"How common was counter battery canister fire?" Topic

I've always assumed that 'grapeshop' was more a nautical term for anti-personnel shot that for land usage. Lazy historians have been the responsible for the confusion. Yes, I know naval grapeshot had a fewer number of balls of larger size.

I would be confident this was taken from Gassendi.

Vernon refers to the Aide-Memoir, which I would think was Gassendi, so you would be correct.

Excellent postings by the way.

I would be confident this was taken from Gassendi.

Allan:

I am not sure why this would be a question at all. de Vernon writes:

We must again refer to the Aide Memiors, by General Gassendi, wherein all the details are fully and clearly illustrated.

Then he gives the table you posted.

Is there some question that Gassendi isn't his source?

I've always assumed that 'grapeshop' was more a nautical term for anti-personnel shot that for land usage. Lazy historians have been the responsible for the confusion. Yes, I know naval grapeshot had a fewer number of balls of larger size.

RAF:
Both terms were used, sometimes inappropriately, but none-the-less, used during the Napoleonic Wars. Just today, I read a comment by Captain Gronow of the British Guards that his shako was pierced by a grape shot at Waterloo. Now, he didn't think it was a musket ball, which is the general size of small canister, and it wasn't an actual 6, 8 or 12lb cannon ball. If it hadn't taken off the top of his shako altogether, he would certainly have realized it was a cannon ball.

Another example is de Vernon, who wrote the two volume treatise that Allan quoted. It was vetted by several marshals before being used as the text for the French officer schools including the Polytechnic in 1805 and after.

On page 121 of Volume I he writes:

There are two kinds of shot (cartouches), round, and grape shot; the latter have grown into great use against infantry and cavalry; at short distances their effects are most murderous.

He then describes the round of canister on page 122:

Hence in the round of canister there are four parts;
the tin canister, the cup, the cover, and the grape shot.

He goes on to write:

We have said there were grape shot of three calibers or numbers; the first forms the heavy canister, and the second and third the small canister. The following table will complete our sketch:

That table, on 123 refers to all balls as "canister of large grape" and "canister of small grape".

So, no. References to grape shot weren't mistakes of lazy historians or ignorant Napoleonic soldiers.

Bill

But where is grapeshot listed as being used by French artillery? There aren't any that I have found and de Vernon doesn't list any either-he lists canister.

And if you're trying to prove the use of grapeshot as an anti-personnel round, if the size bullets used for grapeshot, or were used, are put into a canister, then the round is canister, not grapeshot.

The solution is very simple. Find a table of French basic loads of ammunition for artillery that list grapeshot as one of the rounds. If not, then the argument/discussion is over and you're incorrect in your assumption.

Bill

I have very little time today, but a quick trawl through the original French text suggests our friend de Vernon does not use the term 'grape' (unless I have missed it), but the translator does.

Allan

References to grape shot weren't mistakes of lazy historians or ignorant Napoleonic soldiers.

McLaddie- Alan has your answer. You are quoting the English language translator in the context that we have just about thrashed into a parallel universe.

Pardon, you have have thrashed, etc. etc.

And Alan is correct.

In the table on page 128 of de Vernon's text describing the contents (ammunition loads) of artillery caissons and the limber boxes of ammunition, grapeshot is not mentioned, but large and small canister is. Hence, there were no grapeshot rounds in the artillery basic loads.

References to grape shot weren't mistakes…

You have not supported that idea so far. I wish you good luck in your further attempts to do so.

Again, if you can find any material that states that the French used grapeshot for field artillery during the period and that it was contained in their basic ammunition loads I would be more than happy to see it.

McLaddie- Alan has your answer. You are quoting the English language translator in the context that we have just about thrashed into a parallel universe.

Pardon, you have have thrashed, etc. etc.

The English translation was in 1817. So, "grape shot" wasn't a term only lazy historians used years later or contemporary, ignorant soldiers.

The Universal Military Dictionary in French & English in which are explained the terms of the principal sciences that are necessary for the information of an officer 1816 by Charles James. [He published several military dictionaries early 1800s]

Under Grape he notes : Grape de raisin See Shot. Under SHOT on page 813 He describes the construction of said round for field artillery under 2d: Case or Grape.

Point being: the term grape shot was a current term during and after the Napoleonic wars.

In the table on page 128 of de Vernon's text describing the contents (ammunition loads) of artillery caissons and the limber boxes of ammunition, grapeshot is not mentioned, but large and small canister is. Hence, there were no grapeshot rounds in the artillery basic loads.

Kevin:

Please take the time to look at pages 121, 122, and 123, which is what I [and Allan] was referencing above.

