"Gribeauval's Tables of Construction" Topic

There have been comments from time to time regarding the above named document and that it was authored by General Manson and not Gribeauval.

That is an inaccurate assessment.

From An Elementary Treatise on the Forms of Cannon and Various Systems of Artillery by N Persy, Professor at Metz, published in 1832, 17:

'All the innovations and changes proposed by M de Gribeauval, from 1764-1789, were collected by General Manson; and published in 1792, under the title of tables of construction of the principal equipage of Artillery.'

The technical drawings were already completed under the direction of Gribeauval and distributed to the arsenals and foundries. Manson put them together three years after Gribeauval's death and published them as a secret document of which there were only 104 copies. As Persy states, Gribeauval was the instigator, Manson merely had them published.

For additional information on the subject if anyone is interested, see Engineering the Revolution by Ken Alder.

These very detailed Tables de construction (tables, not plates) for the Gribeauval constructions are partly available online.

Vol. 2:

link

Vol. 3

link

Unfortunately, I haven't come accross the first volume.

No.

The Tables of Construction consisted of both the tabled details of the dimensions of the material to be produced as well as technical drawings to show the artificers and founders what the material is supposed to look like.

One cannot be used without the other if the material to be produced is not to the exact specifications required.

From Engineering the Revolution by Ken Alder, 143:

'Gribeauval's famous Tables de construction are a splendid example of this disciplinary program…Already the 1732 law announcing the Valliere system had been accompanied by official plans for the artillery pieces. From 1764 onward, the Gribeauvalists assembled mechnanical drawings of every component of the artillery material. These were carefully scaled projective views, with parts specified in dimensions down to 1/200th of an inch. Gauges, jigs, and rulers were also enshrined in the Tables. The gigantic five-volume set of drawings was finally published in 1792. With this master plan, artillery officers now had a common reference for all the objects of their technological life. They also possessed an analytical tool for dividing the job into individual tasks, and a disciplinary tool for holding up each piece to an immutable standard.'

The reference for this paragraph in the endnotes is the Tables itself.

Alder has an example of one of the technical drawings from the Tables on page 144 of his work.

Another example of combining technical drawings with the detailed data assembled in construction tables along with text is DeScheel's artillery treatise.

I have in my own collection four detailed technical drawings that I came across and bought and they are either taken from Diderot's Encyclopedie or Gribeauval's Tables, probably the former. They are definitely original, but no source was listed.

I would be fascinated to read how this relates to Napoleonic wargaming.

The subject can give you detailed information on how the Gribeauval artillery pieces and equipment were constructed and how they are supposed to look.

I would think that would be valuable information.

Is this forum purely for wargamers anyway? Now, without them, I know I would not have the figures to collect and, when I see dioramas of literally thousands of Perry figures I realise that my contribution to their profits will not pay the rent.

But surely it is not unreasonable to insert something like this….on a take it or leave it basis.

Could not agree more, Deadhead!

With a member group as large as this, I would think that
1. There would be some interest in how such information relates to wargaming as a possibility, not a requirement.
2. That what interests some concerning history does not have to interest all. [There is a discussion at the moment going into minute details about grenadier distinctions etc. that I find really boring, but I certainly don't have to read it… or suggest that it isn't of interest to others.]
3. That's what TMP is about… the exchange of information.

Personally, beyond some issues of weight and easy of repair [long and short barrels], I don't see this information of much interest unless I was going to build a model of a Gribeauval carriage and tube.

Absolutely…this could be mind numbingly boring to folk who just chuck dice….or button counters who are into uniforms (comme mois)….I am incredibly confused by Gibr. vs An XI (some seem to say the latter hardly existed) and it seems that no one really agrees….but, if you choose to pursue it, this is real professional historian research.

Take it or leave it.

My real worry is that it may not be accessible in five years time…after all the work that some have put into the research!

I have always been fascinated by military history, and war gaming. One leads to the other, the other leads back to the former.

There have been comments from time to time regarding the above named document and that it was authored by General Manson and not Gribeauval.

That is an inaccurate assessment.

From An Elementary Treatise on the Forms of Cannon and Various Systems of Artillery by N Persy, Professor at Metz, published in 1832, 17:

'All the innovations and changes proposed by M de Gribeauval, from 1764-1789, were collected by General Manson; and published in 1792, under the title of tables of construction of the principal equipage of Artillery.'

