Ancient Cannons aka Ball Mills aka Cement Kilns?



Guarding over the Dardanelles for about 400 years, the famed Ottoman super cannon is arguably one of the most important guns in history. Like Darth Vader’s Death Star, the Dardanelles gun imposed the overbearing, threatening presence that tacitly boasted of imperial grandeur of which pop-culture villains could only dream. This pass was assuredly Ottoman. Its predecessor would break down the walls to an empire that had continued since Augustus Caesar and it – itself – would deter another up-and-coming empire almost half a millennium later.



The paragraph preceding the above two images was taken from the article titled Ottoman Super Cannon: The bombard that built an empire. It was written by some Marwan Kamel from And it's articles like this, that form public opinion. These articles piggyback on each other, and supported by Wikipedia, misrepresent the facts. I'm not saying they necessarily do it on purpose, for the powers of the mainstream run strong even within the most honest of the people.

Industrial Equipment
The goal of this thread is to suggest a hypothesis that some of the ancient so-called cannons are being grossly misrepresented. I think we have a mix of real cannons with the ones which are not cannons at all. Their visual resemblance allowed the masters of the narrative to pass ancient industrial equipment for cannons. And who knows, may be this visual resemblance saved those "cannons" from being destroyed.

The Dardanelles Gun
The Dardanelles Gun or Great Turkish Bombard is a 15th-century siege cannon, specifically a super-sized bombard, which saw action in the 1807 Dardanelles Operation. It was designed and built in 1464 by Turkish military engineer Munir Ali.


The Dardanelles Gun was cast in bronze in 1464 by Munir Ali:
  • Material: bronze
  • Weight: 37,000 pounds or 16.8 metric tons
  • Length: 17 feet or 5.18 meters
  • Projectile 1453: stone balls of 2.07 feet or 24.8 inches or 0.63 meters in diameter
  • Projectile 1807: full iron, same measurements. 2,265 pounds or 1027.5 kilograms
2005 mack truck.jpg

The powder chamber and the barrel are connected by the way of a screw mechanism, allowing easier transport of the unwieldy device. Such super-sized bombards had been employed in Western European siege warfare since the beginning of the 15th century. According to Schmidtchen, they were introduced to the Ottoman army in 1453 by the gun founder Orban on the occasion of the Siege of Constantinople, and Ali's piece is assumed to have followed the outline of these guns closely. According to Paul Hammer, however, the technology could have been introduced from other Islamic countries which had earlier used cannons.
  • Orban (also known as Urban) is an alleged Hungarian or German weapons-smith, who many European historians are quick to point out and claim, is allegedly the designer of all of the Great Turkish bombards. However, such claims are problematic, in that, hardly anything is known of his life, and after 1453 any record of him vanishes from history. Indeed all of the information on Orban also comes from a single non-Ottoman based source; Kritoboulos of Imbros, who wrote about him in his book "History" (1467) - however he is known to have been an unreliable historian, since he never verified his sources and nor does he use correct names for people. The Ottomans also make no special mention (or indeed any mention) of him in their history. Another particular problem with this theory is that Orban was known to sign his creations when he cast them, but many of them simply don't exist; which is very unusual given how the Ottoman's kept and conserved many of their other historical cannons of this time period in pristine condition. Munir Ali, for example designed (likely independently) his own bombard, the "Dardanelles Gun" in 1464, which has survived for over 554 years. Other European authors have suggested Munir Ali and Orban may actually be the one and the same person, given how similar in design Ali's and Orban's guns were; and given how Orban's records vanish around this time, only to be replaced with Munir Ali (who may actually be Orban after he converted to Islam).
Along with other huge cannons, the Dardanelles Gun was still present for duty more than 340 years later in 1807, when a Royal Navy force appeared and commenced the Dardanelles Operation. Turkish forces loaded the ancient relics with propellant and projectiles, then fired them at the British ships. The British squadron suffered 28 casualties from this bombardment. A spheric round made of full iron, of 63 centimeters of diameter, has a weight of 1027.5 kilograms.