IF you have de Vernon's work in French, it would be interesting to know what French words the English translator has transcribed as grape shot on those pages.

Allan:
I wouldn't be surprised. What French word[s] does de Vernon use? For a lark, I just typed in 'Grape Shot' for an on-line translation program and got "Mitraille."

OK – page 121 first:

On page 121 the translation reads:
‘There are two types of shot (cartouches), round, and grape shot; the latter have grown into great use against infantry and cavalry; at short distances their effects are most murderous.'

The original French reads:
‘On distinguee deux especes de cartouches: celle a boulets et celle a balles. Les cartouches a balles sont devenues d'un usage frequent contre la cavalerie et l'infanterie: lorsqu'on est a petites distances, leur effet est des plus meurtriers.'

So it is clear enough: there are two types of munition:
. 'cartouche a boulets', or what we would call 'solid shot', 'roundshot', etc; or
. 'cartouche a balles' (described elsewhere as a closed cylinder filled with a combination of Nr 1, Nr 2 and Nr 3 sized balls) or what we would call 'canister'.

A more accurate translation might be:
‘We distinguish two types of round: ball and canister. Canister has become frequently used against cavalry and infantry and at short distances the effects are most murderous.'

'Boulets' and 'balles' have similar meanings in English, which is confusing for some readers (including me). I would suggest we take a leaf out of Art Pendragon's book and use terms in the original language to minimise such confusion.

So to answer the question, 'cartouches a balles' is the original term translated as 'grape shot'.

Allan

Allan:

Thank you for that. When it says:

On "distinguee deux especes de cartouches: celle a boulets et celle a balles."

Wouldn't that read "there are two types of rounds or "cartouches" as both round shot and 'a balles' are said to be cartouches?

On page 121 it is noted, though it isn't clear whether this is the translator or de Vernon:

"The expression round (cartouche), is often confounded with cartridge (gargousse), though it only directly means the shot lying on top of the latter, and to which it is often attached.

So when you write:

'cartouche a balles' (described elsewhere as a closed cylinder filled with a combination of Nr 1, Nr 2 and Nr 3 sized balls) or what we would call 'canister'.

We can call it canister, but "Cartouche a balles' reads 'round of a certain size ball…or translated into English of the period: grape shot.

Which means that:

Les cartouches a balles sont devenues d'un usage frequent contre la cavalerie et l'infanterie: lorsqu'on est a petites distances, leur effet est des plus meurtriers.'

Literally reads:

"A round of certain sized balls has become frequently used against cavalry and infantry and at short distances the effects are most murderous."

Allan, you write: "So it is clear enough: there are two types of munition: 'cartouche a boulets', or what we would call 'solid shot', 'roundshot', etc; or 'cartouche a balles' (described elsewhere as a closed cylinder filled with a combination of Nr 1, Nr 2 and Nr 3 sized balls) or what we would call 'canister."

Or what the English speakers of the time translated cartouche a ballesas a 'round of grape shot.'

When de Vernon writes:

"Hence in the round of canister there are four parts;
the tin canister, the cup, the cover, and the grape shot."

I think a point of confusion is which part of the round is being used to describe it, the casing/canister or the shot. So 'a balles' is translated by the English as 'grape shot.'

As for 'Boulets' and 'balles' the French are obviously speaking of balls of two different types or sizes [bales or packages is another translation for balles], the dimensions and 'packages' of which are described in a number of places.

If the iron balls themselves are translated as 'grapeshot' and then when they are put into the canister, the round itself (the tin can containing the 'grapeshot') the round is canister, not grapeshot.

And if you look on the pages you referred to, it is very easy to tell that is what is being talked about.

So, again, if you actually believe the round itself was grapeshot and not canister, then that is your error.

As for 'Boulets' and 'balles' the French are obviously speaking of balls of two different types or sizes [bales or packages is another translation for balles], the dimensions and 'packages' of which are described in a number of places.

'Boulets' has a quite specific meaning in French artillery parlance. If you refer to page 33 of Gassendi's Aide-Memoire you will read a description of how 'boulets' are manufactured. There are specific instructions on the manufacture of boulets for 24, 16, 12, 8 and 4 pounders. These are single round specifications for a specific single piece and are plainly what we describe as roundshot, solid shot etc as I referred to above.

Allan

Given the different proportions of canister carried for the various pieces

From de Vernon again:

12 pounders, 9 ball in the limber box plus 3 caissons per piece, each holding:
. 48 ball
. 12 large canister
. 8 small canister

8 pounders, 15 ball in the limber box plus 2 caissons per piece, each holding:
. 62 ball
. 10 large canister
. 20 small canister

4 pounders, 18 ball in the limber box plus 1 caisson per piece, each holding:
. 100 ball
. 26 large canister
. 24 small canister

6" howitzer, 4 large canister in the limber box plus 3 caissons per piece, each holding:
. 49 shell
. 3 large canister

is there any information about the use these different canister munitions would be made?