Just a polite question on the historiography of this: does Prof Persy prove this to be the case, or does he just assert this (about something that happened 40 years previously)?

Yes, but at least you show that you care. I am not even sure I understand the question that you pose. (We have had a truly splendid family reunion tonight, the house is filled with snoring mothers and sons and girlfriends (of the sons obviously)….and I am the only one still standing, right now)

But this is the beauty of this forum. There are folk who can debate Gribeauval vs An XI (I always, always, called him Gibreauval…) and then quote primary sources with authority.

Great resource for modellers (US: modelers) and figure manufacturers.

The more information the better for everyone.

I believe more research is needed into the various national practices or 'doctrines' of artillery usage. How they designed their ordnance and the purpose to which they put it could feed into our wargames.

Just a polite question on the historiography of this: does Prof Persy prove this to be the case, or does he just assert this (about something that happened 40 years previously)?

For starters, read the title.

Next, take a look at Ken Alder's work.

Then, if you have the patience, read Harold Rosen's The Systeme Gribeauval.

The only pieces of AN XI that went into full production were the 6-pounder and the 5.5-inch (24-pounder howitzer).

And I do believe that Professor Persy is evidence enough that AN XI only supplemented the Gribeauval System and did not replace it. The Gribeauval System remained in the French army until replaced in ca 1827 by the Valee System.

I do believe that these sources have been referenced before on different Napoleonic forums, including this one.

Have you read any of them?

I believe more research is needed into the various national practices or 'doctrines' of artillery usage. How they designed their ordnance and the purpose to which they put it could feed into our wargames.

Sources are readily available and have been placed on this forum, among others.

Examples:

Artillery Sources Short List:

Adye, Ralph Willett, The Bombardier and Pocket Gunner, Nash, London, 1813.

Alder, Ken, Engineering the Revolution: Arms and Enlightenment in France, 1763-1815, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997.

Allix, Jacques-Alexandre-Francois, Systeme d'Artillerie de Campagne du Lieutenant-General Allix, Anselin et Pochard, Paris, 1827.

Anonymous, Petit Manuel de Canonier, Paris: 1810.
Anonymous, Compendious Exercise for the Garrison and Field Ordnance as Practiced in the United States, Washington, 1810.

Anonymous, Exerzir-Reglement fur die Artillerie, Berlin 1812.

Anonymous, Titre Troiseme Ecole Artillerie, no date.

Anonymous, Zur Ausbilding und Taktik der Artillerie, Biblio Verlag, Osnabruck, Germany, 1982.

Anonymous, Essai sur l'Usage de l'Artillerie: Dans la Guerre de Campagne et Dans Celle des Sieges, Chez Arckstee & Merkus, Amsterdam, 1771.

De Scheel, Otto von, Memoires d'Artillerie Contenant l'Artillerie Nouvelle ou les Changemens fait dans Artillerie Francoise en 1765, Paris 1795.

De Scheel, Otto von, DeScheel's Treatise of Artillery, Translated by Johathan Williams, Edited by Donald E. Graves, Ottawa: Museum Restoration Service, 1984.

D'Urtubie, Theodore, Manuel de L'Artilleur, Paris: 1794.

Du Teil, Jean, The New Use of Artillery in Field Wars: Necessary Knowledge, The Nafziger Collection, 2003.

Du Teil, Chevalier Jean, De l'Usage de l'Artillerie Nouvelle dans la Guerre de Campagne, Marchal Librarie, Metz, 1778.

Gassendi, Jean-Jacques Basilien de, Aide-Memoire a l'usage des Officiers d'Artillerie attaches au service de Terre, Paris: Chez Magimel, Anselin et Pochard, 1819.

Girod de l'Ain, Maurice, Grands Artilleurs: Drouot, Senarmont, Eble, Paris, 1895.

Graves, Donald E., American Ordnance of the War of 1812, Arms Collecting, Ottawa, 1993.

Graves, Donald E., ‘For Want of this Precaution so Many Men Lose Their Arms: Official, Semi-Official and Unofficial American Artillery Texts, 1775-1845', Unpublished Manuscript, no date.

Graves, Donald E., ‘Louis de Tousard and his Artillerist's Companion: An Investigation of Source Material for Napoleonic Period Ordnance,' Ottawa: Arms Collecting, 1983.

Hughes, BP, Smooth-Bore Artillery: The Muzzle Loading Artillery of the 18th and 19th Centuries, London: Arms and Armour Press, 1969.