In 1866, on the occasion of a state visit, Sultan Abdülâziz gave the Dardanelles Gun to Queen Victoria as a present. It became part of the Royal Armouries collection and was displayed to visitors at the Tower of London and was later moved to Fort Nelson, Hampshire, overlooking Portsmouth.

Weight and Cannon Balls
Before we go any further, I wanted to address the weight issue, and the claim of this cannons using stone balls for projectiles. We all have our general understanding of the capabilities of the 15th, 16th centuries as they pertain to the dogmatic narrative. We understand that these cannons, and cannon balls were moved "somehow". Indeed, somehow is sufficient for the contemporary history. We do not care how it was dome as long as it was done somehow. What's there to argue?

Here is how the Tsar Cannon, and replica cannon balls were being moved in the 20th century. We did not know how to move them using the "somehow" approach, so we simply chose heavy machinery to accomplish the task.


WW-I and WW-II huge cannons of comparable size and weight were getting transported using special platforms, and often utilizing the convenience of rail roads.


WWI Big Bertha Howitzer

Stone Cannon Balls
Loading a two foot in diameter stone cannon ball in the 15th century was done "somehow". Once again, we do not care how, they did it and it's all that matters.


World War I and II "Big Bertha" type rounds were transported and loaded using special mechanisms. In the 15th century the same was accomplished "somehow".

60 cm Karl-Gerät Ziu firing in Warsaw, August 1944.jpg


Let us think about the process of making these bad boys in the 15th century. If you google for stone cannon balls, you will find many uneven and some with signs of those stone cannon balls made out of some composite materials. But according to the narrative, no polymer type material existed, and even the uneven cannon balls were used for firing.

So, how much time would it take to produce one of the below cannon balls using methods attributed by the conventional historians to the 15th century? Obviously that would depend on the material used but the below ones do not look like limestone. With granite we are not talking about men hours, it's more like men weeks, and men months.
  • What prevented the cannon creators from making cannon balls using the same bronze they used to produce the cannons?
  • What if these cannons did not need any cannon balls for their originally intended purpose?

Other "Cannons"
1411 - Faule Mette


The Faule Mette was a medieval supergun of the city of Brunswick, Germany. Cast by the gunfounder Henning Bussenschutte on the central market square Kohlmarkt in 1411, it was fitted with a conically tapered muzzle which allowed the use of projectiles of varying size. Info:
  • Material: bronze
  • Weight: 19,290 pounds or 8.75 tons
  • Caliber: 0.67 - 0.7 meters or 2.198 - 2.296 feet
  • Projectile: stone ball - 710 to 933 pounds, or 322 to 423 kilograms
  • Gunpowder load: 53 to 73 pounds, or 24 to 33 kilograms
  • Range: 8,012 feet or 2,442 meters
The cast-bronze cannon was melted down in 1787 and recast to several lighter field guns, having fired only twelve times in its history. That is once every 31.3 years, on average.

1449 - Mons Meg

Mons Meg is a medieval bombard. It was built in 1449 on the orders of Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy and sent by him as a gift to James II, King of Scots in 1454. The bombard was employed in sieges until the middle of the 16th century, after which it was only fired on ceremonial occasions. On one such occasion in 1680 the barrel burst, rendering Mons Meg unusable. The gun remained in Edinburgh Castle until 1754 when, along with other unused weapons in Scotland, it was taken to the Tower of London. Sir Walter Scott and others campaigned for its return, which was effected in 1829. Mons Meg has since been restored, and is now on display within the castle. Mons Meg has a barrel diameter of 20 inches making it one of the largest cannons in the world by calibre.
  • Material: wrought-iron
  • Weight: 14,550 pounds or 6.6 tons
  • Caliber: 0.508 or 2.198 - 1.67 feet
  • Projectile: stone ball - 710 to 933 pounds, or 322 to 423 kilograms
  • Gunpowder load: 53 to 73 pounds, or 24 to 33 kilograms
  • Range: 8,012 feet or 2,442 meters
  • Sister cannon: 16.4 tons Dulle Griet
1586 - Tsar Cannon