For example Howitzers using canister is often considered as a defensive option against an attack on the battery so is large canister more useful against incoming targets?

Is the large canister more suited to firing on cavalry than infantry?

Even getting back to the OP is large or small canister suited to counterbattery and if so at what ranges?

It may be that the larger canister projectiles acquired greater impetus and therefore had a longer range.

I am still not clear about that, but what I have found interesting in reading around this topic is the suggestion that there is not only the explosive force with which the heavier rounds might be impelled directly towards the enemy but the destructive impact which such projectiles would acquire from the force of gravity when fired on a higher trajectory and dropping down on bodies of troops. "It's a hard rain…"

With regard to the OP: were the crews of guns a worthwhile target for canister used in counter-battery fire, when it was only round shot that would destroy the weapons as well as knocking out, or intimidating, the crews?

By taking gunners out of action you harm artillery as well.

Quite so, von W.

What I wrote was "a worthwhile target for canister." Guns were usually placed in at some distance from each other and the crews at each piece did not present the same concentrated target as infantry and cavalry in formation.

That's one of the reasons that counterbattery fire, no matter what ammunition is being used, took a long time and took a lot of ammunition to accomplish. One gun would be targeted at a time and when that piece was knocked out (it didn't have to be destroyed, merely taken out of action-usually by damaging the gun carriage) the next piece would be targeted and fired on.

Coignet tells the story of the Guard infantry at Wagram being used to supplement the gun crews of Lauriston's 102-gun battery when the artillery began taking casualties. Twenty enlisted men were sent from each company, Coignet remarking that they all wanted to go.

'Boulets' has a quite specific meaning in French artillery parlance. If you refer to page 33 of Gassendi's Aide-Memoire you will read a description of how 'boulets' are manufactured. There are specific instructions on the manufacture of boulets for 24, 16, 12, 8 and 4 pounders. These are single round specifications for a specific single piece and are plainly what we describe as roundshot, solid shot etc as I referred to above.

Allan:
Yes, that is what I meant. I said specific sizes to avoid making a list that would have been necessarily incomplete--I bet that 'boulets' can also refer to 6 and 3 pound shot too. I was just pointing out we can be sure that boulets meant something different than balles even though both are translated 'balls' at times. You did say it can be confusing, and at least we can be sure that there was a difference regardless of the translation.

What this discusssion comes down to is really a whole load of balls.

If the iron balls themselves are translated as 'grapeshot' and then when they are put into the canister, the round itself (the tin can containing the 'grapeshot') the round is canister, not grapeshot.

And if you look on the pages you referred to, it is very easy to tell that is what is being talked about.

Kevin:
I quoted Tousard and de Vernon on this thread saying the same thing in a number of places, so I guess I have looked.

So, again, if you actually believe the round itself was grapeshot and not canister, then that is your error.

Kevin:
Hmmm. Reading through the thread, I don't see where I held that position or argued for it. I began by speaking of grape shot in general, and not the French, and I was thinking of what was being fired, not the term for the round. Besides quoting sources supporting what you state above, each time you insisted on the the above point, indicating I am wrong, you ignored my response. The last one of several was a week ago, May 9, 9:44:

You also noted the same sizes for grape and large canister. However, I get it. There is a technical difference [in construction] between the old grape shot and large canister. I never disputed that…I was more interested the similarities still in shot size and purpose, particularly purpose.

So can we agree:

1. That the shot placed in large canister rounds was identical in size and weight to the shot found in the earlier grape shot round?

2. The shot placed in the canisters was referred to as 'grapeshot' by at least the French, British and
Americans during the early 1800s? [Such as Charles
James' Military Dictionary 1816 describing one
construction for 'grape or case' [p. 318]

3. That large canister replaced the grapeshot round taking on its role as long range 'anti-personal' ammunition?

4. The troops down range of a large canister round weren't ignorant for calling the shot hitting them 'grape shot' for the above reasons?

5. That Vivian could well have been right to conclude that Uxbridge was hit by grape shot of the size
[1.5 inches in diameter] used by the French army.

6. That all armies during the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars did not replace grapeshot with the new, improved large canister at the same time and the same way as the French? That during the 20+ years of war, grape shot rounds here and there could still have been used?

7. That grape shot as a round was still described and listed in artillery treatises of the time.

So you take the round and I'll take the shot.

