|
Post by stuart on Sept 8, 2007 15:10:58 GMT -5
As we’re on the subject of weaponry I thought it might be worth adding a little solidity to remarks about Mexican firearms:
In 1826 the bank loans which Arthur Wavell had been sent to negotiate on behalf of Iturbide paid for 90,000 muskets; 14,000 carbines, 2,000 rifles, 20,000 swords and 5,000 pairs of pistols (FO50/28). Henry Ward, who some of you will remember from my book, subsequently noted the weapons were new and in very good condition.
The muskets will have been of the India Pattern, which as the designation suggests were originally introduced by the East India Company whose Sepoy troops were generally shorter in stature than most Europeans, but then adopted by the regular army in the 1790s. The barrel of this weapon was only 39 inches long rather than the 42 inches of the Short Land Pattern familiar to Revolutionary War re-enactors. Although there were complaints at the time that the quality of workmanship wasn’t up to the pre-war standards of the Short Land Pattern I have found it to be much better balanced and a lot handier to use. The same would also hold true of course with bells on for Mexican indios.
The weapons supplied in 1826 will obviously have been sufficient to keep the regular army going. The British Army reckoned on a useful working life of 12 years for these firelocks and as the next shipments only came through in 1842 and amounted to just 20,000 pieces it can fairly safely be assumed that the 1826 shipment was sufficient not only to equip all of the regiments, but to keep a useful reserve as well.
Nevertheless I have to wonder about the weapons in Texas and more specifically those stored in the Alamo and in the store at Nacogdoches broken into by Bowie at the outset of the revolt. I’d be wary of assuming that the muskets there were India patterns. Given the usual propensity for older stuff to be shipped out to the back of beyond I’d suspect there is a more than fair chance that they were in fact older Spanish and French muskets – similar in appearance to the Springfield and the same calibre – and more than likely in shocking condition.
|
|
|
Post by tmdreb on Sept 8, 2007 23:22:07 GMT -5
I really wish I had more solid documentation here, but I'm either operating off things I've read or heard somewhere, or have misplaced the documentation for.
First off, I'm really wondering what the arms situation was like in Mexico before the 1826 shipment. I would imagine that with a bloody revolution going on, there would have been guns everywhere, but of what pattern? The 1826 Linati prints show what look very much like Spanish arms. I really think I heard somewhere that Spain sent a large arms shipment to New Spain just before the region lost that title. What kind of arms were these and what happened to them?
There are also other arms shipments to consider. There is, for example, the 20,000 arms shipped to Mexico by the US in the 1820's. I'm sorry for my imprecision here, at one point I knew the name of the company, but we don't always remember what we think we will. Also, a friend of mine found awhile back a reference in the New Orleans Bee on March 3, 1836 that "3 cases muskets & c." were sent from that city to Matamoras. Of course, I don't know what types either shipment was. When discussing the first of these with a fellow reenactor, he said, "yes, those were the Brown Bess muskets captured in the War of 1812," which is a possibility I hadn't considered. Of course, they could have easily been US or French pattern arms that were considered obsolete.
It would appear that the Mexican arms in Texas at the time of the rebellion were likely much worse than those brought by Santa Anna's invasion. The arms captured at Lipantitlán in1835 were less than impressive. As far as the 1836 campaign is concerned, I really haven't seen much solid archaeological evidence for anything other than Short Land and India Pattern muskets in the hands of the Mexican Army. I've heard rumors of a Baker Rifle sabre bayonet hilt found near the Alamo, but haven't seen much else for non-Brown Bess arms. I'm also not really convinced by findings of the snake buckles used on British Rifleman's belts found in South Texas as we know the Confederacy was importing these in the 1860's, and Matamoras was a major port of entry for British goods going to the Confederacy.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Sept 9, 2007 4:31:19 GMT -5
Twas ever thus…
Its well known for example that the British government shipped tens of thousands of muskets to its allies during the Napoleonic Wars and this is popularly taken to mean that all sorts of people ranging from Prussian Landwehr to Spanish guerrillas were often armed with British-made Brown Besses. In reality an examination of the actual Board of Ordnance records shows that for the most part we were shipping out any old rubbish we could lay our hands on; obsolete stock and foreign stock, rather than the good stuff which was needed for our own regular and reserve forces.
