Mr. Cornwell: I've been reading your books for years, and always enjoy them. Often I learn something from your exhaustive research, and often you bring up interesting questions. Early in your book "Heretic", you refer to the stone missiles fired from early cannon. This is the first I've heard of such an idea. If they were stone missiles shaped into a ball, surely it would be easier to cast cannon balls, since they could cast the cannon? You later mention the "bolts" used against the castle,and describe how the barrel of the cannon is packed with other material, to ensure the force of the powder is not wasted. Interesting idea ... would they not have to do the same thing with stone missiles, and if so, we are back to the shaping of the missiles again. Care to elaborate? Glad you didn't fall into the same trap that Michael Crichton did, in his book "Timeline" - where he first mentions a "breech loading cannon (in the Middle Ages!) being dragged across a field whereupon it was "loaded from the muzzle". Michael didn't see fit to comment on this unusual situation. I hope you'll reincarnate Thomas of Hookton yet again ... Mike Goldstein
They did do the same thing with stone missiles - and I think the reason they used stone is that casting techniques were still very uncertain - and hugely expensive - whereas stone is cheap! The first cast cannon (as against hoop bound barrels) were cast by bellfounders, and it's not for a long time that iron is used. Those early cannon were very primitive and took an age to load (mainly because of the need to pack them with loam).