Aculverin was initially an ancestor of the hand-heldarquebus, but the term was later used to describe a type ofmedieval andRenaissancecannon. The word is derived from the antiquated "culuering" and theFrenchcouleuvrine (fromcouleuvre "grass snake", followingLatin:colubrinus,lit. 'of the nature of a snake').[1] From its origin as a hand-held weapon it was adapted for use asartillery by the French in the15th century and fornaval use by the English in the16th century. The culverin as an artillery piece had a longsmoothbore gun barrel with a relatively long range and flattrajectory, using solidround shot projectiles with highmuzzle velocity.
The hand culverin consisted of a simple smoothbore metal tube, closed at one end except for a smalltouch hole designed to allow ignition of thegunpowder. The tube was attached to a wood or metal extension which could be held under the arm. It was loaded with gunpowder and lead bullets and fired by inserting a burningslow match into the touch hole.
James IV of Scotland was an enthusiastic user of hand culverins in 1508. He held shooting matches in the great halls ofHolyrood Palace andStirling Castle, took a culverin to stalk deer in the park ofFalkland Palace, and shot at sea birds from a row boat off theIsle of May with his culverin.[2]
In addition to the arquebus, the culverin also evolved into the heavierbreech-loadingswivel gun weighing around 40 kg (88 lb), which required aswivel for support and aiming. This weapon was designed to use removablemug-shapedchambers which were prefilled with gunpowder and projectiles to speed up reloading. Breech-loading swivel guns were often used on ships against enemy crew orboarders.
Three types of culverin artillery pieces were used, distinguished by their size: the "culverin extraordinary", the "ordinary", and the "least-sized".[3][4]
| Name | Bore diameter | Length | Weight | Shot diameter | Shot weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Culverin extraordinary | 5+1⁄2 in (140 mm) | 32 calibers (14 ft 8 in; 4.47 m) | 4,800 lb (2,200 kg) | 5+1⁄4 in (130 mm) | 20 lb (9.1 kg) |
| Ordinary culverin | 5+1⁄2 in (140 mm) | 25 calibers (12 ft; 3.7 m) | 4,500 lb (2,000 kg) | 5 in (130 mm) | 17 lb 5 oz (7.9 kg) |
| Culverin of the least size | 5 in (130 mm) | 29 calibers (12 ft; 3.7 m) | 4,000 lb (1,800 kg) | 3+3⁄4 in (95 mm) | 14 lb 9 oz (6.6 kg) |
There were also smaller versions, including the "bastard culverin" (4 inches; 100 mm), 7-pound (3.2 kg) shot and the "demi-culverin" or "culverin-moyen" (4+1⁄2 inches; 110 mm), 10-pound (4.5 kg) shot.[1]
Overall, the culverin was a significant advance over earlier cannons. Since it fired iron round shot instead of stone projectiles and had a longer barrel to enable the gunpowder to fully burn and impart more force to the projectile, the culverin could fire the denser projectile to a relatively greater range and with a flattertrajectory. A replicaculverin extraordinary has achieved a muzzle velocity of 408 m/s (1,340 ft/s), and a range over 450 m (1,480 ft) using only minimal elevation.[5] This velocity and mass imply that the cannonball had akinetic energy of roughly 600kilojoules (440,000 ft⋅lbf) when leaving the muzzle.
InBritain,Brigadier General Michael Richards was appointedMaster-General of the Ordnance in 1714 and he commissioned a Danish expert,Albert Borgard, to design a new artillery system. Borgard did away with the traditional nomenclature of culverins,sakers andminions, and devised a new system based on the weight of shot that each gun used, from 4 to 64pounds. Although Borgard's gun designs were quickly superseded, the practice ofnaming ordnance by weight of shot persisted in Britain into the 20th century.[6]
This article incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain: Chambers, Ephraim, ed. (1728)."Culverin".Cyclopædia, or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences (1st ed.). James and John Knapton, et al. This article incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain: Chambers, Ephraim, ed. (1728)."Cyclopædia: or, A Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences".Cyclopædia, or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences (1st ed.). James and John Knapton, et al.