Turning to Mexico I think the only fixed point in the firmament so to speak are those shipments of India Patterns and Baker Rifles in 1826, although as I mentioned on another thread we can’t actually be certain as to the type of Baker.
Obviously enough Mexico was, comparatively speaking, already awash with weapons, and some of the Linati prints certainly show banded muskets which as I said are either Spanish weapons, patterned after the French Charleville (and therefore similar as well in both appearance and calibre to the US Springfield), or indeed either of those. Again it has to be remembered that (a) Spain had just been through a pretty traumatic war of independence of its own and (b) when it came to shipping weapons out to its colonies they came lower down the food chain than the home-based regular army.
Anyway my guess, looking to all sorts of other examples, is that when the 1826 shipments (which also included uniforms) were used to completely re-equip the new post-independence Mexican Army, the existing weaponry was cascaded out to the frontier, hence my remarks about the rubbish at Bexar and Nacogdoches
The interesting question to consider is just how far the 1826 arms were cascaded. The Permanente regiments were obviously re-equipped and there would certainly seem to be ample for the Activos as well, but then we have the state militias and there I’d be interested to know whether they could buy into the surplus 1826 stock in the government arsenals, had to make do with the older and now obsolete Spanish stocks, or were buying stuff in from the US. Cheerfully ignorant I’d suspect it varied from state to state.
|
|
|
Post by steves on Sept 9, 2007 5:26:03 GMT -5
So it would be quite possible that earlier patterns of Bess,supplied to Spain,then found their way to Mexico? Steve
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Sept 9, 2007 5:34:52 GMT -5
In theory yes, with the strong proviso as noted above that the stuff we were supply to the Spanish during the Peninsular War wasn't necessarily Land or India Patterns
|
|
|
Post by steves on Sept 9, 2007 5:41:46 GMT -5
Yes,I was thinking early long land.... Steve
|
|
|
Post by tmdreb on Sept 9, 2007 13:43:10 GMT -5
I'm wondering if the reason why Mexico was purchasing British arms was to supplement what it already had. Perhaps all the Spanish weapons were worn out, and the newer shipments from Spain had been formerly British guns.
We know Spain also ended up with a lot of Baker Rifles, perhaps some of these made it into Mexico? It may sound like I'm convinced that every other Mexican who set foot into Texas carried a Baker Rifle. I'm really not. We know for sure they brought a heck of a lot of Short Land and India Pattern muskets, and everything else hasn't really been established in either the historical or archaeological record. I just like to consider the possibilities.
Yes, the only fixed point is that 1826 shipment, but there appear to be quite a few floating points as well. We have numerous shipments from the US to Mexico, as well as what the National Army could have captured in its civil war against the Federalists. All this is in addition to what was already in the country before 1826, of which we cannot be sure.
Alan Huffines in Blood of Noble Men is of the opinion that there may well have been more rifles outside the Alamo than inside. I suppose this could be true, but I still don't agree that your average cazadore was kitted out just like the Napoleonic 95th Rifles as is depicted in so many of Gary Zaboly's excellent drawings. I do find a large degree of accuracy in H. C. McBarron's illustration of Mexican infantry where the lights are armed with Brown Besses, and the battalion companies with American 1816 muskets.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Sept 9, 2007 14:34:34 GMT -5
Alan Huffines in Blood of Noble Men is of the opinion that there may well have been more rifles outside the Alamo than inside. I suppose this could be true, but I still don't agree that your average cazadore was kitted out just like the Napoleonic 95th Rifles as is depicted in so many of Gary Zaboly's excellent drawings. I do find a large degree of accuracy in H. C. McBarron's illustration of Mexican infantry where the lights are armed with Brown Besses, and the battalion companies with American 1816 muskets. I agree its not straightforward, which is why I analysed it the way I did. However I think the complicating factor is the split between regular and state troops. As I said there were plenty of new British weapons imported in 1826 to arm all of the Permanente troops and leave a very comfortable reserve. On the other hand I'd suspect those US shipments are being purchased to arm the state troops. The only real area of uncertainty is the Activos - were they being supplied from central or state arsenals? ie; did they have new India Patterns or old Springfields. Might be worth checking Dimmick's Sea of Mud to see if significant quantities of Springfield ammo turned up. I seem to remember there were some buck and ball rounds which would certainly be of US origin and if in any great quantity might point to the Activo battalions having Springfields or even old Spanish weapons.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Sept 9, 2007 14:54:50 GMT -5
Dimmick, in Sea of Mud, pointed out that when Andrade was pulling out of Bexar, he destroyed some 1,500 rifle cartridges and about 49,000 musket cartridges. Dimmick seems to suggest that this may have been indicative of the proportion between rifles and muskets in the Mexican army in Texas, but I'd be a little careful about making that extrapolation.
