![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: College Park, MD
Posts: 186
|
![]()
It's possible that these were Tibetan guns, as a couple were captured by the Nepalese in the war of 1855-1856. The Chinese were not involved in that campaign.
Of course, in the earlier war of 1791-1793, the 10,000-strong Chinese army had marched a long way just to reach Tibet, entering in winter from what is now part of Qinghai, and crossing over high passes in several places, including when they later entered Nepal along with 7,000 Tibetans. They were undoubtedly familiar with the shortcomings of leather guns, still, carrying many larger field pieces and ammunition over that distance and in those conditions may have been prohibitively difficult. Of course, such conditions would always apply for the Tibetans themselves, who often had little more than muskets and jingalls, but they did have a number of field pieces in the early nineteenth century. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|