Hulot, M., Instruction sur le Service de L'Artillerie, Paris: Magimel, 1813.

Kiley, Kevin F., Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars 1792-1815: Field Artillery, London: Greenhill, 2004.

Kiley, Kevin F., Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars 1792-1815: Artillery in Siege, Fortress, and Navy, Frontline, Barnsley, Yorkshire, 2015.

Kiley, Kevin F., ‘The Cannon's Breath: Jean-Baptiste de Gribeauval and the Development of the French Artillery Arm 1763-1789,' First Empire Magazine, Volume 81, Summer 2005.

Landman, Isaac, The Principles of Artillery: Reduced into Questions and Answers, for the Use of the Royal Military Academy, at Woolwich. W Glendinning, London, 1801.

Lauerma, Matti, L'Artillerie de Campagne Francaise Pendant les Guerres de la Revolution: Evolution de l'Organization et de la Tactique, Helsinki 1956.

LeBlond, Guillaume, Treatise of Artillery, 1746, Ottawa: Museum Restoration Service, 1970.

Lombares, Michel, Histoire de la Artillerie Francaise, Charles-Lavauzelle, Paris, 1984.

Malinowsky, Louis, and Bonin, Robert, Geschichte der Brandenburgish-Preussischen Artillerie, 3 Volumes, Wiesbaden, 1982.

Muller, John, A Treatise of Artillery, Museum Restoration Service, Ottawa, 1977.

Naulet, Frederic, L'Artillerie Francaise (1665-1765) Naissance d'une Arme, Paris: Economica, 2002.

Persy, N., Elementary Treatise on the Forms of Cannon and Various Systems of Artillery, Ottawa: Museum Restoration Service, 1979.

Peterson, Harold, Roundshot and Rammers: An Introduction to Muzzle-Loading Land Artillery in the United States, Stackpole, Harrisburg, 1969.

Picard, Ernest, L'Artillerie Francaise au Dix-Huit Siecle, Berger-Levrault & Cie, Paris, 1906.

Rosen, Howard, ‘The Systeme Gribeauval: A Study of Technological Development and Institutional Change in Eighteenth Century France', PHS Dissertation, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 1981.

Roquerol, G., L'Artillerie au Debut des Guerres de la Revolution, Paris 1898.

Saint Remy, Pierre Surirey de, Memoires d'Artillerie, Volume 3, Chez Rollin Fils, Paris, 1745.

Scharnhorst, Gerhard, Handbuch der Artillerie, Hannover: 1806.

Smola, Josef Freiherr von, Handbuch fur Kaiserlich-Konigliche Osterreichesche Artillerie-Offiziere, Vienna: 1839.

Smola, Karl, Smith, Digby, translator, ‘The Austrian Cavalry Gun in Comparison to the Horse Artillery of Other States by Smola in 1827, Smoothbore Ordnance Journal, 1(01) 1-26, August 2010.

Tousard, Louis de, American Artillerist's Companion, 3 Volumes, C & C Conrad, Philadelphia, 1809; Reprinted by Greenwood Press, Westport, 1969.

United States Department of War, A System of Exercise and Instruction of Field Artillery including Maneuvers for Light or Horse Artillery, Hilliard, Gray, Little, and Wilkins, Boston, 1829.

Artz, Frederick, The Development of Technical Education in France 1500-1850, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1966.

Duffy, Christopher, The Army of Frederick the Great, Revised edition, Chicago: The Emperor's Press, 1996.
Duffy, Christopher, Instrument of War, Chicago, The Emperor's Press, 2000.

Duffy, Christopher, Russia's Military Way to the West: Origins and Nature of Russian Military Power 1700-1800, Terence Wise, Knighton, 1994.

Nafziger, George, Imperial Bayonets, London: Greenhill, 1996.

Rothenberg, Gunther, Napoleon's Great Adversary, Archduke Charles and the Austrian Army 1792-1814, Sarpedon, New York, 1995.

Wilson, Sir Robert, Brief Remarks on the Character and Composition of the Russian Army and a Sketch of the Campaigns in Poland in 1806 and 1807, Newcastle, Worley, 2000.

Zhmodikov, Alexander, and Zhmodikov, Yurii, The Tactics of the Russian Army in the Napoleonic Wars, two volumes, The Naafziger Collection, West Chester Ohio, 2003

For starters, read the title.

