Come and Take It! The Gonzalez Cannon

[Jim McDougall]

The point I was trying to make was that the terms used for these guns, in the period or by accounts, seem to have been rather nonspecific or perhaps more collectively used. I realize that the gun in the posted image looks like the esmeril's I have seen in other references, but in this case was included with a number of culverins.
as noted the term seems to have been used for quite a range of sizes, which they note as sizes least sized; ordinary or extra ordinary...much like shirt sizes :
The the 'demo culverin' (medijm cannon?) it looks pretty big.

So the thing I was noting is, how would this guy have access to not one but two military size cannon (culverins so they say) when he was basically a private group in exodus. The question was about the size of the 'culverins' being dragged up the side of the pueblo terrain? yes?

It is noted in the Gonzalez cannon matters, people describing cannon would sometimes referred to as bronze, when they were in fact iron etc. so it seems clearly that one persons account would be one description, another persons entirely different.
This is the dilemma of arms research, semantics, colloquial terms used collectively.

[LouG]

After reading these posts, and re-reading the entries made by Castano de Sosa's diarist, I went back to my library. Harold L. Peterson's book "Round Shot and Rammers", p. 17, states that in 1570 the Spanish fort of St. Elena, Florida, lists two cannon, one demi-culverin, and "culverins of small bore." Peterson's bibliography is pretty impressive, and he was known to be a careful researcher; so, lacking information to the contrary, I'll agree with Jim's opinion above---that to some users, the term "culverin" could apply to a wide range of guns, small as well as large.

Our research never really ends, does it?

[fernando]

Gentlemen, the images and spec. descriptions of culverins i have posted were not selected among "other" specimens "just to make point".
I wonder whether Castano de Sosa is a specialist in artillery, but i realize that the term culverin or cannon, for the matter, is a coloquial means to name artillery guns in a general manner. A culverin of small calibre is not necessarily a gun of such classified type, as a small cannon or a large cannon are not necessarily guns of the cannon class.
You take he cannon yard of the Lisbon artillery museum, one of the the greatest bronze gun collections in the world, where over a hundred examples are exhibited, visibly of all types, and yet this place is officially called the "Cannon Patio".
Having said that, i won't carry on with my trying to compete with those potentially more knowledged on the subject .


.

[Jim McDougall]

The 'CANNON PATIO"! Now THERE is an idea for redecorating my patio!

Fernando, there is no competition here of course, just sharing ideas and information and you have always been an intrepid researcher with resources typically unknown to most of us. So stay with us, and 'fire at will' !

What was meant in my suggestion is that De Sosa's 'expedition' was hardly an officially sponsored venture, and more of a planned exodus to 'get out of Dodge' as he was in trouble with the officials in Nuevo Leon.

In my reading on the 'culverin' as a 'type' of cannon, there seem to be three (at least) sizes, and one was the 'LEAST' sized. Now that category would certainly include a number of small types which probably might have at least been the same size as 'esmeril' .
The 'point' was that these smaller pieces would have been more 'available' to an assembled group outside the auspices of the 'government' and as such more mobile for such a foray into the unknown.

The large cannons would obviously require much more organization and effort with the particulars and specialized crews needed, which would be available only through military overseeing.

The other two types of 'culverin' listed were the ORDINARY , which implies standard, or the more regularly sized cannon of the day, and more the type as noted requiring militarily trained gun crews.

and the EXTRAORDINARY, which I presume were the huge siege cannon which would be positioned (with great effort) in pitched fortifications well established.....hardly the kind of 'Big Bertha' one would take on an ad hoc venture into unknown territory with expedience the key factor.

All three of these are listed in the culverin category, which suggests that the term was widely used in a general sense for 'cannon', and was probably a prevalent term used somewhat colloquially. With that the case, someone such as DeSosa, not necessarily experienced in the specific classifications or categories of cannon, and grabbed that term as most familiar.

In many accounts of the wild west etc. the descriptions use general terms, such as 'he went for his gun', completely avoiding that the 'gun' was a Smith & Wesson #2 in .44 caliber, or a revolver (often the term pistol is used for many of these, which could have been a single shot breech loader like a Remington Navy).

Lou, Peterson of course is one of the best sources for these kinds of historic details. As noted the DEMI CULVERIN seems to be a pretty good sized piece, and the qualifying note of 'culverins' of small bore, well illustrates the broad use of the term.

As mentioned, often descriptions of cannon (and often most specific details in period accounts) will use terms not necessarily 'correct' specifically, for example saying a cannon was bronze, when in fact it was iron. For many years with the 'Gonzalez' cannon, people thought the small 'esmeril' (or whatever it might be called) was THE cannon the big fight was over.
Actually it was the much larger SIX pounder the Mexicans were after, and the one the Texians actually used with some effect.
This one ended up at the Alamo later, and along with others being buried by the Mexicans after the battle.

Years later it was found and later was melted down into a church bell, for its bronze!!
The tiny gun (esmeril?) also found many years later remained symbolically in place for the key events and the brave defenders at Gonzalez, and its legacy remained despite the disparity in historic descriptions.

[LouG]

Fernando---Many thanks for posting these cannon photos. Most impressive, and a valuable addition to this thread.

[Jim McDougall]

In support of what Fernando notes in #23;
From Tartaglio, "The Arte of Shooting" (1588),
"....through the intolerable fault of careless or unskillful gunfounders all of our great pieces of one name are not of one length, nor of one weight, nor of one height in their mouths, and therefore the gunners books and tables which do show that all of our pieces are of one name...are of equal length, and of one equal weight and are of an equal height in their mouths, are erroneous".

Cited in "Armouries of the Tower Of London: the Ordnance".
H.L.Blackmore, HMSO, 1976, p.391

As we are discussing the term culverin in 1590 as used in accounts of the DeSosa 'expedition' and what size gun probably referred to considering the transport and movement in terrain of said gun, it would seem the dilemma of terms used broadly for varying size guns was notably present in those times.

[fernando]

Concerning de Sosa and his adventures, we can read out there about his artillery, with some contradictions, but none mentioning the cannons as being of the culverin type. Or still i am missing further sources.
For the record, as you guys are most probably aware, de Sosa real name was Gaspar Castanho de Sousa, born in Portugal circa 1550.
From the Spanish 'Miguel de Cervantes Virtual Library', we can read the "Memory of the discovery that Gaspar Castaño de Sosa made in New Mexico, being lieutenant governor and captain general of the New Kingdom of León (July 27, 1590)"

"He ordered the Field Master to have the Royal box kept within short distance from the town, in that part where the town seemed to be strongest; And they did so, and he ordered two bronze shots* to be fired, and for this he ordered Joan Rodríguez Nieto, to be with the said guns and with their fuse ready, and he ordered Joan Rodríguez Nieto to fire one of the shots high *and so it was fired, and with it the harquebus, to see if this would scare them ... and for our safety the said Lieutenant told the Field Master to go to one side of the town, to a barracks that was there without people, and made Diego de Viruega, Francisco de Mancha, Diego Díaz de Berlanga, Joan Rodríguez Nieto go up to the top, with one of the said artillery pieces; And so they went up, although with a lot of work, because the Indians gave them a lot of war from behind a sleeve and trenches".

* I infer this was his bronze artillery; old idiomatic Castilian with no available translation.
So these pieces had to have some carrying or stand devices, but certainly not of big heavy dimensions; whether of a determined class or even local atypical casting ?