The Mexican gunpowder dilemma

fernando · 2nd September 2019, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... One of the references I found noted that the hold for powder was enclosed with 'curtains' which were kept damp to prevent accidental spark, as well as men covering feet with cloth or material to also prevent same.

"Just as i previously said and, and having now found the specific words:

Sob a coberta, junto ao paiol estava o capitão de fogo a distribuir a pólvora que tirava às gamelas ou ensacada dos caldeirões defendidos do lume por colchas e cobertores molhados".
"Under the deck, next to the (powder) magazine, was the fire captain distributing the gunpowder he took from the troughs or bagged from the cauldrons defended from the fire by wet bedspreads and blankets".
(Dieter Dellinger, Portuguese Ex-Journalist, advisor for the Navy Magazine, ex-Law maker, etc)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... as well as men covering feet with cloth or material to also prevent same...

So true. In the Barcarena mill workers were required to wear shoes of calf skin over their own shoes, once these could have nails.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...I would think that storing the components separately to avoid detonation would be prudent, especially as intermittent remixing seems to have been required. However none of the sources thus far has suggested that means of storage. Surely there had to be a modicum of powder 'at the ready' in case of attack or battle as you suggest, but it seems the powder was always noted as in barrels, suggesting it being wholly combined...

.
Yet so it happened according to my sources, whatever they are worth

. I don't recall where i have read my previously posted text, but i can locate the following one, from texts written about the early Barcarena Black powder factory. It is not the same thing, but will have to do

.

"Nos territorios conquistados, criaram-se fundições de artilharia e fábricas de pólvora.Os componentes eram frequentemente adicionados nas proprias fortalezas à medida das necessidades locais da polvora"
"In the conquered territories, artillery foundries and gunpowder factories were created. Components were frequently added in the fortresses according to local powder needs".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... I have not read descriptions of the detail on the 'cartridge' sacks of powder but it does seem familiar, as I say this is not an area I often study...

Then let me fill you in:

" O cartucho de pólvora foi uma ideia de Vicente Sodré, tio de Afonso de Albuquerque, que para aumentar a cadência da artilharia resolveu ensacar previamente a pólvora para ser colocada logo que a alma do canhão tivesse sido arrefecida e limpa de restos de pólvora com escovilhões adequados, em vez de a lançar a granel como se fazia então. Claro está que os ingleses e holandeses têm a mania que inventaram isso tudo, revelando a mais inconcebível ignorância e refiro-me a alguns historiadores de prestígio que são um exemplo de incompetência total, mesmo perante simples amadores de boa fé sempre que se trata da historiografia portuguesa ".

"The gunpowder cartridge was the brainchild of Vicente Sodré, the uncle of Afonso de Albuquerque who, in order to increase the rate of artillery, decided to pre-bag the gunpowder to be placed as soon as the cannon core had been cooled and cleaned of gunpowder remnants with suitable brushes, instead of throwing it in bulk as it used to be done. Of course the English and Dutch have the craze that invented it all, revealing the most inconceivable ignorance, and i refer to some prestigious historians who are an example of utter incompetence, even in the face of simple bona fide amateurs when it comes to Portuguese historiography".
(Dieter Dellinger )

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...Thank you for the link to this process as well. These surely are pertinent, but as noted very long, detailed and scientific, and do indeed 'soak' the pages.
A LOT to learn, and I admire those who have knowledge and command of it all...

Dear Jim, you wanted to cross opinions about Mexican gunpowder; but you know this is an universal subject, and things tend to slide to the rest of the globe... perhaps also with your eventual complicity. However, let me assure you; no more soaking will take place from my side

.

.

Jim McDougall · 3rd September 2019, 10:38 PM

Fernando, again, thank you for the responsive notes reaffirming the items we have brought up from various references on this topic, which as you have astutely noted, is quite universal. The ancillary notes, digressions, and other looks into related circumstances are relevant, necessary and helpful and not at all distracting as far as I am concerned.
Actually I encourage and welcome all such information, and the links to key subject matter for the perusal of readers and researchers who view these pages are wonderfully placed and appreciated.

Persons who read these threads are following the subject matter from many different angles and perspectives, so all material included finds varying degree of usefulness depending on who is reading it. The 'soaking' jest actually is just acknowledging that this is the case, and 'one size does not always fit all'.
It is therefore, up to the reader.
For me, valuable information I can use later if need be.

Therefore, I thank you for all the great entries, links and well researched detail (NOT soaking but profoundly bolstering thread content). For now it seems we have reached a plateau with a new understanding of this topic,
so until later, when new evidence is found, Elvis may now leave the building.
Uh uh huh.....oh yeah!!!

yulzari · 7th September 2019, 12:30 PM

It may be instructive to note John Braddock's 'A Memoir on Gunpowder' of 1832 (https://books.google.fr/books?id=6if...6AEwBXoECAgQAQ) in which he reports upon the state of gun powder manuacturing in India for the Honourable East India Company. In this he is most rude about the quality of Bombay powder compared to that made in Allahabd. Reporting it as 'barbarous' and 'their best and highest ranges are only half the distance of the other Indian powders'.