For starters, read my post. When you have finished and we have got the customary Kiley rudeness out of the way…

Next, take a look at Ken Alder's work.

Then, if you have the patience, read Harold Rosen's The Systeme Gribeauval.

The only pieces of AN XI that went into full production were the 6-pounder and the 5.5-inch (24-pounder howitzer).

And I do believe that Professor Persy is evidence enough that AN XI only supplemented the Gribeauval System and did not replace it. The Gribeauval System remained in the French army until replaced in ca 1827 by the Valee System.

I do believe that these sources have been referenced before on different Napoleonic forums, including this one.

Have you read any of them?

No, I have not read any of them. I asked you "does Professor Persy prove this or does he assert this?". Do you have answer to this question?

I wonder, is there such a condition as 'Bibliography Tourette's' ?

No, I have not read any of them. I asked you "does Professor Persy prove this or does he assert this?". Do you have answer to this question?

I wasn't being rude. Read the title of Persy's work. It's on artillery and he was a professor at the Metz artillery and engineer school.

You either believe him or not.

And if you haven't read the works, perhaps you should. They can answer all of your questions.

If you don't want to, that's fine too.

I'm perfectly satisfied with Persy's comments on AN XI, etc., because of Persy's bona fides. I have no reason not to be.

It seems to me you just like to repeat questions that can be answered on your own if you do a little research. If you can't be bothered, then I cannot help you. You refuse every piece of evidence that is offered.

Goodness me, this is hard work…

So the answer is no, you are relying on the guy's authority. Not a problem.

The An XI was designated to replace the obsolete Gribeauval system, why otherwise was it called differently – and in case brech would do real research he would know about the an XI construction plans in the archives in France, diligent researchers like Dr. Summerfield did use those – in case – why the new 6 pdr gun instead of the obsolete 4 und 8 pdr?
And it was not only the 6 pdr, changes on the 12 pdr – ammunition caisson carried on the limber – a new musket – the corrigé an 9

Why should one read Rosen or Alder when the primary documents are ready at hand?

Gribeauval had to do, because of lack of money and constant warfare, despite its deficiencies, like the ammunition waggon which was clumsy and could not follow the mounted batteries at the speed required, , read instead Allix than hiding behind Alder or Rosen.

So the answer is no, you are relying on the guy's authority. Not a problem.

No, the answer would be 'yes.' That is based on both his bibliography and his position as a professor at the French artillery and engineer school.

And apparently you do have a problem.

You haven't read the work(s) and apparently you have no intention of doing so.

That being the case, why do you continue to ask questions that you are not prepared to accept an answer that does not agree with your suppositions.

So, if you disagree then offer something credible in evidence to contradict it. Persy is a primary source and he also authored at least seven other texts, addressing gunnery, ballistics, and artillery in general (they are in the bibliography of the text under discussion). Also in the bibliography are artillery volumes by Cotty, DeScheel, Tousard, St Remy, and the Diderot Encyclopedie.

The An XI was designated to replace the obsolete Gribeauval system, why otherwise was it called differently – and in case brech would do real research he would know about the an XI construction plans in the archives in France, diligent researchers like Dr. Summerfield did use those – in case – why the new 6 pdr gun instead of the obsolete 4 und 8 pdr?
And it was not only the 6 pdr, changes on the 12 pdr – ammunition caisson carried on the limber – a new musket – the corrigé an 9

The Systeme AN XI was supposed to replace the Gribeauval Systeme, but it did not. The system was not put into full production as already noted. That specifically refers to the rolling stock.

However, the Gribeauval System was not obsolete and I have seen no proof whatsoever that it was. And the 4- and 8-pounders were employed in Spain until that war ended in 1814 and at least half of the ordnance employed by the French in 1809 belonged to the Gribeauval System, and some continued to be used by the Young Guard artillery into 1811.

And it should be noted that both Ruty and Gassendi objected to the Systeme AN XI and so did the troops-especially the horse artillery who did not want to give up the 8-pounder.

Why should one read Rosen or Alder when the primary documents are ready at hand?

Really?

Perhaps you should take a good course on historiography. You recommend Summerfield but ignore Rosen and Alder, who both did archival research in their volumes and are authoritative. There are too many errors in fact in Dawson, Summerfield, et al.

Would you like a listing?

