Seven Palm Musket

[katana]

Hi Fernando ,
there are differing definitions.....


palm [1]
a traditional unit of distance equal to the width of a person's palm. The palm equals 4 digits or 1/6 cubit, which is about 3 inches or 7.5 centimeters. This unit was used very commonly in medieval and early modern Britain. Similar units, all equal to 1/4 the local "foot" unit, were used throughout northern Europe.
palm [2]
a traditional unit of distance equal to the length of a person's hand, from the wrist to the end of the middle finger. In the English system this unit is equal to 9 inches (22.86 centimeters) and is usually called a span. The confusion between the two palm units is ancient. In Roman times, the longer unit was known as the palmus major and the shorter one as the palmus minor. In the nineteenth century, the 3-inch version was more common in Britain and the 9-inch version was more common in the U.S., perhaps because some Americans were familiar with the comparable Spanish palmo (see below).
palm [3]
a name sometimes used in Dutch for the decimeter (10 centimeters, or about 3.937 inches).
palmo a traditional unit of distance in Spain and Portugal. The traditional Spanish palmo equals 9 pulgadas (see below) or 1/4 vara: this is about 20.9 centimeters in Spain and a little more than that in Spanish Latin America. In Texas, 1/4 vara comes to 8 1/3 inches (21.17 centimeters). Under the metric system in Spain, the palmo is an informal unit equal to 20 centimeters. The Portuguese palmo equals 0.1 braça or about 22.0 centimeters (8.66 inches). These units are based on the width of a person's outstretched hand, from the tip of the thumb to the tip of the little finger, a definition identical to that of the English span.

All the best

[Matchlock]

Hi David,

Thank you for these differentiations.

I fully agree as your definitions nos. 1 and 3 would lead to a measure between ca. 7.5 and 10 cm which is exactly within the span I pleaded for because when multiplied by factors 7 or 9 respectively, it corresponds very closely to the average overall length of a mid 16th century wheel lock gun, may it be called either an arquebus, pistol, carbine or a long gun.


For an impression of proportions, attached please find scans of three mid 16th century wheel lock arquebuses, from top:

- dated 1541, overall length 90 cm, cal. 11 mm (Capodimonte Naples, inv.no. 3193)

- dated 1548, oa. length 95 cm, cal. 14 mm (Tojhusmuseet Copenhagen, inv.no. B 35)

- ca. 1550, oa. length 100 cm, ca. 11.5 mm (Mníchovo Hradiste, Czechia)


Best,
Michael

[katana]

Hi,
after a little more searching found some more info....


Marsigli (1732) Stato Militare dell Imperio Ottomono : Mid 16th C. muskets were `9 palms long' and had a range of 500 to 600 paces, according to reports during the Siege of Malta. Balbi said "we see
the Turkish arqubusers and their most excellent gunpowder shoots much further than ours and have much more penetration because they are longer and have better gunpowder.:
In 1680s…
Marsigli : "….The Turks relied on Christians for their firearms and that the firearm carried by the Turkish soldier is a much heavier musket than any other and takes a ball of 6,9, 12, 15, 25 drams; and
this is a matchlock. Another gun is very similar to the Spanish type but with a different mechanism… (Patella/miquelet lock). The third is the smallest and can be used in one hand is a pistol made like the
(Spanish-like) gun and takes bullets of 4,6,8 drams. The ottoman muskets were much too heavy to carry on campaign or to shoot without a rest, and the musketeer was forced to step back to
absorb the recoil."

In the book "Guns for the sultan: military power and the weapons industry in the Ottoman" ... By Gábor Ágoston there is a reference to barrel length and caliber ...all 16th - 17th Century.

matchlock 120cms 16mm
matchlock 150cms 16mm
matchlock 133cms 19mm

On that basis, once the length of the stock is added ....a 'palm' of 20cms would be 180cms on the '9 palm' (30cm stock ?) and around 140cms for the 7 palm.
Other references mention that the Ottoman muskets were longer than the Christian defenders' in the Siege of Malta ....but there are no measurements.

Regards David

[katana]

Illustrations from 1680s-1705, From Marsigli's 1735 State of the Ottoman Empire ....includes a picture of Janissary muskets (Istanbul Military Museum)
Notice the length of one of the barrels in the illustration.


Regards David

[fernando]

So David, which is the palm that makes more sense in the context of Tannhauser's findings?
Fernando

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by katana

Notice the length of one of the barrels in the illustration.
Regards David

Exactly, and the short, stout pieces pictured in the foreground are the earliest - although even these miquelets, still retaining some archaic formal criteria, are not of mid 16th century date but can but attributed to mid to late 17th century.

Best,
Michael

[katana]

Hi Micheal,
firstly....I decided to 'attack' this question in 'reverse' so I wanted to discover whether the 'palm' measurement used was the four fingers or the larger 20cms or so. Bearing in mind we were talking of the Turks and Maltese.....both in the Mediterrean area it seemed likely the translation of palm would be the larger measurement. (Bearing in mind the term was widely used by the Romans .....and with widespread trade and conquest would likely become a 'standard' measurement in the area. Also of course, the Byzantine empire (late Roman) was predominately in Turkey.
This made logical sense.

