European, Japanese and Chinese stewardship in Feudalism

Feudalism is about the greed of land owning nobles in exchange for the security of local peasants working the land for them. First of all greed would be the type of stereotype that I am trying to avoid in this project. Is there anything that may be on the flip side of greed to express virtue? Well, I guess if you are greedy then you are selfish, and if you are selfish then you value something. If you value something you will take care of it. We will call this stewardship. The elements of stewardship, fraternity, and chivalry had worked together to form the virtues of the feudal period.

Feudalism was not isolated to mainland Europe. The Normans under William the Conqueror brought the feudal traditions from Scandinavia and France to England. It is so prevalent because it is a natural effect from causes deep within human nature. We all want someone to take care of us. As technology increased and castles, swords, cross bows and eventually cannon made people feel unsafe the knights developed into the ultimate warriors. They possessed superior technology such as armor and would protect a village from knights loyal to another Lord. So they wanted protection and the lord of the manor wanted stewardship leaving the knights as wild cards in the middle. The industrial revolution increased the size of the feudal enclosures because of technological advances in agriculture. There was less land for the peasants to farm. So they went into the cities and they became artisans and then merchants. When they reached the level of merchant they were able to hire knights which had now become mercenaries to protect them. The feudal knight has once again become a soldier. The noble lords failed to see that progress has changed the world so that his enclosed manor became less necessary to produce wealth.

Self government is an interesting balancing act of liberty and equality. When the peasants exchanged their liberty for security it was acceptable until the reason that they had initially given up their security was sacrificed. When a person is cut adrift without security and without liberty they will crave equality. Technology has been and will continue to be the great equalizer of this injustice. The artisans now had become so valuable that it equalized the superior force of the land holding nobles. Eventually, with the cannon castles became obsolete and land became vulnerable and of secondary importance to the trading that took place in mercantilism. This miscalculation by the feudal noblemen is not uncommon in history. It is also why the modern day businessmen like Bill Gates were able to take over IBM’s empire of computers. People like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were hungry and saw that information technology was an equalizing force over the main frame IBM machines of the corporate world. I do hope that the Haitians who are currently battling feudal drug lords will be given technology to equalize their power toward self government. So you see that the lessons of feudalism can still be relevant today.

The Chinese did not have a warrior class but they had feudalism. The Lords of China remained small enough that they could only manage the lands that were close by. So they never grew in power like the lords of Europe and Japan did. This extended their feudal period because there were no mercenaries for the Chinese merchants to hire. The peasants were also able to keep their lands and so never experienced the same craving for equality that European peasants did.

The Japanese had Samurai. They also were the ultimate warriors serving their Shogun Lords. However the shoguns did not receive the benefits of the industrial revolution so the smaller agricultural structure remained until outside war lords from other countries like the United States made the people feel less secure.

The virtue that sprung from the feudal enclosures is stewardship. Stewardship is a noun in the language of virtues. Its elements are security and equality.

Taken from …http://www.armada15001900.net/ingles/artgralingles.htm
ARTILLERY IN SPAIN


There appears to be little doubt that in Europe the first thunder clap of artillery was heard in Spain, the first reliable report being of Mohammed IV of Granada at the Alicante and Orihuela borders in 1331. Similarly, artíllery was used by the Moors in the siege of Algeciras (1342­1344).
The first mention written of naval artillery was in the skirmishes between Peter the Ceremonious of Granada and Peter the Cruel of Castille in1359. Putting a bombard on a ship of Peter of Granada contributed to the defeat of the fleet of his enemy.
A little later in 1371, the Castillian navy gained a brilliant victory against the English at La Rochelle - principally due to the good use of artillery.
In the History of Artillery four periods have been recognised

1 That of the Bombards, from theír first use up to the beginning of the 16`" century;
2 That of the Culverin to the end of the 17`" century;
3 That of Artillery based on the Royal System to the end of the 19t" century;
4 Artillery with Rifled Barrels.
BOMBARDS

Every piece of artillery is composed of two main parts - the barrel and its mount. The barrel is a long hollow tube; gunpowder is fed into the bottom of the barrel with the projectile immediately next to it. When the powder is ignited the projectile is ejected by the gases produced.
The oldest known artillery pieces are the bombards or lombards, their most notable characteristic being the separation of barrel and powder chamber. External fittings enabled these to be lashed to each other and to the mounting ready for firing.


