Proposal On studying and Analysis of cause of failures of

“Sebastopol” mortar that commissioned by Emperor Tewodros II

by

Molla Derbew
&
Muleta Aregaw

Department of Mechanical Engineering

faculty of Technology
DEBRE TABOR UNIVERSITY
June 2019

1
 1. Motivation
1. This is evident in one of his letters: “I am sending Mr. Flad to Europe. I am seeking skilled
artisans. I shall gladly receive all artisans who come to me. If they stay, I shall ensure that
they live happily. If they wish to return to their country, once they have taught their skills,
I shall pay their salary and let them leave happy and with an escort [2].
2. . “…For him, it means taking western technology “not in the original form but with
modifications to fit local needs…” [2].

3. As a result, in a letter to the British commander, Robert Napier, Tewodros attributed the
defeat of his army to the ineffectiveness of his mortars: “Believing myself to be a great
lord, I give you battle; but by reason of the worthlessness of my artillery, all my pains were
as nought” [2].
4. It is obviously known that the motive of the emperor to manufacture the cannon at home
was to defend Ethiopia’s independence from foreign aggressions and to introduce modern
technology to the country [3].
5. Debre Tabor University has Historical Duty To Answer Tewodros’s Quest of Knowledge

i
Table of Contents
1. Motivation.............................................................................................................................................. i
2. Abstract ................................................................................................................................................ iii
3. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
4. Statement of problems ......................................................................................................................... 4
5. Objective ............................................................................................................................................... 4
5.1 Specific objective .......................................................................................................................... 4
6. Methods of Implementing .................................................................................................................... 4
7. Work plan .............................................................................................................................................. 1
8. Budget and breakdowns ....................................................................................................................... 1
8.1 Equipment and related item expenses ......................................................................................... 1
8.2 Experimental expenses ................................................................................................................. 1
8.3 Labor and other personal expenses.............................................................................................. 1
8.4 Summary of all expenses .............................................................................................................. 2
9. Reference .............................................................................................................................................. 3

ii
 2. Abstract
The function of the engineering profession is to manipulate materials, energy, and information,
thereby creating benefit for humankind. To do this successfully, engineers must have a knowledge
of nature that goes beyond mere theory knowledge that is traditionally gained in educational
laboratories. One hundred and sixty years ago, a minor chief from Quara came to the foreground
of the Ethiopian political stage after out-braving the major regional rulers in a series of battles that
culminated in his coronation as Emperor of Ethiopia. That was Tewodros II (1855 to 1868), who
introduce European technology to Ethiopia so as to put the country on an equal footing with
European powers. At that time Gafat was a busy village. It was there that Emperor Tewodros set
up his foundry to produce modern arms, even the objective condition of the country at the time did
not allow the realization of Tewodros’s dreams and his request was ignored by the British
government. Gafat did witness the production of many mortars including the largest one named
“Sebastopol.” In a trial-run, some balls were fired and they produced reverberating sounds) and,
the initial success only was served as an inducement to make unflagging demands for the
manufacture of bigger mortars. It is highly unfortunate that, despite all these efforts, the mortars
and cannons could not bring about the desired effect on the British expeditionary force and
Tewodros was attributed that, the defeat of his army to the ineffectiveness of his mortars. The aim
of this paper is to cultivate the answers for why that technology failed to take root in Ethiopia using
21th century scientific languages.

iii
 3. Introduction
The mortar is perhaps the oldest surviving ordnance piece developed during the Middle Ages. The
earliest known forerunner to the mortar, introduced by Spanish Muslims about ad 1250, was
essentially an iron-reinforced bucket that hurled stones with gunpowder. These weapons were
distinctly short-barreled and featured high-trajectory firing to hurl/throw a load of small stones
over enemy walls. Early wrought-iron cannons from the late 13th century were relatively short-
barreled and unreliable. The iron was banded and welded by parts and thus was potentially weak.
With spherically chiseled/shaped/molded stone for shot, the cannons were prone/disposed to
bursting under explosive pressure. The alloy bronze was more expensive but it could be cast as a
single item, like a bell, and thus it became the material of choice for ordnance pieces.

By 1750, there was a good deal of standardization, with mortar bores usually sized at 4.25, 5.5, 8,
10, and 13 inches. Large-caliber field mortars were also used, but they had to be portable enough
to use on siege trains. Even in the wilderness of the New World, during the French and Indian
War, large ordnance such as 18-inch mortars was used for laying siege to French and English
colonies accessible by sea, lake, or river navigation. By the early 19th century, effective iron
casting of ordnance on a wide scale was finally applied to mortar design. (With more potent
gunpowder in use, only iron could effectively support the biggest bore mortars.) In 1832, French
arms inventor Henri-Joseph Paixhans cast a 36-inch-bore “Monster Mortar” that was used
effectively in the French siege of Antwerp. In 1857, the Woolwich Arsenal in London came up
with the more elegantly named Mallet’s Mortar, which also used a 36-inch bore but followed the
general European trend of rifling mortars for greater and more accurate range.