Secondly, there are many references to the fact that 15th Century Ottoman muskets were longer than the Christian's and were more accurate and had longer range....as these were still smoothbore ...the best way to have these better qualities ...is to lenghen the barrel (improved gunpowder could also improve range and the size of the projectile.)

Thirdly, 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 Spanish arquebusier Balbi describes the Turkish muskets as “nine palms long”. Turkish matchlocks had a range of 500 to 600 paces according to sources. Christian accounts of Ottoman marksmanship, for example at the siege of Malta in 1565, give full if reluctant praise……”

Please note the Spanish use the larger measurement for the 'palm'. As the barrel described is 58" (divided by 9 ....gives us 6.4 inches), so we can only assume that the 9 palms long included the length of the entire musket.

Hope this clarifies

Regards David

PS.....

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Hi David,

I am afraid that the examples that you quoted from sources of a much later period than the mid 16th century (ca. 1680-1732), defining earlier pieces which are clearly related to as matchlocks moreover - Tannhauser speaks of wheel locks - cannot be proved right.

Rather than dealing with speculations: what is your opinion on the three actually surviving, original and dated (!) wheel lock (!) guns that I posted? They doubtlessly convey the closest possible impression of the proportions and measurements of a characteristic wheel lock gun of ca. 1540 to 1560.
Sorry but I strongly feel that the only reasonably acceptable scholarly method would in any case be to rely on facts.

Best,
Michael

Micheal I'm a little confused, the Turkish muskets were never described as 'wheellocks' ..................

".....Tannhauser had elected to avoid the rigors of the line by employing his marksmanship. Along with his wheel-lock rifle, he picked up a Turkish seven-palm musket from the stockpile of captured weapons... "

[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.

Still facts (defined as both actually surviving dated guns and closely datable contemporary 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.
This however is a length by far insufficient to astonish Tannhauser as highly unusual - and by no means these guns can they be estimated to measure 180 cm or more.

As long as all we can do is speculate about the actual measure of a 'palm' I suggest we better stick to the facts because they really show us about what measure palm could reasonably mean in this context.

What's even more: Even if palm meant a rather impressive length this could in all probability have affected only the length of the barrels and forestocks of the Turkish guns because human anatomy restricts the length of the buttstock of a portable gun to about 30 cm - thanks, Fernando! So all we have to do is estimate the length of the Turkish barrels on these tapestries in relation to the length of their buttstocks which we may assume to be about 30 cm. This done, I should say that Turkish guns of the first half to the mid 16th century could not have exceeded an overall length of ca. 100-130 cm, depending on which of the pictures we choose.

Hope this clarifies.

Sorry for mixing up the terminology at one point, though; of course there was not such a thing as Turkish wheel locks. Most of them were matchlocks until probably the mid 17th century when miquelets and snaphaunces seem to have come into fashion.

Best,
Michael

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by katana

Hi,
after a little more searching found some more info....


Marsigli (1732) Stato Militare dell Imperio Ottomono : Mid 16th C. muskets were `9 palms long' and had a range of 500 to 600 paces, according to reports during the Siege of Malta. Balbi said "we see
the Turkish arqubusers and their most excellent gunpowder shoots much further than ours and have much more penetration because they are longer and have better gunpowder.:
In 1680s…
Marsigli : "….The Turks relied on Christians for their firearms and that the firearm carried by the Turkish soldier is a much heavier musket than any other and takes a ball of 6,9, 12, 15, 25 drams; and
this is a matchlock. Another gun is very similar to the Spanish type but with a different mechanism… (Patella/miquelet lock). The third is the smallest and can be used in one hand is a pistol made like the
(Spanish-like) gun and takes bullets of 4,6,8 drams. The ottoman muskets were much too heavy to carry on campaign or to shoot without a rest, and the musketeer was forced to step back to
absorb the recoil."

In the book "Guns for the sultan: military power and the weapons industry in the Ottoman" ... By Gábor Ágoston there is a reference to barrel length and caliber ...all 16th - 17th Century.

matchlock 120cms 16mm
matchlock 150cms 16mm
matchlock 133cms 19mm

On that basis, once the length of the stock is added ....a 'palm' of 20cms would be 180cms on the '9 palm' (30cm stock ?) and around 140cms for the 7 palm.
Other references mention that the Ottoman muskets were longer than the Christian defenders' in the Siege of Malta ....but there are no measurements.

Regards David

Hi David,

I am afraid that the examples that you quoted from sources of a much later period than the mid 16th century (ca. 1680-1732), defining earlier pieces which are clearly related to as matchlocks moreover - Tannhauser speaks of wheel locks - cannot be proved right.

Rather than dealing with speculations: what is your opinion on the three actually surviving, original and dated (!) wheel lock (!) guns that I posted? They doubtlessly convey the closest possible impression of the proportions and measurements of a characteristic wheel lock gun of ca. 1540 to 1560.

Sorry but I strongly feel that the only reasonably acceptable scholarly method would in any case be to rely on facts.

Best,
Michael