The Tsar Cannon is a large early modern period artillery piece on display on the grounds of the Moscow Kremlin. It is a monument of Russian artillery casting art, cast in bronze in 1586 in Moscow, by the Russian master bronze caster Andrey Chokhov. Mostly of symbolic impact, it was never used in a war. However, the cannon bears traces of at least one firing. Per the Guinness Book of Records it is the largest bombard by caliber in the world, and it is a major tourist attraction in the ensemble of the Moscow Kremlin.
  • Material: bronze
  • Weight: 86,641 pounds or 39.3 tons
  • Caliber: 1.66 feet or 0.508 meters
  • Projectile: never been fired
  • Gunpowder load: unknown
  • Range: unknown
KD note: Above four cannons are just an example. This wiki link is providing a few additional ones. In reality there are way more similar type cannons which are easily googlable.


Bronze cast Ottoman bombard – Cast in the 15th–16th century – Fired shots of 1,000 lbs.jpg

Firing these Cannons
Obviously, its hard to find any data pertaining to what happens when one of these cannons gets loaded with 70 pounds of gun powder, and attempt to push out a 900 pound stone ball. Chances are, the below image is a good indicator of the consequences.


Thickness Matters?

Caliber vs. Thickness

Egypt, Ancient Rome and Gears
Wiki says, "A gear is a rotating machine part having cut teeth, or in the case of a cogwheel, inserted teeth (called cogs), which mesh with another toothed part to transmit torque. Geared devices can change the speed, torque, and direction of a power source. Gears almost always produce a change in torque, creating a mechanical advantage, through their gear ratio, and thus may be considered a simple machine. The teeth on the two meshing gears all have the same shape. Two or more meshing gears, working in a sequence, are called a gear train or a transmission. A gear can mesh with a linear toothed part, called a rack, producing translation instead of rotation."

Egyptian Museum in Cairo

The above image was taken out of the below video. According to the gentleman narrating the video, the material these gears are made out of is unknown. And the gears themselves are located at the Museum of Ancient Egypt in Cairo.

Ancient Roman Gears
Source, "This set of items consists of a genuine, not a reproduction Roman brooch that is about 1700 years old. It was obtained from a collector in United Kingdom who specializes in Roman artifacts. This cog, gear looking brooch was a symbol of Sun. When the brooch was discovered, it was missing the pin. Probably that was how the brooch was lost originally."

Gears and Cannons
Well, you've probably guessed it by now. I do think that some of the cannons were not canons at all. Could it be that they were meant to rotate?


What Were They?
Mineral Crushing Ball Mills?
Remember all those building built out of blocks, which allegedly had to travel tens, or hundreds of miles. Consider the Pyramids. What if those were indeed produced using artificial marble, granite and what not? Things had to get grinded somehow. Why not like this?

A ball mill is a type of grinder used to grind and blend materials for use in mineral dressing processes, paints, pyrotechnics, ceramics and selective laser sintering. It works on the principle of impact and attrition: size reduction is done by impact as the balls drop from near the top of the shell.
  • A ball mill consists of a hollow cylindrical shell rotating about its axis. The axis of the shell may be either horizontal or at a small angle to the horizontal. It is partially filled with balls. The grinding media is the balls, which may be made of steel, stainless steel, ceramic, or rubber. The inner surface of the cylindrical shell is usually lined with an abrasion-resistant material such as manganese steel or rubber. Less wear takes place in rubber lined mills. The length of the mill is approximately equal to its diameter.
  • The general idea behind the ball mill is an ancient one, but it was not until the industrial revolution and the invention of steam power that an effective ball milling machine could be built. It is reported to have been used for grinding flint for pottery in 1870.
Info: Ball mill - Wikipedia

Canon Balls aka Round Shots
A round shot (or solid shot, or a cannonball, or simply ball) is a solid projectile without explosive charge, fired from a cannon. As the name implies, a round shot is spherical; its diameter is slightly less than the bore of the gun from which it is fired. The cast iron cannonball was introduced by French artillery engineers after 1450 where it had the capacity to reduce traditional English castle wall fortifications to rubble. French armories would cast a tubular cannon body in a single piece and cannonballs took the shape of a sphere initially made from stone material. Advances in gunpowder manufacturing soon led the replacement of stone cannonballs with cast iron ones.