Why do you make such simple subjects so complicated?

And, no, the French did not use the grapeshot round during the period, so Vivian was wrong. Uxbridge was hit by canister.

Again, if you so firmly believe in grapeshot, then please demonstrate that it was part of the artillery basic load of ammunition for the period. You haven't done that.

And you haven't demonstrated that any of the armies of the period were still using grapeshot. I submit they were all using canister.

2. The shot placed in the canisters was referred to as 'grapeshot' by at least the French, British and
Americans during the early 1800s? [Such as Charles
James' Military Dictionary 1816 describing one
construction for 'grape or case' [p. 318]

p. 318 in my 1816 James is in the middle of the heading 'GEOMETRY'; p.328 Has "GRAPE shot See Shot." This is followed immediately by an odd entry headed "Grape de raisin Fr." which suggests someone has missed the point, but it may be a typo. However, it continues with a strange account of "a piece of wood in which are placed musket balls; each bullet being placed in a small case, and the whole together forming a machine resembling a grape…." Elsewhere, under the heading LABORATORY, James writes "Grape-shot…is a combination of small shot put into a thick canvas bag…To make grape shot…as many shot are thrown in as the grape is to contain…"

I don't think too much reliance should be put on James in this instance.

5. That Vivian could well have been right to conclude that Uxbridge was hit by grape shot of the size
[1.5 inches in diameter] used by the French army.

Vivian might have reached such a conclusion but we have no real idea, since all we have is an anecdote from 1847 by someone who wasn't present relating what he claims Vivian told him he said. Whether it was French 'grape' or Prussian, is not I think ever touched on. It might depend on which direction Uxbridge was facing when he was hit by "almost the very last shot."

The surgeon, Hume, would have had a better idea since he inspected Uxbridge's wound. The general consensus of contemporary reports is that he was hit by grapeshot and this was Hume's observation. Whether experience told him the likely size of projectile; whether Uxbridge himself told him, or whether both were simply generalising about a sub-munition that had to be smaller than round shot, as we have discussed, several times now, we are unlikely to ever know.

The issue, if there is one, is simple. It is one of British usage in comparision with technical specification across the board. A grape shot round-,grappe de raisin is something very specific, British usage of the term 'grape shot' or grape , in general, was more vague, either in ignorance or for convenience, or out of habit. "Something smaller than round shot, bigger than a musket ball…"

Is there an echo in here?

2. The shot placed in the canisters was referred to as 'grapeshot' by at least the French, British and
Americans during the early 1800s? [Such as Charles
James' Military Dictionary 1816 describing one
construction for 'grape or case' [p. 318]

p. 318 in my 1816 James is in the middle of the heading 'GEOMETRY'; p.328 Has "GRAPE shot See Shot." This is followed immediately by an odd entry headed "Grape de raisin Fr." which suggests someone has missed the point, but it may be a typo. However, it continues with a strange account of "a piece of wood in which are placed musket balls; each bullet being placed in a small case, and the whole together forming a machine resembling a grape…." Elsewhere, under the heading LABORATORY, James writes "Grape-shot…is a combination of small shot put into a thick canvas bag…To make grape shot…as many shot are thrown in as the grape is to contain…"

I don't think too much reliance should be put on James in this instance.

5. That Vivian could well have been right to conclude that Uxbridge was hit by grape shot of the size
[1.5 inches in diameter] used by the French army.

Vivian might have reached such a conclusion but we have no real idea, since all we have is an anecdote from 1847 by someone who wasn't present relating what he claims Vivian told him he said. Whether it was French 'grape' or Prussian, is not, I think ever touched on. It might depend on which direction Uxbridge was facing when he was hit by "almost the very last shot."

The surgeon, Hume, would have had a better idea since he inspected Uxbridge's wound. The general consensus of contemporary reports is that he was hit by grapeshot and this was Hume's observation. Whether experience enabled him to gauge, from the damage, the likely size of projectile; whether Uxbridge himself told him, or whether both were simply generalising about a sub-munition that had to be smaller than round shot, as we have discussed, several times now, we are unlikely to ever know.

The issue, if there is one, is simple. It is one of British usage in comparision with technical specification across the board. A grape shot round-, grappe de raisin- is something very specific. British usage of the term 'grape shot' or grape , in general, was more vague, either out of ignorance or for convenience, or out of habit. "Something smaller than round shot, bigger than a musket ball…"

Is there an echo in here?

Why do you make such simple subjects so complicated?

