the subject, to endeavour to indicate how and where the different heavy guns were mounted; but some particulars as to the guns themselves can and should be attempted. In this we are assisted by the fact that several guns which went down in the above-mentioned Mary Rose in 1545, off Portsmouth, have been recovered, and are still in existence, and by the further fact that little change in the size and nature of ships' heavy guns took place during the sixteenth century. A table of the principal guns of that period, compiled from extant specimens, and from what appear to be the most trustworthy ancient authorities,[1] is therefore appended: —
Name of Piece. Calibre. Length.1 Weight of Gun. Wight of Shot. Charge of Powder.
lbs. Ft. Ins. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs.
Cannon Royal 8'54 8 6 8,000 74 30 Cannon 8'0 .. 6,000 60 27 Cannon Serpentine 7'0 .. 5,500 42 25 Bastard Cannon 7'0 .. 4,500 42 20 Demi-Cannon 6'4 11 0 4,000 32 18 Cannon Pedro, or Petro 6'0 .. 3,800 26 14 Culverin s 5'2 120 11 4,840 18 12 Basilisk. 5'0 .. 4,000 14 9 Demi-Culverin 4'0 .. 3,400 8 6 Culverin Bastard 4'56 8 6 3,000 11 5'7 Saker 3'65 6 11 1,400 6 4 Minion 3'5 6 6 1,050 5'2 2 3 Falcon 2'5 6 0 680 2 1'2 Falconet 2'0 3 9 500 1 '4 Serpentine 1'5 .. 400 '5 '3 Rabinet or Robinet 1'0 .. 300 '3 '18
1 Monson puts the length of the guns mentioned by him at 8 ft. 6 in.; but specimens still extant, dating from about his time, indicate that this was not always correct.
2 "Cannon Pedro" was the English form of "canon pierrier," and means a gun primarily intended for throwing stone shot.
3 I.e. couleuvrine — serpent. Compare Basilisk.
4 Named after the Saker hawk. Compare Falcon.
5 In the grounds of the Seigneurie, Sark, is a well-preserved brass gun, apparently a falconer, 57 inches in length, and 1⅞ inches in calibre, bearing the following inscription: — "Don de sa Majesté la Royne Elizabeth au Seigneur de Sarcq, A.D. 1572." See p. 412.
- ↑
- ↑ See Sir W. Monson's 'Tracts' in Churchill's Voyages, iii.; 'Archæologia,' vi. 189, xi. 170, xiii. 27, etc. Tartaglia's 'Three Books of Colloquies,' translated by Lucar (London, 1588); and S. P. Dom. Eliz. ccxlii. 64. Hardly any two of these agree. The paper Dom. Eliz. ccxlii, 64, is printed at length as an appendix to the 'State