Grinding Balls
Grinding media, the objects used to refine material and reduce particle size, are available in a wide range of shapes, sizes and materials to meet an equally wide range of grinding and milling needs.

Grinding balls for grinding copper ore in a ball mill

Additional Grinding Balls

Grinding Balls

Cement Kilns
Cement kilns are used for the pyroprocessing stage of manufacture of Portland and other types of hydraulic cement, in which calcium carbonate reacts with silica-bearing minerals to form a mixture of calcium silicates. Over a billion tonnes of cement are made per year, and cement kilns are the heart of this production process: their capacity usually defines the capacity of the cement plant. As the main energy-consuming and greenhouse-gas–emitting stage of cement manufacture, improvement of kiln efficiency has been the central concern of cement manufacturing technology.







Concrete Mixers
A concrete mixer is a device that homogeneously combines cement, aggregate such as sand or gravel, and water to form concrete. A typical concrete mixer uses a revolving drum to mix the components. For smaller volume works, portable concrete mixers are often used so that the concrete can be made at the construction site, giving the workers ample time to use the concrete before it hardens. An alternative to a machine is mixing concrete by hand. This is usually done in a wheelbarrow; however, several companies have recently begun to sell modified tarps for this purpose.

KD Summary: The above is just a hypothesis, but whatever those "cannons" were, I doubt they were cannons. I think what we have is a mix of actual cannons with industrial devices. Some of the "cannons" could originally be... well, some other things. IMHO.


There are plenty of other cannons out there with weird designs. What they were really used for, remains to be determined. We are being told that those were just cannons, but were they?


Obviously I could be way off, and Project Babylon has way more merit than we think, or they are just cannons.
Sources and useful links:


New member
Large broze 'cannon' OR large bronze ball mill....
I'd say the way to tell the difference is how it is mounted to something. If it has orthogonal lugs near the center of gravity, I'd say it is a cannon or barrel of some sort for mounting to the artillery carriage. If it has potential to be turned by a larger ring gear (interlocking cogging around 'muzzle' and 'breach', then it is plausible it could be something other than a cannon.

AND WHY DID THEY MAKE such stupid-large cannon? Is it not more prudent to have a higher rate of fire than a larger yet tediously slow one to load? (and requiring special material handling machinery)

The one picture of the Dardanelles Gun shows cogging around muzzle area and rear, easily thought of as the modern cement ball mill. Good points.

HOWEVER, have you seen the stone pillars on some of those Hindoo Temples that have turned columns of fine detail? Whatever made those probably made the cannons, or whatever they are. Having monster-sized lathes is not unbelievable, what is unbelievable is how they LOADED and REMOVED the work from the lathe.

I believe we are totally lied to about what tooling the humans of yesteryear had. If we can think of it today, why could they not have thought of that THEN? One may argue that back then they did not have the creative elements to work with (working off each other's work to make better work sort of thing) like....LASERS (using light as tool or weapon), BUT, even that is silly because Archimedes invented the parabolic mirror dish to burn the Roman ships a few millennia ago, so they had the concept that light would work....see? And an internal combustion engine is just a steam powered one in basic principle: expanding gasses pushes a piston giving work. Every giant of genius came from those "ancient peoples" all our modern contrivances originate from.
Last edited:


If it has orthogonal lugs near the center of gravity, I'd say it is a cannon or barrel of some sort for mounting to the artillery carriage.
I drove a few nails in with my adjustable wrench. It did not make it a hammer. I guess what I'm trying to say is that our way of using those "cannons" could be effective, but not the originally intended one. After all, a pressure cooker makes for a productive shrapnel bomb, but it's still a pressure cooker.