Kevin: Me? Life is complicated. People are complicated. History is complicated. None of which seems to fit on a artillery chart. Napoleonic nations didn't even agree on the length of an inch, foot, pace, league or mile, why would you think there is only ONE WAY to for contemporaries to describe the parts of an artillery load, particularly when you have so much evidence to the contrary.

But it isn't all that complicated Kevin. The size balls termed Grape shot by most everyone was placed in canisters to create large canister. Down range, military men being shot at knew the balls coming at them of particular dimensions and weight were grape shot. No mystery.

And, no, the French did not use the grapeshot round during the period, so Vivian was wrong. Uxbridge was hit by canister.

But they did use grape shot: de Vernon says so, {as do Tousard says and Ayde

When de Vernon writes:

"Hence in the round of canister there are four parts;
the tin canister, the cup, the cover, and the grape shot."

He ALSO uses the term "Les cartouches a balles" for canister, which makes no mention of 'canister' directly. He writes:

"The expression round (cartouche), is often confounded with cartridge (gargousse), though it only directly means

the shot lying on top of the latter, and to which it is often attached.

Not the canister, the shot lying on top of the cartridge.

In other words, Kevin, it isn't the simple "One Term rules them All" you feel encapsulates the history involved: Any contemporary who doesn't use the term 'canister' is wrong.

But why should Vivian be wrong to identify the ball of grape shot as what hit Uxbridge? OR the other many witnesses who stated the same thing, or all the British accounts such as those quoted by vW where case and grape shot are seen as separate rounds? Or de Vernon for that matter?

Again, if you so firmly believe in grapeshot, then please demonstrate that it was part of the artillery basic load of ammunition for the period. You haven't done that.

Even your use of 'basic load' assumes everyone will use the same meaning. Here again is Vernon's description of a 'basic round of canister.'

"Hence in the round of canister there are four parts;
the tin canister, the cup, the cover, and the grape shot."

So the basic load, the shot, is termed Grape Shot or "a balles" and not even "Grape de raisin" which I think may refer to the smaller shot, but obviously 'a balles' is a term covering the shot in both large and small canister.

And you haven't demonstrated that any of the armies of the period were still using grapeshot. I submit they were all using canister.

If you are talking about the round, the Grape frame or metal canister that held the grape shot. I never tried to demonstrate that and agreed with the term for the round several times, even quoting sources to that effect.

If we are talking about the term used for particular types and sizes of shot loaded in BOTH a round of grape shot AND a round of large canister. I have demonstrated that grape shot was a term used giving several different types of sources.

'The art of war is like everything else that is beautiful and simple-the simplest moves are the best.'-Napoleon

The same thing can be said both for artillery and the study of history.

The complications and difficulty comes when we make it that way.

I don't think too much reliance should be put on James in this instance.

42flanker:

James was published several versions and editions of English and English/French Military dictionaries throughout the Napoleonic period, which were used by British officers [the main audience for his works]. He was also known to have translated parts of several French Military Dictionaries in the process. Now, if he was off base or confused, he had ample time to correct his mistakes by 1816 and a critical audience of experienced military men to *help*. That his definitions varied little during all those editions and publications suggests that if you are confused by his definitions, you might be the one failing to understand in this instance.

Vivian might have reached such a conclusion but we have no real idea, since all we have is an anecdote from 1847 by someone who wasn't present relating what he claims Vivian told him he said.

Whether it was French 'grape' or Prussian, is not, I think ever touched on. It might depend on which direction Uxbridge was facing when he was hit by "almost the very last shot."

The surgeon, Hume, would have had a better idea since he inspected Uxbridge's wound. The general consensus of contemporary reports is that he was hit by grapeshot and this was Hume's observation.

Yep, so what is the problem? How many witnesses to you need? Or are you assuming they all don't know a thing? I have seen the hole in Uxbridge's trouser. It was between one and two inches wide. [I couldn't measure it. It was behind glass.] It was a round hole.

Now, the hole was too big for a single small canister shot…it would have made a hole the size of a musket ball. If it was several small canister, it would have been a ragged hole at best, not round. It wasn't a solid ball shot from any of the calibers present at Waterloo: Too small by several inches.

So, considering the distance Uxbridge and company were from the closest French [or Prussian guns] at the moment he was hit, it would have been too far for small canister.

As large canister grape shot for 6, 8 and 12 pound cannon were 1 to 1.5 inches in diameter, what other conclusion could reasonably be made by anyone then or now?

It is one of British usage in comparison with technical specification across the board.

Across the board? Yes, both French and British: See above response to Kevin.

A grape shot round-, grappe de raisin- is something very specific.

The term used by Gassendi and de Vernon is a balles, not grappe de raisin I think because of that specificity you mention when they were speaking of both the large and small used in canister.