Gribeauval had to do, because of lack of money and constant warfare, despite its deficiencies, like the ammunition waggon which was clumsy and could not follow the mounted batteries at the speed required, brech, read instead Allix than hiding behind Alder or Rosen.

Do you have a citation and page number for Allix for your assertion? I have a copy so your contention can be easily verified.

How fast do you suppose artillery moved on campaign? For both foot and horse artillery it was generally at a walk.

And the caisson could move faster than a walk when the need arose.

If you don't agree, then prove otherwise.

Now I can imagine many despair at this sequence of messages, but I continue to follow it with interest.

I for one would very much welcome any erratum of Dawson, Summerfield et al. In all seriousness……….

Would it be worth a new topic even? Less likely to be overlooked. I would happily kick it off if you preferred not to!

So the answer is no, you are relying on the guy's authority. Not a problem.

No, the answer would be 'yes.' That is based on both his bibliography and his position as a professor at the French artillery and engineer school.

That is what reliance on authority means Kevin. It doesn't invalidate your position of course, it was just a question about a book.

And apparently you do have a problem.

No, it was a straightforward inquiry. Which, with very bad grace, you have actually answered. That's fine.

Persy is a primary source…

Is he? As I pointed out, he published 40 years after Manson, never mind Gribevaul.

@deadhead
look at the archives, on TMP, there must be plenty of all those old pet subjects , but he must bring all those up with the old invalid arguments of yesteryear, I am not playing his petty game of creating flame wars, indeed all those has nothing to do with wargaming any more, other feuds which must raise again and again.

This won't be a real Napoleonic Discussion thread until at least one of the usual suspects goes to the DH.
It's just simmering on Low now. You can do better.

but he must bring all those up with the old invalid arguments…

I have brought up nothing that is invalid. I base my postings and opinions on fact-that's called historical inquiry.

Perhaps it might be a good idea if you began to do that process?

By the way, can you give the specific citation with page number from Allix that has already been requested?

Kevin, I am pretty sure vonW has had you stifled for years. He has probably picked up the subject from my quotations. He won't see any requests from you, I think.

That may very well be the case, but he doesn't seem to have any trouble mentioning or answering me in the third person.

So, that may very well be a double standard. He did mention Rosen and Alder after I did, did he not?

"Kevin, I am pretty sure vonW has had you stifled for years. He has probably picked up the subject from my quotations. He won't see any requests from you, I think."

Yes indeed

Then that doesn't speak well of him at all.

also the 12 pde cannon

- French Gribeauval 12-pounder : barrel 885 kg + carriage (early) 695 kg = 1580 kg
- French AnXI 12-pounder : barrel 749 kg + carriage 677 kg = 1426 kg

just for comparison

Example :
- French Gribeaval 8-pounder : barrel 581 kg + carriage 570 kg = 1151 kg
- French An-XI 6-pounder : barrel 387 kg + carriage 513 kg = 900 kg
- Russian 6-pounder : barrel 364 kg + carriage 331 kg = 695 kg
Sources:
Техническое оснащение русской артиллерии начала XIX в.
Берназ Александр
М: Интернет-проект «1812 год», 2009
link
История материальной части артиллерии
генерал-майор артиллерии Козловский Давид Евстафьевич
М: Артиллерийская академия Красной Армии имени Дзержинского, 1946
link
Tables des principales dimensions et poids des bouches la feu de campagne, de silege et de place, avec leurs affuts et avant-trains, des projectiles etc: ainsi que des charges, des portees etc. des bouches la feu des artilleries principales de l'Europe
general Tomás de Morla y Pacheco
Leipzig: Barth, 1827
link
История материальной части артиллерии
полковник Нилус Андрей Александрович
С-Пб: Типография П. П. Сойкина, 1904
link
Артиллерия Гатчинских войск Великого князя Павла Петровича
Юркевич Евгений Иванович
С-Пб: 2009
books.reenactor.ru/?bookid=1754
link
Aide-mémoire à l'usage des officiers d'artillerie de France attachés au service de terre
lieutenant-général d'artillerie comte Jean-Jacques-Basilien de Gassendi
Paris: Magimel, Anselin et Pochard, 1819 (2 vol.)
link
link
Système d'artillerie de campagne
lieutenant-général d'artillerie Jacques-Alexandre-François Allix de Vaux
Paris: Anselin et Pochard, 1827
link

thankfully provided by

Amicalement,
- Alexandre