Leather Cannon? Curiosa

Anandalal N. · 27th August 2009, 03:51 AM

Thanks Jim for the great start to this discussion. First to answer your question. The one with the numbers 2696 painted on it has a touchhole for ignition. I have not been able to photograph it. The other I do not recall and my notes throw no light on this. However, even if it was a covering, the opening for the touch hole would still be required; right?

As for pseudo cannon, why would someone have to go to such lengths in preparing it in leather when it could have been done easily with wood or even terracotta for example? Note the neat sutures at the breech of each cannon. Surely such sutures would have given way had an actual charge been ignited?

Also Jim do you think this post is in the right place or should it move; now that you are bringing in the European angle to it.

Jim McDougall · 27th August 2009, 04:21 AM

Very good points Anandalal, and I share those thoughts...why go to these lengths for a false cannon to intimidate potential invaders? The answer is most plausibly, they probably wouldn't, which brings us to why would guns be made of this primarily inviable material?

First of all, I think leaving the thread here is OK, as the European leather cannons were essentially an anomaly which did not prove very effective, except in prompting introduction of a lightweight intermediate form of light artillery, of more suitable material.
The fact that these were captured in Nepal leaves them squarely in the ethnographic sector.

I think that there is always the possibility of apotropaic or votive use in temples, which also served as fortresses if I understand correctly. I do know that they were often repositories for weapons in Nepal.
As you have observed, these stitched barrels would not have withstood any significant powder charge, and I do not see any evidence of metal that might have added the rigidity for detonation.
Perhaps these might have held limited powder firing only for dramatic effect such as signal cannon, only these would have been intended for frightening away demons.

That is at this point the only possible use I can imagine for these as they clearly have no potential for combat.
I have heard of leather type guns it seems of this type, but cannot place the reference (other than the posts on these very guns years ago). I'll keep looking.

All best regards,
Jim

Jim McDougall · 27th August 2009, 06:02 AM

I decided to leave my previous post to illustrate that you never stop learning when researching this stuff!!

The mystery of the leather cannons continues:

These cannon are mentioned in a travel guide on Nepal, "The Rough Guide to Nepal" (D.Reed, J.McConnachie, 2002, p.134); "...these leather cannon captured during a skirmish with Tibet in 1792 are genuine rarities".

Perhaps not so rare, nor Tibetan, as noted as follows in a reference referring to the 1788-1792 war between Nepal and Tibet (it would seem more than a skirmish),
In "The High Road to China" (Kate Teltscher, 2007) on p.245, the author discussing The Qianlong emperor of Manchu China in his intervention against the Gurkhas in this 'skirmish', notes that "...special lightweight leather cannon were supplied for easy manueverability".

The suggestion is of course that these type cannon were in fact likely Chinese, and apparantly intended to be used.

In reviewing whether leather cannon were used in Tibet, I found the following article from New York Times, June 6,1904 ("Open War on Tibet") regarding the Younghusband expedition, "...two small cannon found concealed in Palla village represent the heaviest ordnance yet to be found used by the Tibetans. The report that they have ever employed leather cannon is incorrect".

Further, regarding the plausibility of leather as material for cannon, from "The Gun and its Development" (W.W.Greener, 1907), "...various substitutes for metal have been used for constructing cannon and mortars. Leather was probably the most successful; it was often used by the Venetians, sometimes with hempen rope, sometimes alone. A leather cannon was fired three times at Kings Park, Edinburgh in October, 1788".

Apparantly, leather was indeed viable, and it seems that these captured examples may have been the transportable Chinese examples.

Best regards,
Jim

Anandalal N. · 27th August 2009, 01:49 PM

Dear Jim,

The following are some references that could merit further research:

Memoirs of the Duchess D'Abrantes Vol VII, London (1835) Note to page 358 states that the arsenal of Saltzburgh contains some specimens of leather cannon.

Napolean of the Other World - A Narrative Written by Himself, London (1827) refers to the first leather cannon employed by the Venetians against the Genoese.

Life of Oliver Cromwell by Rev. M. Rusell LLD, Vol II (1836) refers to "a traine of artillerie of some field-pieces and leather cannon ..."

What we do not know is whether these leather cannon refer to the same type of artefact that we are discussing.

Your Edinburgh reference does recount that the cannon was fired three times without the smallest apparent injury to the leather suggesting that one would normally expect to see some injury to the leather hence fired in the leather chamber and not within a leather covered metal chamber.

Best Regards.

Jim McDougall · 27th August 2009, 07:30 PM

Yup, look like we're onto something.......never really thought much on leather for cannon.....but I likes leather !!!

All the best

kisak · 27th August 2009, 09:36 PM

Doesn't look like they'd survive for long once put into use, but on the other hand, one-use-only weapons see some use with present day armies.

Michael Blalock · 27th August 2009, 10:56 PM

Perhaps these cannons were solely for ceremonial use, to fire off a small amount of powder for a salute or warning. Hence their imitation of large European cannons.