These two components were not of solid metal but of strips bound together by outside hoops - like a cask made of metal instead of wood. (Hoop and stave construction)
In the mid-14t" century these units began to be fashioned of solid metal. The metal used was bronze (an alloy of copper and tin) and named fúslera. There were many ironworkers who could make hoop and stave bombards but those made of solid metal needed skílled workers - bell-makers who used the same alloy for both bells and guns, (although that used for bells with its higher tin content was unsuitable as it caused many barrels to fracture - generally at the first firing).



As for the mounting, it was simply a block of wood on which the assembly was fixed. Elevation was initially effected by placing wooden wedges beneath the front, changing later to a system of frames and crossbeams which could be adjusted to various levels, the front of the bombard resting on top. The mounting was initially called ajusta or fuste in Aragon and, later in Castille, the general word cureña (the name given to part of a crossbow) was used.

Firing the bombard involved:
1 Filling the powder chamber to about three-quarters full.
2 Inserting a wooden plug on top of the powder, compressing it lightly
3 Joining the powder chamber to the barrel by passing ropes through the hoops, lashing
them tightly, then tying the whole to the mounting.
4 Putting the projectile into the muzzle and ramming it home.
5 Firing the gun by putting a red-hot ¡ron into the external vent which, full of
powder, communicated with the main charge.



It can be seen that there was quite a long delay between one shot and the next and, apart from the above procedures, the gun had to be aimed. To reduce the interval each bombard sometimes had two powder chambers so that one was being prepared while the other was being fired. In spite of this the rate of fire was very slow and it would seem that not more than eight or ten shots per day were possible.


The projectiles fired by bombards were cannon balls or shot, of ¡ron or of stone. Iron was the better but cannon balls presented production difficulties when they needed to be very large. Stone production presented fewer problems because stone-cutters were plentiful and having a quarry nearby made the supply of stone shot simple. Leaded ¡ron shot (called bodoques) was also used.



Bombards were almost exclusívely used for firing flat (straight) trajectories. Hígh curved trajectories were attained by a shorter-barrelled, wide calibre piece, generally bell-shaped, called a mortar. This was also of stave and hoop construction but the powder chamber was much narrower than the barrel


Another gun used at this time was the falconet whích had a framework
at the rear supporting the powder chamber; this was called
the alcuza At the end of this framework was a handle which
enabled the falconet to be rotated about an axis.


The bombard was little improved during the 14`" and early 15t" centuries. But later in the 15`" century there were two important innovations: the calibre was slightly reduced at the muzzle end to increase resistance and the use of ¡ron shot became more prevalent..
To give some idea of the capabilities of artillery at this time, here are some statistics:
The weight of a bombard could reach 6000 kg, that of the projectiles from 5 to 150 kg in the case of stone shot and 250 kg if ¡ron shot were used. Their calibre varied up to 580 m
The range at the end of the 14`" century reached 1300 m, rísing to 2000 m at the end of the 15" century. In the latter half of the 15t" century lighter and more mobile pieces made their appearance leading gradually to the acquisition of more of these and less use of large guns. The 16`" century continued to produce improvements, the guns being welded into one piece instead of two.


Another innovation was the addition of trunions - two cylindrical projections enabling the gun to pivot vertically and vary elevation.

The mobile gun carriages were developed to a pattern they were to keep, more or less, for many centuries.
Most guns were no longer made by individual artisans but by purpose-built govermnent establishments. Numerous arsenals were set up - notably in Malaga, Medina del Campo, Barcelona and Burgos. Projectiles were always of ¡ron, and from the mid-16th century the shell began to be used - a hollow sphere filled with gunpowder. Cannon balls wrapped in sacking were also fired - they caught fire and lit up the battlefield