This demonstrates the range of performance that can come from variations in the performance of gunpowder mills and in this case between those of a well funded Company with access to all the materials it could need and the capital to invest in machinery etc. and with the sole purpose of making military quality powders.

If Bombay powder was 'barbarous' in 1832 the Mexican powder was likely to be beyond Mr Braddock's vocabulary to describe it's weakness.

Jim McDougall · 7th September 2019, 08:10 PM

This is an excellent reference Yulzari! Thank you.

I feared we had expended the viability of our powder here, so I am grateful to see entry continuing. It seems this reference describes the dynamic of 'exposure' being an element of powder losing its potency, in the case mentioned after about 12 days. That would bring the earlier suggestion of keeping the ingredients of the powder kept separate until required, not only for safety, but clearly to ensure freshly mixed powder.

I am puzzled by the term 'barbarous' as describing a 'weak' powder. Such a term would seem more toward a potent, threatening condition rather than 'weak'. I wonder if the connotation (as used here in 1832) would mean rough, rugged or uncivilized in the way 'gothic' meant rude or contrary to refined in architectural parlance. Thus meaning the Bombay powder was rudely mixed and ineffective.

If the Mexicans were indeed getting powder from British sources, just as they obtained their firearms in 1821, perhaps the British were selling them the apparently miserable Bombay powder as opposed to the other more refined powder. This was often the case, obviously, with trade arms and resources and the practice continued well through the 19th c. Mediocre quality locks and complete weapons often brought ill repute to the places that produced them.

As earlier noted, it sounds as if the Mexicans were attempting to secure better quality powder through New Orleans merchants who probably carried the highly regarded Dupont....as revealed in the cargo of the Pelican.

yulzari · 7th September 2019, 08:45 PM

By 'barbarous' he just meant crude and primitive Jim. Just his way, as a man of his times, of saying that it was of appallingly bad quality. John Company (to use the period vernacular) was not in the business of making powder for public sale but for their own use. Though doubtless some made their way to private use informally. Certainly not in sales to the Mexican government.

What happened was that the Bombay Gunpowder Manufactory was brought up to standard and is better know later as the Kirkee arsenal and a major ordnance depot and manufacturer.

There is no connection between them and Mexico in any way but the reference is a period detailed examination of the varied qualities of gun powder manufacture. Remember British ARW gun powder was so bad the government bought the factories and made them raise their standards until they were the best. There was also no connection between the British Ordnance selling surplus arms to dealers who sold them to Mexico and the Indian government and it's powder production. They were different governments on different continents.

Jim McDougall · 7th September 2019, 09:18 PM

OK, understood. The term seems oddly used here, but obviously there is often dramatic change in words, terms etc. in 'archaic' context not to mention semantics. Just wanted to confirm.

I had not thought there was any intergovernmental connection in such sale between England and Mexico, but that private concerns were selling such products, much in the way private vendors were supplying arms to EIC.
Most of what I have seen on the sale of the EIC arms in 1821 was apparently due to excesses of weapons after close of Napoleonic campaigns. Most of these were also becoming obsolete. In these cases the ordnance dept. I think was involved. The powder of course would be a different story.

Jim McDougall · 7th September 2019, 10:33 PM

Yulzari, in rereading again some of the text, while I must apologize for my dismal comprehension of scientific discourse, I am wondering....there seems to be a notable disparity between the black powder for guns, and that for artillery. It seems that 'good' or fine grade powder for guns is different (obviously ) than that for cannon.
Is it possible that with the shortages of powder in these campaign situations that stores of powder designed for one or the other might have become interpolated, leading to the poor resultant powder referred to in Mexican context?

With the case of the Mexican cannon at the Alamo siege, the note that the Mexican cannon (of smaller size already than adequate to bombard fortifications) had virtually no impact due to weak powder charges.
Would this have been from using firearms powder in place of the coarser artillery powder required?

3rd September 2019, 10:38 PM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,298	Fernando, again, thank you for the responsive notes reaffirming the items we have brought up from various references on this topic, which as you have astutely noted, is quite universal. The ancillary notes, digressions, and other looks into related circumstances are relevant, necessary and helpful and not at all distracting as far as I am concerned. Actually I encourage and welcome all such information, and the links to key subject matter for the perusal of readers and researchers who view these pages are wonderfully placed and appreciated. Persons who read these threads are following the subject matter from many different angles and perspectives, so all material included finds varying degree of usefulness depending on who is reading it. The 'soaking' jest actually is just acknowledging that this is the case, and 'one size does not always fit all'. It is therefore, up to the reader. For me, valuable information I can use later if need be. Therefore, I thank you for all the great entries, links and well researched detail (NOT soaking but profoundly bolstering thread content). For now it seems we have reached a plateau with a new understanding of this topic, so until later, when new evidence is found, Elvis may now leave the building. Uh uh huh.....oh yeah!!!