While all over the world had engaged by manufacturing the famous military weapons, Emperor
Tewodros II was forced himself by asked the people of Gafat to make handicrafts rather than
simply preach the gospel. And I a question to Waldmeier, Tewodros stated “you Europeans are
wise, but you are hiding your skill, I need to make me a large cannon, mortars, and bomb-shells”.
The Europeans however initially raised objections. They gave false information as to their
abilities, but the Emperor forced them to try their best [5]. As a result, Sebastopol was cast on 21
September 1867 at Gafat which is the first industrial village in the land of Africa. It is the place

1
where the light of industrial civilization was ‘thrown the beam of light’. The mortar weighed
approximately 6.7 tons, and was capable of firing off half-ton artillery rounds.

During the production processes, both Ethiopians and foreigners participated. The Ethiopians had
knowledge of blacksmithing, and various other skills and gifts and were thus selected from various
parts of Ethiopia. This was in addition to the local people who lived at Gafat, and who conducted
training with the missionaries. On this basis, they obtained a chance to gain experience on
manufacturing cannons and other armaments. war pieces of equipment. The Europeans prepared a
blast furnace which was made of clay, a mixture of sand and soil. After several failed attempts the
eventually made the blast furnace. Firstly, he prepared a wooden cannon, which was covered with
iron, at Chewdiba or Sawdiba, to fight against Ras Ali. Besides this, at the appropriate time, while
he was in Gafat, Emperor Tewedros produced one large cannon and fifteen small cannons, through
managing various technicalities. The name of the large cannon was Sevastopol and it was very
large in size and there was no cannon in Ethiopia comparable to it [5]. In the words of Richard
Pankhurst “Tewodros established himself at Magdala which was a natural mountain fortress and
hence an ideal place for the warrior Emperor’s camp.” Bahru (2002: 34) also describes “…was
established with 15 cannons,7 mortars, 11063 rifles, of different types, 875 pistols and 481
bayones, as well as ammunition including 555 cannon shells and mortar shells and 83,563
bullets…” [3].

Regarding the raw material used for the manufacture of the cannon, it is stated that “brass was
collected from all parts of the country to be melted down together with 30 vases from Maqdala‟.
Some argue that Tewodros used metallic materials looted from churches and monasteries [3].

However, those arguments are shown as, regarding to the materials for mortar made up and its
cause of failures was not stated with a reasonable manner. Even it was not scientific conclusion
instead of put the historical guess by simply paid a personal visit and make an observation over
the place that the Sebastopol commissioned. According to [2] Wald Meier concluded as why the
mortars failed to deter the British troops:

i. One of the artilleries had no ball,

ii. the second had run out of powder,
iii. the third had lost its slow match,

2
 iv. the fourth had in the rush pushed down the ball first into the bore and then the powder
and was now unable to get the shot out again”.

And in the words of Christopher Claphan “…they left it at the point where they could drag it no
further. It was never fired – it was, indeed, militarily entirely useless – and the British force took
Magdala with ease. The defeated Tewodros committed suicide in the ruins of his citadel,” [4].
However, to see in working principle aspects, the following will happens when the shell has
dropped into the tube of mortal:

1. the shell exerts pressure on the air already in the tube.

2. The air tries to exit the tube, which it only can around the shell. Because the shell has
almost the same diameter as the tube, this process takes some time. That is a good
thing, because it allows to duck for cover.
3. When the shell reaches the bottom of the tube, the nail pierces the shell and ignites the
propellant (through a chemical reaction, which additionally delays the explosion)
4. The propellant expands rapidly/explodes inside the barrel. There is only one way out of
the tube for all the pressurized gas. The shell is in the way.
This implies that during mortar launch cycle the variation of the mechanical stress and deformation
across the shell can happened at three positions. And the pressure force presses the breech piece
towards the base plate and the ground [6]. This phenomenon, can lead do mal-functionality of
mortars in their firing systems. Therefore, studying and development of scientific justifications for
causes of failures of Sevastopol during its operation time is necessary, in fact DTU has historical
duty to answer Tewodros’s quest of knowledge.

3
 4. Statement of problems
As it have observed, most of research as well as articles arguments on causes of failures of
Tewodros’s Sevastopol, materials that has made up of and its design perspective have not scientific
ground. Therefore, this paper is aimed to provide the exact reasons of failures for Sevastopol by
the help of technical and experimental methods.

5. Objective
The main objectives of this work is to study and Analyze the cause of failure of “Sebastopol”
mortar that commissioned by Emperor Tewodros II

5.1 Specific objective

The specific objective this paper is:
 To gather data as primarily and secondary data.
 To design the Sebastopol mortar based on the collected data.
 To perform a failure analysis on the mortar using modelling and Analysis software
integrating with Experimental Tasks.
 To analyze the effect of the material properties and manufacturing process on the
failure of Sebastopol mortar basically using experimental Analysis.
 To compare the mechanism with other old and modern mortars.
 To put the research findings to answer the historical Questions that were arise on
causes of failures of Sebastopol.

