Bombardier stilettos

[katana]

Hi Jim ,
I believe that the 'gunners stiletto' was issued as a last ditch weapon in case the artillary positions were over-run. I also know that the markings on the blades had various meanings and were not necessailly 'standardised'.
and were often used to clear cannon-fuse touch holes.

Many were scribed with marks indicating levels of powder charges (think car engine dip stick)

Some were marked off with a scale for converting the bore of the gun into the weight of the shot required

Others also had scales to calculated trajectory angles

http://webprojects.prm.ox.ac.uk/arms...n/1884.24.216/

Regards David

[broadaxe]

The gunner's stiletto was used to measure bore & shot diameter in conjunction with a compass/dividers (rare version opens up to be a compass for itself). Powder charge was measured by sticking the blade into a known volume charge cup.

Interesting note, since the "regular" stiletto was often forbidden to carry by civilians, as being an assassin's weapon, the gunner's stiletts has been regarded as a legit tool of the trade. Some researchers suspect that a relatively large amount of marked blade stilettos exist to these days because this was an attempt to surpass the rule.

[celtan]

So...

Gunner Stilettos had different sets of markings? Perhaps even more than one type?

ie. One for the bore, another for the charge?

Were specific stilettos made for individual guns?

I say this, because same depth of a packed charge means different explosive loads with different diameter charges (calibers).

Same caliber shells required different loads according to the desired reach. I understand that sometimes the barrel was loaded with BP up to half its length, for maximun ability "to reach out and touch someone..."

Regarding the stiletto being used to clean vents, those vents would have needed to be rather large. The one my friend has wouldn't fit in the 17-18th C cannons we have preserved here...

Did vents increase in width according to the gun calibers and lenghts?

Best

Manuel Luis

[Jim McDougall]

Outstanding observations everybody, and very informative, as being a complete novice at artillery and firearms dynamics and nomenclature the things noted here really add perspective.

I noted I had been trying to find a long forgotten article on this esoteric topic, and after considerable excavation here in the bookmobile, I found it!
It is titled "Gunners Daggers" Marcello Terenzi, in 'The Arms and Armor Annual' ed. Robt. Held, 1973.

The information in the article pretty much corresponds to all of the observations and notes shared here, but I did find an interesting angle adding to the mystery. Apparantly, just as noted, the stiletto was indeed outlawed as an insidious weapon, and numerous examples of these seem to prevail with numbers seeming nonsensical in comparison to known numerics applying to artillery of the times. These are considered to be stilettos marked in this way to circumvent the law.....but it is noted that the calibers of guns changed over time with use, and the casting of ammunition was anything but standard. While that would seem to explain the variation in scales, but according to the article, measurement was accomplished through a mid point at the barrel, and other 'back to back' means.

What was interesting is that these stilettos were typically noted as Venetian, as they do indeed seem N. Italian weapons of 17th-18th century, but more curious is the 1661 edict that actually granted permission to wear these to 'certain persons'..who were stated 'bonified artillerymen'. This edict was pronounced by the considerably mysterious Council of Ten, while of course a governing body in Venice, believed to have had covert methods of administrating and controlling certain issues.
( the well known schiavona swords of the Dalmatian forces here who served are often marked CX -Council of Ten).....I wonder if any of these 'fusetti' (as termed in the article) might have had that numeric secretly incorporated into the numbers?

Another incredibly bizarre note...to add to the fantasy of early studies of arms, on p.175;
Apparantly there was once an 'absurd notion' that the numbering served to prove to the client of an assassin the depth of penetration into the victims body by telltale blood marks!!! This nonsense must be added to the many myths of weapons lore as surely one of the most ridiculous

I think the information on the more insidious use of these as insidious weapons is completely intriguing, especially with the Council of Ten entry.

It would be interesting to find early methods employed to measure the powder etc on cannon...
did these multipurpose weapons actually serve this purpose with artillery crews, as they are only known from the 17th and 18th centuries, and it is noted that the 1661 edict in Venice, later used again in 1728 in specific granting of permission to someone named Antonio Spadone , and after this these daggers seem to virtually fall out of appearance.

The name sounds suspiciously like 'Andrea Ferara' (spadone=sword).
It is stated than many examples have the numerics almost obliterated (presumably repeated usings and the corrosive powder), but is this sufficient to suggest actual use as stated?

I really appreciate the great input and am always amazed at the knowledge out there! Perhaps we could look further into the mystery of these ?

All the best,
Jim

[fearn]

So Jim,

You're saying that this is a blade you could count on?

F

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fearn

So Jim,

You're saying that this is a blade you could count on?

F

Yup! If one was on the wrong end they'd get the point!!
Just wondering exactly how much measuring these were really used for. Most references seem to suggest they were to clear touch holes or spike the weapon in last resort, also to use if emplacement overrun.
I'm just curious why the markings never appeared before the 17th century, at least according to known literature.

Or was the alleged marking on blades, as suggested, to circumvent the 'stiletto control law' ?

The emphasis on these seems to center in Northern Italy.....are there any references or examples showing use of these with artillery in other countries.

There are references suggesting these are calculation numbers to set trajectory. How were elevations determined and set before the 17th century on artillery....were there tools or special settings for calculation before they were applied to stilettos ?

It seems that if an artllery emplacement was overrun, it would be by either cavalry or infantry with long muskets and bayonets. How effective would a close quarters stiletto be against such opposition?

Mythbusters, here we go

All the best,
Jim

[broadaxe]

My idea regarding the figures & intervals on the blade: since all the examples brought here show numbers from 1 to 120, I think they stand for Venetian military ounces. Venice had a military weight system, different from the civil sustem.

As for using the stiletto for elevation measure - sorry, I don't think so. First, one must use additional tools to the the stiletto and the whole procedure is cumbersome. Second, for elevation taking & aiming there was a very simple yet innovative, precise instrument: the gunner's quadrant.
http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/museum/esim.asp?c=100379
http://www.mhs.ox.ac.uk/geometry/fig11m.htm

A very good little book Artillery Trough the Ages can be found entirely here:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20483...-h/20483-h.htm