Giant grinding mortars from Natufian Culture. WikiCommons
Here we have cogging and orthogonal lugs. Clearly very similar to the Dardanelles Gun. Anyone wants to speak up for the recoil on this thing, if it was indeed a mortar-cannon?


It's highly possible, that we do not have a single original carriage to go with any of those 15th, 16th century cannons or mortars. Sounds like we only have replicas. The question is why the carriages did not survive, if that is indeed the case. What if they had none to start with?




17th century Venetian cannon (left) and mortar (right), in the castle of Nauplion. Notice how much shorter and wider the mortar’s barrel is. A lion, the symbol of Venice, and the date of manufacture can easily be made out on the mortar. Source: he Parthenon was NOT destroyed by cannon fire


KD: Did they just drop them there to create an impression?
Sure we have images describing how to use these. In theory looks great, but how effective were they in reality in the 15th-16th centuries? It's not our today's mortar technology, or not even the Civil War time one for that matter.


And then we have this video. They sure did hit some stacked bricks from 50 yards away. Amazing what nonsense our historians spread around.
  • I did not quite understood the guy there, did they build a replica, or they fired an existing one? It looks too small when he loads it, almost tiny when compared to the Dardanelles Gun they talk about earlier in the video.
60 oxen transported the cannon. I wonder what kind of carriage they used for a 15 ton cannon.


Wooden Cannons
Wooden cannons have been manufactured and used in wars in many countries. The wooden parts were invariably strengthened with metal fittings or even rope.

1867 Vietnamese Cannon

No clue what they used for gun powder, but that had to be some powerful tree trunk.


Disk Cannons?


New member
Very well put together. Another thread was talking about the lack of bathrooms in castles and that they may have used human excrement to create power. Maybe to turn these gears???


New member
I drove a few nails in with my adjustable wrench. It did not make it a hammer. I guess what I'm trying to say is that our way of using those "cannons" could be effective, but not the originally intended one. After all, a pressure cooker makes for a productive shrapnel bomb, but it's still a pressure cooker.
True, but because you have already used a hammer, you know the principle of it, and misapplied that to another tool that uses a different principle: turning a nut on a threaded rod. Notice how you did not say that you used your hammer as a adjustable wrench? Why is that? Could it be that it goes one way but not the other when you combine certain principles (or 'elements' to be universally general) in reverse order?

I still think if it has orthogonal lugging that is has to be cannon. (cannon= a tube with only one open end you stuff propellant and a projectile down then ignite) IF it were a ball mill--and I think you are spot on with that provided other elements are in play--then the orthogonal lugging would get in the way of affixing it to the rest of the machine, OR, perhaps the lugs are there to pour out what is inside? That is ridiculous since just the device is TONS, PLUS whatever grinding ball media inside PLUS the work being pulverized would fall all over everything and no sorting or sizing of material would occur.

Perhaps the ring gear cogging on some of those cannons are merly decorative. I know that sound idiotic, but just remember that those old-world folks put decoration on nearly everything. The last period for that extravagance was the GILDED AGE. Now we live in simplistic boring minimalistic architecture. Different spirit of the times...but something to keep in the back of the mind.

If we can discern elements and know their effects, then perhaps using that reasoning one can reverse engineer the idea of what the thing was purposed for. For instance, your objection with the lugging. Fair enough, but what about how to affix it to the rest of the machine, since a ball mill is more than just a cannon tube, the ball mill is just one part of a greater industrial machine. Look back at all those pics of ball mills, what do you see?
1. They are LONG, cylindrical, made of metal, and have openings on both ends
2. They have a FALL to them (one side higher than other when mounted
3. They take FUEL to heat the interior
4. They TURN using ring gearing on the ends, or some contraption to achieve same purpose
5. They must have infrastructure to get the material (work) inside the ball mill. Get to thinking: conveyors, dump buckets, rail, wagon and ox, whatever...
6. Because of 5, any natural resources where these things were allegedly made? It makes sense to put your facilities as close as possible to where raw materials are derived from. Observe concrete plants (not portables), how close are they to quarries? Every one I know of is within 10 miles of a quarry. That 10 miles would be much less in an era where it was not carried by diesel trucks.
7. Ball mills must be made of abrasive resistant metal
8. Ball mills must have some way to remove the processed material from other end. (every pic you show of these cannons have one end closed.)
9. Ball mills are INDUSTRIAL TOOLS, more than likely plain without undue ornamentation. (may not be the case with art-happy artisans who scribble filigree and carvings over every surface)