British usage of the term 'grape shot' or grape , in general, was more vague, either out of ignorance or for convenience, or out of habit.

I think it should be clear that using the term grape shot is neither vague or ignorance or convenience or habit. It spoke to a particular size of shot loaded in canister.

Grape shot is what hit men and horses down range, not the canister that housed them. Which is why the following observations, as well as Hume's about Uxbridge's wound could be taken as very specific: A particular size shot:

and we advanced under the most horrible fire of grape and canister, round shot and musketry that can be imagined. Our ranks were thinning fast but we went to quick to perceive it (…)

He seems to know the difference between case and grape shot regardless of how it was loaded.

We had most of our officers wounded, by canon shot, Robbins was run through the body by a lancer and Beattie was struck by a musket ball; tell Walter that at the moment I was going to shake hand with Irving of the 13th he was knocked off his horse by a grape shot. Gregoire safe.

Not a cannon ball and not a musket-ball sized small canister. "a grape shot." That isn't vague at all.

5th Brigade of Major General sir Colquhoun Grant
7th Hussars
No. 54 Lieutenant Srandish O'Grady

Gareth Glover : The Waterloo Archive – volume III British Sources – Kindle edition

And yes, there is an echo of repeated arguments. [I don't think you were talking about your repeated post. That kind of thing happens a lot on the TMP. Not sure why.

I think it should be clear that using the term grape shot is neither vague or ignorance or convenience or habit. It spoke to a particular size of shot loaded in canister. Which is why

This statement by you actually makes it either vague, ignorant, convenient, or habit. Any size of shot loaded in a tin canister makes the round canister-not grapeshot no matter what the individual iron balls are called in any language.

Any size of shot loaded in a tin canister makes the round canister-not grapeshot no matter what the individual iron balls are called in any language.

Kevin:
It is a pity that so many military men of the time did not see it your way and didn't speak of the large balls hitting them as large canister. It must be irritating that so many experienced Napoleonic soldiers got it wrong and chose to describe it differently, confusing something so simple.

What they called it is not the issue. The issue is what the round actually was. And your confusing the issue is nothing but poor scholarship and research especially when you have been given the references.

You are just clouding the issue and repeating your own errors.

I

BALLS

But they did use grape shot: de Vernon says so, {as do Tousard says and Ayde

When de Vernon writes:

"Hence in the round of canister there are four parts;
the tin canister, the cup, the cover, and the grape shot."

That would be the English translation, would it?

"the shot lying on top of the latter, and to which it is often attached."

Not the canister, the shot lying on top of the cartridge.

You are presumably quoting Vernon in translation again, which tells us more about English languages usage than French Room for slippage there as has been discussed.

The reference to 'shot' there (in translation) is to the projectile in general, which in the French is 'mobile' as opposed to the powder charge to which it is strapped (gargousse)

Similarly here:-

Here again is Vernon's description of a 'basic round of canister.'

"Hence in the round of canister there are four parts;
the tin canister, the cup, the cover, and the grape shot."

So the basic load, the shot, is termed Grape Shot or "a balles"

In the original French the four components of a cartouche á balles are "la boite de fer blanc, le culot, le couvercle et les balles."

There is nothing to warrant your insertion of "Grape Shot" there, because, as you yourself pointed out- "obviously 'a balles' is a term covering the shot in both large and small canister."

This is the point. It is simply common English usage to describe the general term "balles"- meaning projectiles for canister of all sizes, as 'grape shot' and in that instance it is not a specific, technical term for the projectiles of large canister-EVEN THOUGH some did QUITE REASONABLY use it with that meaning.

But why should Vivian be wrong to identify the ball of grape shot as what hit Uxbridge? OR the other many witnesses who stated the same thing

You keep citing Vivian. No one is saying he is wrong. There would be no point. We don't have a first-hand statement from him. As you don't seem willing to recognise, it is simply that the source quoting him is not reliable evidence in itself. In fact, no first-hand witnesses present stated what hit Uxbridge. We have the surgeon who examined the wound some time later. He could have been speaking precisely. He might not have been. We don't know.

or even "Grape de raisin" which I think may refer to the smaller shot

You are definitely confused there. There has been discussion at some length as to what grappe de raisin (note the spelling) was.

II

JAMES :-

That his definitions varied little during all those editions and publications suggests that if you are confused by his definitions, you might be the one failing to understand in this instance.

I am not in the least confused by James. However, in the entries I quoted he does appear in places to be writing nonsense. Feel free to analyse them here to make sense of them for us. Which in particular of the "critical audience of military men" were you thinking of? Perhaps many of his readers, perhaps the majority, were civilians who didn't know any better.