6. Methods of Implementing
The first step to achieve the asserted objectives is to surveying historical place depending on
finding of the real products, their material compositions, having geometrical dimensions, and,
futures of the mortars. After gathering those data, the design and analysis process will be
performed by the help of Mechanical software’s(i.e. CATIA 15-for Modelling and ANSYS –
for Analysis) and Experimental Works on material properties and demonstration of firing
system. Finally, submission and present the findings of the research and great commitment will
make in ordered to keep moving towards our goal …which is also goal of our university (Debre
Tabor University)! The detail methodology of this research work is presented as shown below.

4
 Deskwork

Collect data

Primary data Secondary data

Organize the
collected data

Design and analysis

Analyze the result

Interpretation of the
result

Documentation

Fig Detail Methodology

5
 7. Work plan

Year 1
No. Task November- January - March - May - July -
October
December February April June August

1 Deskwork

Preparation and
scheduling of
2
data collection
activities
3 Data collection
Organize the collected
4
data
5 Design and analysis

6 Analyze the result

Interpretation of the
7
result
8 Report writing

1
 8. Budget and breakdowns
8.1 Equipment and related item expenses
Total
Unit cost
No. Cost description Unit Quantity cost Remark
(birr)
(birr)
Paper Pck 4 200 800
For data collecting and
1 Stationary Pen &
Pck 1 300 300 making drawings
pencil
External hard disk For large size data
2 Pcs 1 3500 3500
(500GB) backup
Analysis software’s
3 RAM (2GB) Pcs 1 4000 4000 require large amount of
RAM space
To measure the mortar
4 Meter Pcs 2 700 1400 size and other important
dimensions
Can be used at the time
5 Umbrella Pcs 10 250 2500
of data collecting

6 Camera Pcs 2 15,000 30,000

7 Drawing instruments Kit 1 3000 3000

Sub-total –A (birr) 45,500

8.2 Experimental expenses

Unit Total
No. Cost description Unit Quantity cost cost Remark
(birr) (birr)
The total cost is
Experiment for
1 __ __ __ 40000 depends on the number
Material testing
of experiments.
Experiment for fire
2 __ __ __ 100000
demonstration
Two site for Firing
Lab
demonstration and
3 technician(Bishoftu, No 4 5000 20,000
Material properties
Addis Ababa)
testing
Sub-total –B (birr) 160,000

1
 8.3 Labor and other personal expenses
Unit Total
No. Cost description Unit Quantity cost cost Remark
(birr) (birr)
No. Rental pick
Traditional 20 500 10,000 up cars,
Field days
1 normal and
transportation Rent No. 10 1200 12,000
Vehicles traditional
normal days 20 600 12,000 transportation
Per diem for data collectors
(Mekdela, Gafat,Debre
10
2 tabor,Bishoftu, Addis Abeba, 20 days 200 40,000 For six sites
persons
Bahir Dar and Gondor Tourism
and Heritage office)
Per diem for investigators 2
3 30 days 500 30,000 For two sites
(Mekdela and Gafat, Debre tabor) persons
4-
4 Per diem for general mechanic 10 days 400 16,000
persons

Sub-total –C (birr) 120,000

8.4 Summary of all expenses

Sub-total –A (birr) 45,500

Sub-total –B (birr) 160,000

Sub-total –C (birr) 120,000

Total (Birr) 325,000

2
 9. Reference
[1] Toby Berger Holtz, The Hall Family and Ethiopia a Century of Involvement: In:
Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, ed. by Svein Ege,
Harald Aspen, Birhanu Tefera and Shiferaw Bekele, Trondheim 2009
[2] Fantahun Ayele, Revisiting history of Gafat: Was emperor Tewodros’s military reform an
attempt at “translative adaptation” of western technology? African Journal of History
and Culture Vol. 8(4), pp. 25-29, October 2016
[3] Bantalem Tadesse, Manufacturing Emperor Tewodros’s cannon at Gafat. Ethiopian e-
journal for research and innovation foresight, Vol 7, no 1, (2015): pp (66 -87)
[4] Christopher Clapham, Ethiopian Development: The Politics of Emulation. Centre of
African Studies, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, Commonwealth &
Comparative Politics Vol. 44, No. 1, 108–118, March 2006
[5] Ertiban Demewoz, Investigating the tourism potential of Gafat industrial village: South
Gondar Administrative Zone, North Western Ethiopia. African Journal of Hospitality,
Tourism and Leisure, Volume 7 (4) - (2018) ISSN: 2223-814X
[6] Yohannes Asfaw, Structural Design and Analysis of an Existing Aerodynamically
Optimized Mortar Shell, Department of Mechanical Engineering Addis Ababa University
Jan, 2008