1. They can be any length, could be cylindrical, made of metal OR wood with metal hooping, and have only one opening. (touch hole is insignificant for anything other than a spark so it doesnt count as an 'opening')
2. They have support members built into them for a carriage or other artillery furniture such as wheels, bases, etc.
3. Take propellant and have sized projectiles that fit down the bore
4. Are designed to be moved even if moving a monstrously heavy tube is a PITA.
5. Environment and natural resource locations are irrelevant to cannon.
6. Can be made of anything that can withstand the brizzance force of the propellant.
7. Cannon, being weapons, are often decorated and spiffied up, when you speak on huge cannon, it is a matter of STATE and prestige, of course more ornamentation will be present.

So that is my thinking and sorting out of this. Lugs on a ball mill make no sense since they would interfere with its designed purposes. A ball mill is not lifted and dumped, the fall and media scoot the work down until it is pulverized to the point of falling through a sieve. Also keep in mind that some form of chutes (and way to attach them so they do not move about) needs to be at the bottom to catch finished materials. And what of fuel? We use gas fuels that heat the core of the ball mill to drive out moisture and chemically alter the minerals. What did they use to fire their ball mills?

Some cannon do not have lugs either. Like mortars. They just sit in a divet in the ground facing skyward. But those could never even be mistaken for a ball mill.

Dog gone it, Korban. You made me think too long on this topic so early in the AM! lol


Well-known member
I like the idea they may have been something rotational. I don't see ball mill though. Bronze isn't tough enough to hold up, I don't think. Also, I think it would be apparent to anyone who closely examined the thing. It still seems the vast majority of these, while having some odd features, also have features designed and required so as to load and fire these things. I don't think all or even most were meant to fire a single shot the same size as the barrel. It's not like modern guns, where the projectile will not fit down the barrel. Many guns of that time, if you aim downward, the projectile will fall right out. They didn't have the powder to get high enough pressure, not the materials to withstand it.

Wouldn't stop me, if I were in charge of the gun, from making, or having made a few full size balls to keep nearby. As an optical deterrent, and if I knew I was only going to get one last shot before being overrun, I'd use the big one most likely to do massive damage and probably destroy the gun in the process.


Well-known member
Allow me to add a slightly different perspective to these rather strange devices....

Let me introduce Wilhelm Reich

In 1951, Reich said he had discovered another energy that he called deadly orgone radiation (DOR), accumulations of which played a role in desertification. He designed a "cloudbuster", rows of 15-foot aluminium pipes mounted on a mobile platform, connected to cables that were inserted into water. He believed that it could unblock orgone energy in the atmosphere and cause rain. Turner described it as an "orgone box turned inside out".[144]

He conducted dozens of experiments with the cloudbuster, calling his research "Cosmic Orgone Engineering". During a drought in 1953, two farmers in Maine offered to pay him if he could make it rain to save their blueberry crop. Reich used the cloudbuster on the morning of 6 July, and according to Bangor's Daily News—based on an account from an anonymous eyewitness who was probably Peter Reich—rain began to fall that evening. The crop survived, the farmers declared themselves satisfied, and Reich received his fee.[145][n 9]

cloud buster.jpg cloudbuster-wilhelm-reich-1920x1482.jpg img05_26.gif

If nothing else, it stands to reason that these may still be cannons, but not for launching physical projectiles. Manipulation of weather or plasma comes to mind. Perhaps these devices are tangentially responsible for some of the unexplained city wide fires we are constantly seeing?

