Bit of Trivia...

**chrisso** · 18th September 2008, 15:00

CANNON BALLS !!!

It was necessary to keep a good supply of cannon balls near the cannon on old war ships. But how to prevent them from rolling about the deck was the problem. The best storage method devised was to stack them as a square based pyramid, with one ball on top, resting on four, resting on nine, which rested on sixteen.

Thus, a supply of 30 cannon balls could be stacked in a small area right next to the cannon. There was only one problem -- how to prevent the bottom layer from sliding/rolling from under the others.

The solution was a metal plate with 16 round indentations, called, for reasons unknown, a Monkey. But if this plate were made of iron, the iron balls would quickly rust to it. The solution to the rusting problem was to make them of brass - hence, Brass Monkeys.

Few landlubbers realize that brass contracts much more and much faster than iron when chilled. Consequently, when the temperature dropped too far, the brass indentations would shrink so much that the iron cannon balls would come right off the monkey.

Thus, it was quite literally, cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey. And all this time, you thought that was just a vulgar expression, didn't you? You must send this fabulous bit of historical knowledge to at least a few uneducated friends.

**slofox** · 18th September 2008, 15:43

Originally Posted by chrisso

And all this time, you thought that was just a vulgar expression, didn't you? You must send this fabulous bit of historical knowledge to at least a few uneducated friends.

Nah I didn't - me mate Cap'n Jim told me that an' it must be true coz he wuz inna navy eh?

**maybe** · 18th September 2008, 21:47

Always wondered where the saying came from

**raftn** · 23rd September 2008, 16:26

you learn some thing new every day!

**Bullitt** · 23rd September 2008, 18:56

Sounds almost feasible but Id imagine a piece of brass big enough to do that with would have been rather expensive. Why not just have something along the lines of 4 pieces of wood to make a square...far lighter/easier to make/cheaper/more reliable.

Any sources to back this up?

**FJRider** · 23rd September 2008, 19:04

Originally Posted by Bullitt

Sounds almost feasible but Id imagine a piece of brass big enough to do that with would have been rather expensive. Why not just have something along the lines of 4 pieces of wood to make a square...far lighter/easier to make/cheaper/more reliable.

Any sources to back this up?

Tanilised timber did not exist then...Hardwood frames took up to much space on deck... and Brass was a little cheaper then...

Ask the organisers of "The Brass Monkey Motorcycle Rally"...

**Bullitt** · 23rd September 2008, 20:47

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

One theory, of sufficient popularity as to be an example of so-called folk etymology, is that a brass monkey is a brass tray used in naval ships during the Napoleonic Wars, for the storage of cannonballs, piled up in a pyramid. The theory goes that the tray would contract in cold weather, causing the balls to fall off. This theory is discredited by the US. Department of the Navy and the etymologist Michael Quinion and the OED's AskOxford website for five main reasons:

1. The Oxford English Dictionary does not record the term "monkey" or "brass monkey" being used in this way.
2. The purported method of storage of cannonballs ("round shot") is simply false. Shot was not stored on deck continuously on the off-chance that the ship might go into battle. Indeed, decks were kept as clear as possible.
3. Furthermore, such a method of storage would result in shot rolling around on deck and causing a hazard in high seas. Shot was stored on the gun or spar decks, in shot racks—longitudinal wooden planks with holes bored into them, known as shot garlands in the Royal Navy, into which round shot were inserted for ready use by the gun crew.
4. Shot was not left exposed to the elements where it could rust. Such rust could lead to the ball not flying true. Indeed, gunners would attempt to remove as many imperfections as possible from the surfaces of balls.
5. The physics do not stand up to scrutiny. All of the balls would contract equally, and the contraction of both balls and plate over the range of temperatures involved would not be particularly large. The effect claimed possibly could be reproduced under laboratory conditions with objects engineered to a high precision for this purpose, but it is unlikely it would ever have occurred in real life aboard a warship.

10 characters