Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Matchlock
David,
I cannot but point out the well known fact all Oriental guns were built after North European specimens the shapes and features of which kept retaining their old style almost unchanged for hundreds of years. As German portable guns were quite short I can see little logic in the thesis that Turkish copies should have been about double that length.
Best,
Michael
|
Hi Michael,
I cannot find references to support this......
The Janissary corps of the Ottoman army were using matchlock muskets as early as the 1440s.[190] The first dated illustration of a matchlock mechanism in Europe dates to 1475.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventi...medieval_Islam
Secondly it is well know that the Ottomans imported vast numbers of European made matchlock arquebuses .....I am sure that ottoman gunsmiths copied some of these.....but generally the reason they look German is ...in all likelihood they are German.
Thirdly, Ottoman metallurgy was well advanced and could produce better, stronger barrels..................so why produce 'copied' average barrel dimensions ...when you can increase the length, gaining improved accuracy, range and muzzle velocity.
“….Ottoman musket barrels were stronger and more reliable than European ones because Ottoman gun-makers used flat sheets of steel-similar to that of Damascus blades-which was coiled into a spiral. This method produced great strength in the barrel that could withstand higher explosive pressure…”
Arnold Pacey Technology in World Civilization: a thousand year History
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Matchlock
Still facts (defined as both actually surviving dated guns or closely datable sources of illustration) are all that matters to me. So I attach some scenes from a series of Brussels tapestries which I posted here earlier. They were made after watercolors painted 'live' during the Tunis campaign of the Emperor Charles V in 1535, and clearly depict snap tinder lock and matchlock arquebuses used by arquebusiers of both Charles V's forces and their North African colleagues.
While the 'modern' European guns are noticeably shorter and stouter (ca. 90 - 100 cm) those of the Turks still reflect a somewhat mor archaic German style. I do admit that the Turkish guns are a bit more delicate and also somewhat longer (ca. 120 cm overall I should say). The reason for this is doubtlessly that they were still copied after the German obsolete style of the 1520's.
,
Michael
|
Michael you say that 'surviving dated guns' are all that matter to you.....so why do you choose to ignore this possibility stated in my previous post
Robert Elgood states in "Firearms of the Islamic world in the Tareq Rajab Museum, Kuwait" that......
"....There is
a fine 16th Century Turkish matchlock barrel (with a rear peepsight and a grooved foresight, round at the breech with a tulip-shaped muzzle)
in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, which has been mounted by a French gunsmith on a wheellock arquebus from the Royal Cabinet of Arms of Louis XIII (Inventory number 3) The length of the barrel is
58 inches and may be compared with that of
No. 3 in the Tareq Rajab Museum
The art work is great.....but it would be difficult to use as factual evidence. 'Artistic licence' springs to mind. However, lets assume that the picture is accurate in all detail (dimensions etc) .....what does it prove.....it shows Turks using similarly sized arquebus, but this fact is already known ....the bulk of the Ottoman army were issued with these imported European guns
The battle scene depicts both factions very close to each other, the shorter barrelled arquebus would be better suited to this situation....long range accuracy is unnecessary and reloading in a crowded position would be severely hampered with a long barrel and the long ramrod ....the shorter version would be much easier.
It is strange that a horseman (in one of the illustrations) would ride into a close proximity battle with a loaded arquebus, once (possibly inaccurately ?)fired he would have little chance of re-loading ....unable to draw his sword (unless he discarded the gun) he would presumably have to use it as a club. I can only assume that the artist was 'lucky' enough to see such a foolhardy action and painted it ..... or it is evidence of 'artistic licence'
( Also, if everything is true to scale, the horseman's sword is quite .....small ...and quite uncharacteristic ...the Ottomans used the Kilic a curved sabre (especially from horseback) the infantry used the Yataghan (yatağan) from the second half of the 16th century onwards.)
Interesting that you assume such accuracy from the tapestry regarding the firearms .....when the swords, it seems are portrayed inaccurately.
I mentioned before the arquebusier Balbi whom describes the Turkish muskets as “nine palms long”. Why give such a name to an arquebus that is slightly longer, why catergorise an item unless it is significantly different ???
Francisco Balbi di Correggio (1505 - 1589) born in Correggio in the province of Province of Reggio Emilia, Italy was an arquebusier who served with the Spanish contingent during the Siege of Malta. Little is known about him other than that he maintained a journal throughout the siege, which he afterwards published.
Balbi's is the best-known eyewitness account of the siege (there is at least one other, in the form of a long poem by the knight Hipolito Sans), and all subsequent histories rely heavily upon it, including that of Giacomo Bosio, the official historian of the Knights of St. John, whose massive account first appeared in 1588.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis...i_di_Correggio
I believe that the 9 palm musket would have been a specialist weapon, mainly used at the start of a battle because of its long range and accuracy, to hit strategic targets (officers, cannon crews etc) The Musket’s barrel length gives it better penetration, accuracy, and less recoil (which also affects accuracy). However, it’s weight and length would make it difficult to aim at quickly moving targets.
"....By the early 16th century, the Janissaries were equipped with and were skilled with muskets.Nicolle, p.36. In particular, they used a massive 'trench gun', firing an ball, which was "feared by their enemies".
Below is an illustration reportedly from a 14th C work written by Jiao Yu,14th century Ming Military leader.
Notice the length of the muskets.....as long as each man is tall ( 5 foot +) or perhaps the muskets are around 130 cms and the men illustrated are pygmies..............or perhaps it's a case of 'artistic licence'.
Michael, if you can provide factual references that prove that the Ottomans did not have such a large musket in their arsenal. Please post it. If you are saying that Elgood is mistaken regarding the Turkish barrel in the Victorian and Albert museum, please explain why?
Regards David