I think it should be clear that using the term grape shot is neither vague or ignorance or convenience or habit. It spoke to a particular size of shot loaded in canister.

Sometimes, yes, probably, sure, but not always. Colquhoun Grant makes that distinction. How can you be sure in other instances?

COLQUHOUN GRANT

He seems to know the difference between case and grape shot regardless of how it was loaded.

But it was all loaded the same, wasn't it? Arent you arguing that 'grape' was a form of caseshot?

UXBRIDGE- again

Yep, so what is the problem? How many witnesses to you need?

I simply require witnesses who were present, in a position to identify the round, and who speak in terms that make clear that they were not generalising.

I don't think there is any disagreement that some soldiers did generalise in this regard and had been for forty years. Hence 'vague', hence 'habit' etc., etc. (see above).

What is it about the large canister projectiles which, if I have got this right, you are championing as 'grapeshot', that merited the use of the term 'grape' as a specific, technical description? The comparable size between projectiles in some 'old' grape and in large canister, according the charts we have been quoting, isn't in question.

Given what we know of the origin of the term, what is it about the large canister projectiles, in your estimation, that made the use of the word 'grape' in this instance specific and accurate?

So, considering the distance Uxbridge and company were from the closest French [or Prussian guns] at the moment he was hit, it would have been too far for small canister.

How far <1>was Uxbridge from the closest French or Prussian guns?

I have seen the hole in Uxbridge's trouser. It was between one and two inches wide

Now, this is interesting, since it appears that Lord Uxbridge's memorabilia are not in Belgium, at Waterloo, but at Plas Newydd, the family seat in in Wales. Which, of course, makes sense. So, I wonder what you saw behind glass at the Waterloo Museum?

What they called it is not the issue. The issue is what the round actually was. And your confusing the issue is nothing but poor scholarship and research especially when you have been given the references.

You are just clouding the issue and repeating your own errors.

Kevin:
What the 'round' actually was has been the issue and nothing else? Really? I will agree that it was your issue, rather single-mined and blind to any nuances as usual, but it was never mine. Any clouding done was you. Very early on I accepted that the round was called canister.
You were the one that questioned size of the shot that hit Uxbridge when you knew it was the same size for grape and large canister.

You were the one who considered the British military ignorant for calling the shot that hit them "grape shot".

You were the one who knew that de Vernon himself said that grape 'a balles' was part of a round of canister, but instead insisted that the ONLY issue was what the round was called and if Napoleonic men called it something else down range, well everyone else was wrong but you and your load chart.

So I see no reason to then decide that any Napoleonic military man, or myself, is 'in error' because we are calling the shot that hit them downrange "grape shot." It was. That was what was loaded in the canister, the cartouche a balles. That was what was loaded in both the round of grapeshot and the round of large canister.

Now, this is interesting, since it appears that Lord Uxbridge's memorabilia are not in Belgium, at Waterloo, but at Plas Newydd, the family seat in in Wales. Which, of course, makes sense. So, I wonder what you saw behind glass at the Waterloo Museum?

42flanker:

I had no idea where it is now. In 1972, I saw it in Belgium. It could well have been a traveling display for all I know. As I said, it wasn't in the Waterloo museum proper, the display was in the house where Uxbridge's leg was buried.

Sometimes, yes, probably, sure, but not always. Colquhoun Grant makes that distinction. How can you be sure in other instances?

Yes he does make that distinction, and he is talking about what hit the troops, not the round fired because they weren't hit by the canister down range, but the balls it contained. How can I be sure of the other instances? Really? If you have enough instances referring to grape shot, it is obvious that it was a common term regardless of whether a particular observer was wrong. The same could be said of all the references to canister and solid shot, but no one doubts that they were actual artillery ammo.

He seems to know the difference between case and grape shot regardless of how it was loaded.

But it was all loaded the same, wasn't it? Aren't you arguing that 'grape' was a form of caseshot?

No, I never have been. Read through the posts, or even the last few to Kevin. That has been Kevin's single-focus issue alone. In fact I was confused at first because Kevin argued that Uxbridge could not have been hit by grape shot and Vivian etc. were wrong when I knew the size and type of shot was called grape shot and assumed he knew too. He was referring to the name of the round. It took awhile, but this the first time that Kevin has dogged a single yes/no issue without any reference to what is being said.

My issue has been whether the shot loaded in canister/case, the balls that hit soldiers were called grape shot, as opposed to small canister balls, or solid shot. It was the same size shot for the earlier grape shot round and the later large canister round which is why military men continued to call what hit them what it was: Grapeshot.