27th August 2009, 03:51 AM	#1
Anandalal N. Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 84	Thanks Jim for the great start to this discussion. First to answer your question. The one with the numbers 2696 painted on it has a touchhole for ignition. I have not been able to photograph it. The other I do not recall and my notes throw no light on this. However, even if it was a covering, the opening for the touch hole would still be required; right? As for pseudo cannon, why would someone have to go to such lengths in preparing it in leather when it could have been done easily with wood or even terracotta for example? Note the neat sutures at the breech of each cannon. Surely such sutures would have given way had an actual charge been ignited? Also Jim do you think this post is in the right place or should it move; now that you are bringing in the European angle to it.

27th August 2009, 04:21 AM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	Very good points Anandalal, and I share those thoughts...why go to these lengths for a false cannon to intimidate potential invaders? The answer is most plausibly, they probably wouldn't, which brings us to why would guns be made of this primarily inviable material? First of all, I think leaving the thread here is OK, as the European leather cannons were essentially an anomaly which did not prove very effective, except in prompting introduction of a lightweight intermediate form of light artillery, of more suitable material. The fact that these were captured in Nepal leaves them squarely in the ethnographic sector. I think that there is always the possibility of apotropaic or votive use in temples, which also served as fortresses if I understand correctly. I do know that they were often repositories for weapons in Nepal. As you have observed, these stitched barrels would not have withstood any significant powder charge, and I do not see any evidence of metal that might have added the rigidity for detonation. Perhaps these might have held limited powder firing only for dramatic effect such as signal cannon, only these would have been intended for frightening away demons. That is at this point the only possible use I can imagine for these as they clearly have no potential for combat. I have heard of leather type guns it seems of this type, but cannot place the reference (other than the posts on these very guns years ago). I'll keep looking. All best regards, Jim

27th August 2009, 06:02 AM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	I decided to leave my previous post to illustrate that you never stop learning when researching this stuff!! The mystery of the leather cannons continues: These cannon are mentioned in a travel guide on Nepal, "The Rough Guide to Nepal" (D.Reed, J.McConnachie, 2002, p.134); "...these leather cannon captured during a skirmish with Tibet in 1792 are genuine rarities". Perhaps not so rare, nor Tibetan, as noted as follows in a reference referring to the 1788-1792 war between Nepal and Tibet (it would seem more than a skirmish), In "The High Road to China" (Kate Teltscher, 2007) on p.245, the author discussing The Qianlong emperor of Manchu China in his intervention against the Gurkhas in this 'skirmish', notes that "...special lightweight leather cannon were supplied for easy manueverability". The suggestion is of course that these type cannon were in fact likely Chinese, and apparantly intended to be used. In reviewing whether leather cannon were used in Tibet, I found the following article from New York Times, June 6,1904 ("Open War on Tibet") regarding the Younghusband expedition, "...two small cannon found concealed in Palla village represent the heaviest ordnance yet to be found used by the Tibetans. The report that they have ever employed leather cannon is incorrect". Further, regarding the plausibility of leather as material for cannon, from "The Gun and its Development" (W.W.Greener, 1907), "...various substitutes for metal have been used for constructing cannon and mortars. Leather was probably the most successful; it was often used by the Venetians, sometimes with hempen rope, sometimes alone. A leather cannon was fired three times at Kings Park, Edinburgh in October, 1788". Apparantly, leather was indeed viable, and it seems that these captured examples may have been the transportable Chinese examples. Best regards, Jim

27th August 2009, 01:49 PM	#4
Anandalal N. Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 84	Dear Jim, The following are some references that could merit further research: Memoirs of the Duchess D'Abrantes Vol VII, London (1835) Note to page 358 states that the arsenal of Saltzburgh contains some specimens of leather cannon. Napolean of the Other World - A Narrative Written by Himself, London (1827) refers to the first leather cannon employed by the Venetians against the Genoese. Life of Oliver Cromwell by Rev. M. Rusell LLD, Vol II (1836) refers to "a traine of artillerie of some field-pieces and leather cannon ..." What we do not know is whether these leather cannon refer to the same type of artefact that we are discussing. Your Edinburgh reference does recount that the cannon was fired three times without the smallest apparent injury to the leather suggesting that one would normally expect to see some injury to the leather hence fired in the leather chamber and not within a leather covered metal chamber. Best Regards.

27th August 2009, 07:30 PM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	Yup, look like we're onto something.......never really thought much on leather for cannon.....but I likes leather !!! All the best

27th August 2009, 09:36 PM	#6
kisak Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Stockholm Posts: 182	Doesn't look like they'd survive for long once put into use, but on the other hand, one-use-only weapons see some use with present day armies.

27th August 2009, 10:56 PM	#7
Michael Blalock Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: dc Posts: 271	Perhaps these cannons were solely for ceremonial use, to fire off a small amount of powder for a salute or warning. Hence their imitation of large European cannons.