|
|
|
Post by dimbo33 on Dec 14, 2007 18:55:35 GMT -5
A few random observations !) Stuart, Bancroft reported that in 1823 the Mexican Government negotiatied a 16,000,000 loan from an English House. He noted that they also obtained another loan of like amount from Barclay and company in London. He wrote that the second loan was composed for the most part of military stores, uniforms, arms, even ships. Is this the same loan that you are referring to as the 1826 loan? Are you aware if there is an inventory of the military stores that were sent to Mexico?
2) As to muskets we have found almost 100% of our gun parts to be India Pattern. We did find one side plate that was a short land pattern and one lockplate that is questionable but seems to be India pattern. At San Jacinto we have found nothing other than India pattern but I must admit that we have not found many gun parts. We have found seven bayonets and all are India Pattern. I am very hesistant to support the theory that there were any significant number of Baker rifles in the Alamo period Mexican army in Texas. One might argue that they were more valuable so they were less likely to be abandoned or left in poor repair. On the other hand there were many cazadore companies at San Jacinto (we have found two horn insignias) but were are yet to find any parts of a Baker. It seems likely to me that the Mexican soldiers did have some rifles but not many and they may or may not have been Bakers.
3) It seems unlikely that the state militias would have gotten weapons from the central government after 1832 as they had been ordered to disband after that time.
4)We have found one lockplate in the Sea of Mud that is insribed "Barnett's London". We were able to find out that Barnett was a private gun manufacturer in London at the time. We have had two English authorities write us in response to our inquiries and both claim that the English Government never sent any arms to Mexico. They claim that all the arms sent to Mexico were from private sources. As of this point we have not found any gun parts that have any English army markings. One must keep in mind however that most of our artifacts are from the Sea of Mud and this force was composed of a higher percentage of Activo units than those that were with Santa Anna at San Jacinto. Hopefully our ongoing archeology at San Jacinto can anwer some of these questions.
5) I totally agree that you should not read much into my idea that the number of cartridges destroyed by Andrade might indicate how many muskets versus rifles the Mexican army had. I do not remember if I included it but it is interesting to note that they also destroy practice cartridges. I assume that these were just paper and powder for the raw recrits to learn with. Gregg
|
|
|
Post by tmdreb on Dec 15, 2007 0:16:22 GMT -5
Gregg,
It's great having you here! I'm not too surprised that evidence for the Mexican Army using much besides the India Pattern musket hasn't turned up yet. Some of us have fantasies about how the Mexican Army was armed, and I think they'll continue to be shown for what they are.
I've noticed occasional online photos of Mexican marked Brown Bess muskets, but these all appear to me to be the New Land Pattern, which followed the India Pattern in production. Given that all the 1835-36 archeology turns up nothing but India Pattern parts, It seems likely that the New Land muskets marked with the Mexican eagle and snake are likely of the later shipment.