7th September 2019, 12:30 PM	#3
yulzari Member Join Date: Sep 2018 Location: Limousin France Posts: 19	It may be instructive to note John Braddock's 'A Memoir on Gunpowder' of 1832 (https://books.google.fr/books?id=6if...6AEwBXoECAgQAQ) in which he reports upon the state of gun powder manuacturing in India for the Honourable East India Company. In this he is most rude about the quality of Bombay powder compared to that made in Allahabd. Reporting it as 'barbarous' and 'their best and highest ranges are only half the distance of the other Indian powders'. This demonstrates the range of performance that can come from variations in the performance of gunpowder mills and in this case between those of a well funded Company with access to all the materials it could need and the capital to invest in machinery etc. and with the sole purpose of making military quality powders. If Bombay powder was 'barbarous' in 1832 the Mexican powder was likely to be beyond Mr Braddock's vocabulary to describe it's weakness.

7th September 2019, 08:10 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,298	This is an excellent reference Yulzari! Thank you. I feared we had expended the viability of our powder here, so I am grateful to see entry continuing. It seems this reference describes the dynamic of 'exposure' being an element of powder losing its potency, in the case mentioned after about 12 days. That would bring the earlier suggestion of keeping the ingredients of the powder kept separate until required, not only for safety, but clearly to ensure freshly mixed powder. I am puzzled by the term 'barbarous' as describing a 'weak' powder. Such a term would seem more toward a potent, threatening condition rather than 'weak'. I wonder if the connotation (as used here in 1832) would mean rough, rugged or uncivilized in the way 'gothic' meant rude or contrary to refined in architectural parlance. Thus meaning the Bombay powder was rudely mixed and ineffective. If the Mexicans were indeed getting powder from British sources, just as they obtained their firearms in 1821, perhaps the British were selling them the apparently miserable Bombay powder as opposed to the other more refined powder. This was often the case, obviously, with trade arms and resources and the practice continued well through the 19th c. Mediocre quality locks and complete weapons often brought ill repute to the places that produced them. As earlier noted, it sounds as if the Mexicans were attempting to secure better quality powder through New Orleans merchants who probably carried the highly regarded Dupont....as revealed in the cargo of the Pelican.

7th September 2019, 08:45 PM	#5
yulzari Member Join Date: Sep 2018 Location: Limousin France Posts: 19	By 'barbarous' he just meant crude and primitive Jim. Just his way, as a man of his times, of saying that it was of appallingly bad quality. John Company (to use the period vernacular) was not in the business of making powder for public sale but for their own use. Though doubtless some made their way to private use informally. Certainly not in sales to the Mexican government. What happened was that the Bombay Gunpowder Manufactory was brought up to standard and is better know later as the Kirkee arsenal and a major ordnance depot and manufacturer. There is no connection between them and Mexico in any way but the reference is a period detailed examination of the varied qualities of gun powder manufacture. Remember British ARW gun powder was so bad the government bought the factories and made them raise their standards until they were the best. There was also no connection between the British Ordnance selling surplus arms to dealers who sold them to Mexico and the Indian government and it's powder production. They were different governments on different continents.

7th September 2019, 09:18 PM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,298	OK, understood. The term seems oddly used here, but obviously there is often dramatic change in words, terms etc. in 'archaic' context not to mention semantics. Just wanted to confirm. I had not thought there was any intergovernmental connection in such sale between England and Mexico, but that private concerns were selling such products, much in the way private vendors were supplying arms to EIC. Most of what I have seen on the sale of the EIC arms in 1821 was apparently due to excesses of weapons after close of Napoleonic campaigns. Most of these were also becoming obsolete. In these cases the ordnance dept. I think was involved. The powder of course would be a different story.

7th September 2019, 10:33 PM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,298	Yulzari, in rereading again some of the text, while I must apologize for my dismal comprehension of scientific discourse, I am wondering....there seems to be a notable disparity between the black powder for guns, and that for artillery. It seems that 'good' or fine grade powder for guns is different (obviously ) than that for cannon. Is it possible that with the shortages of powder in these campaign situations that stores of powder designed for one or the other might have become interpolated, leading to the poor resultant powder referred to in Mexican context? With the case of the Mexican cannon at the Alamo siege, the note that the Mexican cannon (of smaller size already than adequate to bombard fortifications) had virtually no impact due to weak powder charges. Would this have been from using firearms powder in place of the coarser artillery powder required?