18th century Gunners Stilleto?

terry1956 · 23rd November 2011, 06:52 PM

hi chaps, I just can,t get my head around this being a navy weapon, I have read 100,s of books about sea actions during the black powder period and not once have i read that any guns got spiked, if a ship was taken and that was the only way to get to the guns it was out of the fight so no need to use the ships guns, and if they had of been spiked then there was time and tools to remove the spike. so I just don,t thing it was used by any navy. however i do remember years ago reading about slave ships which had small cannon mounted to clear the decks of the ship if the slaves did try to take the ship, with this in mine spiking these guns may of been a plan, so maybe gunners on slave ships of the time had these items.
at waterloo when the french cavalry overran the british guns it was always said that the biggest mistake was their not taking along artilleryman to spike the british guns. but did the french have any means to spike their cannons, when the french grande battery was over run by the british cavalry during the same battle no french use the spike to disable their gun, so i thing we can take it that these daggers did not form part of the french artillery mans kit. in early wars the artillery was crewed by hired gunners who also in some cases owned their own cannon, it maybe that the dagger was part of their kit to spike the cannon if it was in danger of being taken, with the hope that if spiked the enemy would leave the heavy weapon in position until the battle was won or lost, the gunner would hope that his side won and he would be able to get his cannon back and remove the spike, so that puts it at a date if used on land before 1740 and if on a slave ship before 1840. michael

Jim McDougall · 23rd November 2011, 09:02 PM

I guess I fail to see why this would have to be a naval item too, and it seems like I suggested that there would be little need to disable cannon on a ship...as the ship could relocate or if it was going down obviously end of story.

I will space this out a little so maybe wont be overlooked

Why make a well finished ornamental object, strategically marked for a simple function such as disarming a cannon as this could be as easily done with the priming iron, as I mentioned in post #5.

I dont think ordnance such as cannon balls were decorated and marked at least as far as I know, as thier end result was of course to be destroyed.

Hmmmm.

katana · 23rd November 2011, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Why make a well finished ornamental object, strategically marked for a simple function such as disarming a cannon as this could be as easily done with the priming iron, as I mentioned in post #5.

I dont think ordnance such as cannon balls were decorated and marked at least as far as I know, as thier end result was of course to be destroyed.

Hmmmm.

Hi Jim

,
I would imagine the decision whether to spike a cannon or not would be the decision of an officer asigned to the cannon. Therefore, perhaps also a status symbol of that authority. Hence, the ornamental element.

All the best
David

Jim McDougall · 24th November 2011, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by katana

Hi Jim

,
I would imagine the decision whether to spike a cannon or not would be the decision of an officer asigned to the cannon. Therefore, perhaps also a status symbol of that authority. Hence, the ornamental element.

All the best
David

Hi David,
OK I follow that, just hadn't thought of the protocol and so on related to what was apparantly a preconceived possibility, and in the study on the 'bombardier stilettos' the use in this manner seemed more of a suggestion rather than inevitibility. The loss of guns was a major fear in warfare, and the taking of guns a great conquest in turn.
Here in Texas, one of the well known flags of the Texas Revolution was the flag with a cannon and the words , "Come and Take it" !
The Mexican government had given settlers a small cannon to be used against Comanches in 1831, but as tensions mounted between Texians and the government, Mexico decided they wanted it back. This was the flag flown at the Battle of Gonzalez, Oct 2,1835, first of the Revolution leading to the Alamo.

All the best,
Jim

All the best,
Jim

23rd November 2011, 06:52 PM	#1
terry1956 Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: yeovil, somerset, uk Posts: 75	hi hi chaps, I just can,t get my head around this being a navy weapon, I have read 100,s of books about sea actions during the black powder period and not once have i read that any guns got spiked, if a ship was taken and that was the only way to get to the guns it was out of the fight so no need to use the ships guns, and if they had of been spiked then there was time and tools to remove the spike. so I just don,t thing it was used by any navy. however i do remember years ago reading about slave ships which had small cannon mounted to clear the decks of the ship if the slaves did try to take the ship, with this in mine spiking these guns may of been a plan, so maybe gunners on slave ships of the time had these items. at waterloo when the french cavalry overran the british guns it was always said that the biggest mistake was their not taking along artilleryman to spike the british guns. but did the french have any means to spike their cannons, when the french grande battery was over run by the british cavalry during the same battle no french use the spike to disable their gun, so i thing we can take it that these daggers did not form part of the french artillery mans kit. in early wars the artillery was crewed by hired gunners who also in some cases owned their own cannon, it maybe that the dagger was part of their kit to spike the cannon if it was in danger of being taken, with the hope that if spiked the enemy would leave the heavy weapon in position until the battle was won or lost, the gunner would hope that his side won and he would be able to get his cannon back and remove the spike, so that puts it at a date if used on land before 1740 and if on a slave ship before 1840. michael

23rd November 2011, 09:02 PM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,282	I guess I fail to see why this would have to be a naval item too, and it seems like I suggested that there would be little need to disable cannon on a ship...as the ship could relocate or if it was going down obviously end of story. I will space this out a little so maybe wont be overlooked Why make a well finished ornamental object, strategically marked for a simple function such as disarming a cannon as this could be as easily done with the priming iron, as I mentioned in post #5. I dont think ordnance such as cannon balls were decorated and marked at least as far as I know, as thier end result was of course to be destroyed. Hmmmm.