Should we be surprised about the lack of cavalry carbine parts? Aside from that wonderfully ambiguous chunk of a .62 caliber barrel found near the Alamo, I don't believe I've heard much of anything about recovered carbine parts.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 15, 2007 11:29:23 GMT -5
Gregg,
The 1823 loan negotiated by George Wavell was provided by Berkeley, Hervey and Co. A number of other banks subsequently followed suit, of which the most important was Barings (who employed James Grant as an agent) and they were the people who supplied part of their loans in kind.
The weapons supplied were apparently not British government stocks and were in any case purchased through arms brokers. British Foreign Office papers relating to Mexico (FO50/28) record shipments arriving in early 1826. According to Rene Chartrand, who has looked into that side closer than I have, a total of 111,564 muskets, 15,280 carbines, 2,000 rifles, 8,000 pairs of pistols, 26,500 sabres and 5,792 lances had been delivered by 1827. Rifles were very clearly in short supply and I think this is a reflection of Barings and their agents picking up what was available from trade and going for quantity over quality.
Thomas Barnett & Co were gunmakers who regularly worked on government contracts, especially for rifles
|
|
|
Post by dimbo33 on Dec 16, 2007 0:32:35 GMT -5
tmdreb, I am with you about the carbines. I must admit that I still struggle with my translations when I come across the words carbina and escopeta. I am very comfortalbe that a fusil was a smoothbore musket and a rifle was a rifle. I assume that their carbina was a shortened musket but I am open minded about that idea. Do any of you think that the escopeta was a shotgun? I am hoping that one of you can clear this up for me.
Stuart, Did Bancroft confuse Berkeley and or Baring with Barclay? Do you know if a detailed inventory exists? Am I correct that you are going to be one of our speakers at the San Jacinto conference in April? I am on the friends of the San Jacinto Battle ground board and I think I saw you on the program. If so I look forward to seeing you there and I would encourage all the members of the forum to attend our conference. Details are on the website of the Friends of the San Jacinto Battleground. The conference is first class and our speadkers are always very interesting. Gregg
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 16, 2007 6:01:25 GMT -5
Hi Gregg, yes I'm coming over to speak at the San Jacinto affair and look forward to meeting you. I suspect the confusion over the bankers comes from the fact that one of the big UK banks these days is called Barclays. Otherwise I'd need to see the context to tell whether Bancroft was confusing them with Berkeleys or Barings. My money however would be on Barings. I don't have a more detailed inventory on the arms than the one quoted. It was just a Foreign Office report saying that was what had been delivered by the trade. Its perhaps worth emphasising that most British military firearms at this period were purchased from private contractors and as the military contracts had temporarily dried up after the end of the Napoleonic Wars they had plenty of spare capacity for foreign orders. I'll need to check my notes on Mexican terminology. Again Rene Chartrand did a lot of work, but as I recall escoptas were indeed rather like blunderbusses.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Dec 16, 2007 12:17:28 GMT -5
Gregg, my understanding is that an escopeta was in general considered a smoothbore, blunderbus-type weapon with a short barrel and large caliber (references usually give it as .69 caliber, but there are known .75-caliber examples dating from around 1800). Some references claim that by definition it incorporated a miquelet lock. There are numerous anecdotal descriptions of them as being bell-mouthed, but I recall having seen photographs of surviving, purported escopetas that have no swell at the muzzle. Justin H. Smith, in his history of the Mexican War, stated that some "escopetas" in the Mexican service in the 1846-47 war were nothing more than sawed-off muskets.
While supposedly the carbine supplanted the escopeta in the Mexican cavalry after the War of Independence, evidently the cavalry still used them to a certain extent. John C. Duval claimed to have used a captured escopet during the Battle of Coleto; he said the charge was so large it knocked him backwards. Duval also claimed that the Mexicans fired escopetas by holding them over their heads with both hands and firing them blindly, for their scattershot effect. If the recoil was all that great, I don't see how this would have been feasible.
In primary accounts from the Mexican-American War, you'll come across frequent references to escopetas (or, as the gringos sometimes spelled them, "scopets" or "scopetas") in use by guerrillas. Abner Doubleday, in his memoir of the storming of Monterrey, wrote that the Mexican defenders used escopeta fire to good effect during the street fighting.
-Tom
|
|