Help. Could this be what it looks like ?

[Jim McDougall]

As always Fernando, you post the most intriguing items! While this type of item is far outside my usual field of interest, I cannot resist trying to figure out what this would be as well. I am inclined to agree with David's very astute observations, that this seems to be some sort of grenade, and with the chains, these would tend to foul in riggings and well position them for a seriously damaging blast. There were ball grenades of this shape with an aperture for fuses etc. used into WWI, but the chain attachments lead me to go with the naval ordnance suggestion.
I always thought the prisoner type ball was larger, heavier and pretty much solid, as well as of course, manacled.

All best regards,
Jim

[kronckew]

i'm more inclined to the prisoner theory, the chain looks a bit light for a 6" projectile, and a naval projectile would not be hollow & chained, an exploding projectile would not have a chain. what is the weight? a prisoners ball would be heavy enough to be a burden, a grenade would be light enough to throw far enough away to keep from killing the thrower, 6in. seems a bit big for a grenade. cannon projectiles would be heavier, especially the chains,

mortar projectiles of the age had loops for securing lifting gear, but round shot, even the large ones did not. hollow cannon shot intended to be filled with gunpowder and fused were generally provided with a softer metal plug hammered into the hole without threads, like a cork. note the chain & bar shot, the ball sections are cast in halves that interlock & fly apart after firing, those along with the others were particularly useful for cutting rigging and masts/spars, a tactic the french preferred, while the brits preferred slugging it out with roundshot to the hull.

i have found references to the use of grenades being essentially abandoned after 1750 and not back in general use until 1904 as the tactics of the period did not favor their use. it also stated the grenade max weight of the time was about 2 lbs, or just under a kilo...also found some early ww1 french grenades where the fuse was in a wooden plug pushed into the grenade, and ref. to an early attempt at a 'safety' fuse where the friction fuse was ignited by pulling a string out of the fuse, the string was attached to the throwers wrist so that it was pulled when the bomblette was thrown. a note said this was 'unpopular' generals complained about the added cost when it was decided to thread the fuse into the shell body as many would pull loose when thrown, resulting in no BOOM at the terminal end. i'da been more concerned if it did not pull out but ignited and remained dangling from the cord from my wrist. even if i did pull out, a dangling lit fuse hanging from your appendages is not healthy. another note stated that casualties amongst grenadiers appeareed to be higher. . i wonder why.

[katana]

Originally Posted by kronckew

a grenade would be light enough to throw far enough away to keep from killing the thrower, 6in. seems a bit big for a grenade.

It may be possible that a 'larger' grenade could be used in a defensive tactic if thrown from high defensive walls (ramparts) onto an invading Army.
Alternatively the 'balls' could have been carried via the 'looped' chain and placed stratigically as explosive charges.
I always thought that the ball of a 'ball and chain' was solid and heavy ...for obvious reasons.
Most 'cast' iron grenades I have seen tend to only have one hole, to fill with blackpowder and then 'plugged' with the fuse. The 'largest' hand thrown type I can find is around 4.5 " in diameter, 6" does not seem to bad a size if the throwing was assisted by the chain (athletic hammer style).
Fernando, do you have any idea as to the weight of the ball? The 'walls' of the sphere could be relatively thin making it lighter than it would appear.

My other concern is that cast iron is relatively brittle, great for a fragmentation device but bad for a prisoner's 'ball' ......an impact on another solid object could crack/shatter it. The fixing point of the chain would be most vunerable, a sharp tap with a rock ...and your 'off and running' albeit with a length of chain ...but you could swing that around as a weapon (if the chain was long enough)

http://www.knightsedge.com/medieval-...-and-chain.htm

I suppose you could argue that using chain (to throw the 'ball') is over-engineering when a suitable sized rope could be used instead. However, a rope is more likely to fail if damaged/worn and if it broke as you were 'swinging' it .... the explosive could go anywhere I think the chain would be wiser ...and would provide more shrapnel.

Regards David

There is also the possibility that this is a mortar shell and the chain handle was used to lift and load.

[katana]

Checking the possibillity that this could be a mortar 'shell' I have found that this is looking likely.

1. mortar round shells have two hooks/ loops to aid loading.
2. These 'loading loops' are always positioned either side of the fuse hole.
3. Some round shells have two holes, one is used to add lead shot (which is then plugged' with lead...usually) the other is for the fuse.

I had assumed the chain was 'fixed' at the time of manufacture.....but it is quite possible that this was a mortar shell, that had the chain fitted later....
However, the 's' shaped link that attaches the chain to the ball seems identical to the 'last link' that attaches the 'different chain', seeing that one fixing loop is missing it highly suggests that the chain was looped and was attached to it originally with the other 'S' link (see pic)

David

[Jim McDougall]

What a fantastic presentation Kronckew! As I mentioned, this topic is well outside my regular field of study, and this material is truly educational and very much appreciated.
David, I am always captivated by your deductive reasoning and well laid out responses, which always seem to energize the discussion at hand. I'm always amazed at the core of knowledge here by so many members on such a wide field of topics, and its always exciting to all keep learning together.

Again Fernando, thank you for never hesitating to post the unusual items you discover. Although many times not directly related to ethnographic edged weapons, its often surprising how many clues with them sometimes do have some application to either the weapons themselves, or the perspective on the period.

Thanks very much guys!

All the best,
Jim

[fernando]

Gentlemen

I can't bear such imense satisfaction at reading your coments and data pouring in.

I will have to digest all that and also phone the seller before i dare to reply with some sense.

Say David, can you post the link containing that grenade ball with the two side rings ?

Fernando

[fernando]

I thank you all again to gather at this brain storm.
This device is surely appealing, no doubt.
Now ...
If not a prisoner ball and chain
If also not cannon ball
I would go back to the counterweight version, like those used in mechanical wind mills that pull water from wells ... You know what i mean ?
Tomorrow i'll go around country to look better to those mills.
We all agree, Vandoo, that it could have had two suspension ring loops instead of the present one.
The chain was surely prolongated, as we can see by the different patterns.
Also the first section of the chain could have been looped back to the hipothetical second ring on the ball; that was a brilliant deduction, David.
But then, why the addition ... a second function ?
On the other hand, the chain links are well worn, in both sections. Whatever this device was, its function was not static, like it was dragged or rolled all the time ... and that's an important point to consider.
Concerning the weight, being the ball diameter close to 6", if it were a solid cannon ball, would be a 24 pounder, right ? However we must deduct the hole ... but add the chain.
It is not a grenade or a case shot, as it is not hollowed enough. Its hole is cilindrical and all through; i still wonder why somebody plugged the end contrary to the hanging device.
Just something to keep exercizing one's brains.
Fernando