Really just brainstorming here, but there might be some precedent for these still being weapons of some sort.


Well-known member
Allow me to add a slightly different perspective to these rather strange devices....

Let me introduce Wilhelm Reich

View attachment 14336

View attachment 14334 View attachment 14335 View attachment 14337

If nothing else, it stands to reason that these may still be cannons, but not for launching physical projectiles. Manipulation of weather or plasma comes to mind. Perhaps these devices are tangentially responsible for some of the unexplained city wide fires we are constantly seeing?

Really just brainstorming here, but there might be some precedent for these still being weapons of some sort.
I like this train of thought. I think our technological progress has been carefully managed. I still don't see any smoking gun of greater tech in the record. Pneumatic trains and electrics cars, and all manner of projects that died on the vine though. Something was surely going on, but I don't think it greatly affected our managed progression, as far as what was being practically used and available in the marketplace.

It's something like this, a novel concept, that could shed new light on old devices. Short of thorough metallurgical testing, I just see too much plausible deniability otherwise.


Well-known member
I think the they are all canons for shooting projectiles but the larger the canon the more for sport and engineering entertainment they were. They would have also been useful for impressing diplomats and projecting power cost effectively. For entertainment and impressing diplomats they would have stayed close to home so no need to figure out how to move them large distances. Metal armor of the middle ages looks often extremely unsuited for battle so probably was just an artistic pursuit and competition between metal smiths.

We buy canons like these nowadays for a seriously downsized thrill. This one only fires blanks - C.G. Saluting Cannon Teak Carriage Unit

Minoan labrys giant two sided axes used for ceremonial purposes like many giant canons which may have fired a few times but stayed local away from any battles. It takes a year to make a Macy's Thanksgiving day parade float. Waiting 5 years to build a giant canon to fire one shot and maybe a blank at that is easy to imagine.


New member
Don’t have time to reply to everything but here is a visual similarity.
Yes, but that barrel/cannon is not so pretty, no ornamentation, no engraving. Eesh, the dumb thing ain't even painted! See how far we slid down the hill into boring utilitarianism? lol

There's no lugs, either. Does the flange on the bottom bolt up to a breech somewhere? Where is the rest of this thing at? Just a barrel a cannon does not make....

AHA!!!! MAYBE PERHAPS...those gear like cogging on the ends of the Dardanelle cannon are to put the two sections together, imagine a giant spanner wrench to tighten the two parts together....?


Minoan labrys giant two sided axes used for ceremonial purposes like many giant canons which may have fired a few times but stayed local away from any battles. It takes a year to make a Macy's Thanksgiving day parade float. Waiting 5 years to build a giant canon to fire one shot and maybe a blank at that is easy to imagine.
I will probably give a full answer in this thread after the 15th of January. I'm in the middle of a home project right now. As far as ceremonial axes go, we only see what we choose to see.



Active member
Totally with KD with his train of thought. Some of those guns are clearly not guns at all. And some of those guns could not shoot a 900 lbs ball, the physics of the guns cant take the recoil.

But they could shoot something much lighter and that size. (Think potato gun we made as kids).

What if they were cannons but they didnt shoot stone or iron balls that weighted a ton? What if they used hollow spheres full of sulfur, napalm, black goo or whatever nasty the local alchemists had experimented with, even hallusinogenics? Americans tried that in '50's in France and Japanese in China during WW2. CIA designed a "homo-bomb" and the Vatican designed Islam bomb. My point is that throwing or even shooting rocks is very primitive way to destroy an enemy when you have such geniuses occupying Vatican and other power houses. I think that the ways the ruling elite have been torturing, manipulating and killing the enemy have been and still today is so cruel and horrifying that an average authority believing brainwashed human mind can not comprehend it, thus "it was the aliens" type of thinking. For them its very easy to make up any kind of bed time story because the real picture is way too horrifying as part of the reality.

Think Sodom and Gomorrah story, and how the fire came from the sky and turned people into salt. Was it really an act of god or an act of an enemy fire?


Similar threads