando notes in #23; From Tartaglio, "The Arte of Shooting" (1588), "....through the intolerable fault of careless or unskillful gunfounders all of our great pieces of one name are not of one length, nor of one weight, nor of one height in their mouths, and therefore the gunners books and tables which do show that all of our pieces are of one name...are of equal length, and of one equal weight and are of an equal height in their mouths, are erroneous". Cited in "Armouries of the Tower Of London: the Ordnance". H.L.Blackmore, HMSO, 1976, p.391 As we are discussing the term culverin in 1590 as used in accounts of the DeSosa 'expedition' and what size gun probably referred to considering the transport and movement in terrain of said gun, it would seem the dilemma of terms used broadly for varying size guns was notably present in those times.