I never said Kevin was wrong with his assertion. I have been simply defending mine. And never the twain shall meet…

The whereabouts of the Uxbridge leg or leg bones are unknown since 1878 when they were found on display by Uxbridge's son at the house where they had been buried. Following complaints involving the British ambassador, the bones were ordered to be re-interred but instead they were hidden and taken to Brussels after the Paris family sold the house. Tradition has it the bones were subsequently destroyed in 1934.

One of the three surviving 'Anglesea legs' is on display at the Waterloo Museum. I believe the former Paris house, first resting place of the jambe Uxbridge, nicknamed 'Maison Tremblant' during WW1 becaue of its rickety stairs, was derelict until very recently.

It was the same size shot for the earlier grape shot round and the later large canister round which is why military men continued to call what hit them what it was: Grapeshot.

It was what they continued to call it, but it wasn't grapeshot in essence. Canister fire included projectiles that were the size of some former grapeshot projectiles but not all. It is wholly understandable if those that were should have been referred to as 'grape shot.' However, if they weren't constructed as grappe a raisin then it was a misnomer, a convenient colloquialism, confused by the fact that it was applied to small canister projectiles as well.

So your assertion that men referred to rounds hitting them as grapeshot because "that's what it was" – as if referring to some Platonic ideal of 'grapeshot', doesn't stand up. That could only be true of the old-fashioned grappe a raisin round because, well, let's not labour that point any further.

To sum up.

'True' grappe a raisin projectiles were not only the size of the later 'large caseshot' projectiles.

'Grape' or 'grapeshot' in English usage was not only a reference to large caseshot but also to caseshot or canister in general.

Somewhere in there is a Venn diagram intersection with old grape shot and large canister projectiles the same size, but it is not the whole picture. Or diagram.

I was wondering if somebody might come up with a first -hand reference by British gunners of the period using the term 'grape' to refer to canister. I look forward to that. It would open up the conversation.

Well Gentlemen, with a certain amount of trepidation, I can offer you an example from 1866. William Edward Moyses Reilly, Lt Col RHA, and Crimea veteran, was sent as an observer to join the Prussian Army in Bohemia and report on their technical arrangements. He did not witness the fighting, but had unrivalled access to officers on the staff of the Crown Prince. In November 1866 he submitted a Memorandum to the War Office containing his observations. On page 7, Artillery, para 26, he states "The same description of ammunition is used as with our field guns, – shrapnel or segment, common shell, and grape." However, when describing the arrangements of limbers he only describes their contents as "common shell, shrapnel, and Case". When describing the ammunition expenditure during the war he gives it in three categories, shell, shrapnel and grape. On this basis, it would seem in 1866 grape and case were interchangeable terms in the British Artillery. I do not know if this is of any assistance.

Mollinary

<q.It was what they continued to call it, but it wasn't grapeshot in essence. Canister fire included projectiles that were the size of some former grapeshot projectiles but not all. It is wholly understandable if those that were should have been referred to as 'grape shot.' However, if they weren't constructed as grappe a raisin then it was a misnomer, a convenient colloquialism, confused by the fact that it was applied to small canister projectiles as well.

42Flanker:
I haven't found small, musket ball-sized canister referred to as grape shot. Only those balls of larger 1-2 inch balls were called grape shot. Certainly the sources and quotes demonstrate that. There is no reason why contemporaries could not have different names [or several] for the round and the projectiles that were loaded in it, particularly down range--without it being a misnomer.

Mollinary:

Yes, that is a great example. The question would be why Reilly made those different entries rather than simply state he was mistaken or in error.

To insist that there is one term to cover all components of case, canister and grape etc. etc., during this period and only that one term, everyone then and now that uses something else is 'wrong'…regardless contemporary usage seems to me to be missing a lot of history.

I have read any number of contemporary articles and treatises of military men noting the errors of others in their usage of terms and/or battlefield descriptions including such things as columns of divisions versus attack columns or columns of maneuver, but I have never come across artillerymen correcting others on the use of the term 'grape shot.'

In answer to your question, I think the most obvious answer is that he did not believe he was either mistaken or in error, for him the two terms were synonymous.

Mollinary

Thanks Mollinary, an interesting illustation of the point being argued.

McLaddie, it's not a question of being mistaken or in error. It's simply a question of usage.

McLaddie, it's not a question of being mistaken or in error. It's simply a question of usage.

Yes.

Mollinary, nice example, exactly the type of thing I was looking for the challenge my views. Well done, no need to feel fear in posting.

Well, I don't know about anyone else but I could do with a nice, cold drink. My round.