February 20, 2009

Elizabethan naval artillery

Tests on cannon recovered from an Elizabethan warship suggest she carried powerful cast iron guns, of uniform size, firing standard ammunition. . .

Marine archaeologist Mensun Bound from Oxford University adds: "Elizabeth's navy created the first ever set of uniform cannons, capable of firing the same size shot in a deadly barrage.

"[Her] navy made a giant leap forward in the way men fought at sea, years ahead of England's enemies, and which was still being used to devastating effect by Nelson 200 years later."

Until now, it was thought Queen Elizabeth was using the same cannon technology as her father, Henry VIII. . .

The new research follows the discovery of the first wreck of an Elizabethan fighting ship off Alderney in the Channel Islands, thought to date from around 1592, just four years after the Spanish Armada.

From the BBC (with video). More extensive video here.

Posted by David on February 20, 2009 8:45 AM

Comments

I suspect they are correct that standard sizes were introduced and made an overwhelming difference as QEI ascended to the throne, but remember the evidence so far is two cannon from a pinnace (sort of smallboat or "gig", today usually for transporting senior officers from ship to shore) rather than a full-sized warship.

Posted by: John A on February 20, 2009 9:30 PM

FOLLOWUP -

From *Walsingham* evidence that should have come out earlier -

"In the mid-16th century, a clergyman in the Weald had pioneered a way of casting cannon in iron, instead of the bronze which was in short supply.
So instead of a system of 'making do' that had prevailed under her father, Henry VIII, Queen Elizabeth's fleet had sets of smaller, uniform cannon, all cast identically and taking the same size shot."


Good supportive evidence, and I wonder why it was not mentioned in earlier accounts or the TV special. Surely it had been known to researchers?

Posted by: teqjack on February 23, 2009 5:03 PM
Post a comment




  Remember Me?


(For bold text to display correctly, please use <strong>, not <b>)




Google