Seven Palm Musket

[Queequeg]

I'm rereading The Religion, by Tim Willocks, about a German adventurer named Matthias Tannhauser at the Siege of Malta.

Twice the author mentions Turkish muskets:

p.221

In skirting the splayed and tangled slain who'd made their final stand by the tent, Tannhauser spotted a nine-palm musket on the ground. Its match still smouldered. It's stock was pinned beneath its owner's corpse. The blue-black hue of the damascened barrel, which seemed to glow from deep within its substance, and the arabesques of silver wire with which the ebony woodwork was inlaid, announced the hand of a master gunsmith.

p.298

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...

Is a "palm" some kind measure of barrel length, with one "palm" being a semi-standard (4 to 5 inches) unit of measurement like the cubit (one forearm)? Or does it have some other meaning?

Google produces fairly little results.

Thanks in advance.

[fernando]

The palm is of Roman origin, and comprehends the (width) length of a stretched hand; it was used to express the length of many a things.
Swords were also measured in palms. The laws published by the Kings to controll their length were in palms.
It also had a few variations, used in ship construction, loads, etc.
It measures about 22 cms (some 8,6"). It is still in use over here, specially in rural terms ... but not only.
Fernando


.

[Rick]

Fernando, I'm confused .

Is a Palm the distance across the hand from thumb base to heel of hand ; or lengthwise, base of palm to longest fingertip ?

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Rick

Fernando, I'm confused .

Is a Palm the distance across the hand from thumb base to heel of hand ; or lengthwise, base of palm to longest fingertip ?

Across the hand, fully stretched, from thumb tip to small finger tip. If you have a 'standard' hand, measure it this way and you will have an approximate result.
I used to play buttons when i was a kid, and we still used Palms. You toss your button against the wall and if it falls within a palm from your foe's button, you score. I was not such a winner, as i had a small hand .

Fernando

.

[fernando]

Like so

.

[Rick]

Ahhh, thank you Fernando !

We used to play that game with pennies .

[broadaxe]

That palm is called shibr or shiber in Arabic and modern Hebrew, hence the term shibriyah which stands for the traditional dagger of the bedouins. According the arab folklore it indicates the lenght of the blade.

[Queequeg]

Thanks for the answers, gents. I appreciate having learned about this.

[katana]

Hi Fernando,
in Britain, the measurement you show(in your photo) would be a called a 'span' ......a 'palm' is equal to the width of 4 fingers...3 inches or so.

Regards David

[Matchlock]

Hi there,

I found these line drawings on entering palm measure at google.

It his, as has been suggested, most probably a length measure taken from a part of the human body. My palm, e.g., measures 9 cm in width.

As Willocks' The Religion is settled in 1565, the mentioning of seven-palm and nine-palm muskets should, in my opinion, refer to the overall length of the guns. Let me just point out as an aside that, as I have mentioned previously, the term musket seems to have arisen in mid-16th century. Most of the guns of that period which we have come to call (h)arquebuses nowadays had an average overall length of ca. 70-90 cm. A significant terminological difference between the shorter and the longer guns did not exist yet.

So, as a conclusion, the idea is quite convincing to me that seven to nine palm guns - no matter whether they were called arquebuses or muskets - would have been about 80 cm long.

Best wishes,
Michael

[fernando]

Gentlemen,
Let me completely disagree .
The Palm measurement has often varied through time, but allways within the range of 20 cms.
It would correspond, for one, to 1 1/3 of the Roman piede (foot) antico, which messured 294,5 mm, still in use in 1840.
The Wikipedia considers the Palm a mesurement to be taken with the hand fully stretched, measuring around 22 cms.
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmo
The Span ends up measuring about the same, as it corresponds to half Cubit, in which an (ancient Egiptian) Cubit goes from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger.
Apparently the (Egiptian) Cubit is the ancestor of the (Roman) Palm. No doubt that both corespond to the length between the tip of the little finger to the tip of the thumb.
I guess the term Palm is a bit confusing, specially in english, due to being identical to the 'hand palm'.
Is not so ambiguous in (Latin) portuguese as we say palmo for the measure and palma for the hand part.
I believe therefore that the muskets spotted by Tannhauser were indeed much larger than what Michael tends to consider, reason why they were worthy of note.
Also considering the ancient laws that established the legal length of swords, the Palm with 22 cms is the plausible measurement.
King Dom João III, for instance, in his ordination of 1539, defined as within the legal mark, 5 palms for the length of swords, from the pommel to the blade tip; this was about 1,100 mm. These laws were not so much obbeyed, by the way.
Here you will find a contemporaneous converting page, where you can see the measurement of a Portuguese, a Spanish and a Texan Palms.
http://www.onlineconversion.com/length_all.htm
You can also confirm in the page that the span measures about the same.
Fernando

[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

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

[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

[Jim McDougall]

Absolutely fantastic discussion, research and detail guys!!! Queequeg has as always, posted intriguing query, and its great to see writers who use this kind of arcane material in thier work. Then to see the material beautifully annotated as you guys have done is amazing. Although I cant really add anything here, I just wanted to say its good to see these kinds of discussions, and to learn more on the use of these terms. Nice work on the graphics and supported detail.....Michael, good to see you back with the art!!!! Thanks so much you guys.

All the best,
Jim

[katana]

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

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

[fernando]

Even assuming that the author gave wings to his imagination, the muskets quoted surely had an impressive length, making it close to plausible that the measurement units were indeed the Roman palm.
Even not deeping into academical research, one can easily realize that at the discussed period, shoulder arms of ‘abnormal’ proportions were already used in certain circumstances, as opposed to their current parents, those with dimensions more often seen.
I have spotted the portuguese version of the ‘Religion’ book in the web, and there are some (other) passages that i find interesting, on what concerns this ‘Palm’ issue.

First of all, it must be said that, the nine palms quoted refer to the barrel length only, and not to the whole weapon.

Extending page 298 paragraph introduced here by Queequeg:
… and, with Orlandu carrying it, he (Tanhauser) dragged by the walls behind the lancers, shooting it from the battlements and causing inumerous deaths among Mustapha’s officers …

Furthermore in other pages:
… For Orlandu, the burden of carrying six quilos of musket, a bag with five kilos of bullets, and a heavy powder flask …
… The excessive and double (powder) loads, which weapon’s kick back almost threw his hero out of the platforms, made him (Orlandu) coarse and blood …
… Tanhauser pressed the trigger and kept still, when the match lit the fire-hole. The nine palms barrel shook and thundered; thye Muslim rudderman was ripped from his place and disappeared in the dark, beyond the ship’s stern.
… At the left flank of the advance, a series of Tüfekchi entered formation off the limit reached by the arquebuses and shot a mantle of fire from their nine palm muskets …
… The Christian arquebuses fired along the circumvolution, but were no pair for the Turkish nine palm muskets …
… Tanhauser picked the gun still wrapped, threw it on the table and asked Bors: as you always have an opinion, give me one now. Bors got up, picked it with both hands and, by reflex, tested its weight. His eyes glimpsed; he laid it on the table and unwrapped it. When the silver, ebony and steel revealed, he gave it a knowledge look. The gun jumped in his hands as i it were alive, and he threw it over his shoulder, sighted and moved it adequately in arch, the silver and the damascened nine palms barrel trembling in the light of the table lamps. Perfection – he murmured - priceless. He then lowered it, with the effort of someone having his teeth extracted, put it back within the blanket, saying: i would hit the castrated bulls of a Muslim at a distance of some hundred fifty meters …


Within my ignorance, i find it hard to accept that these fantabulous muskets had no more than one meter length.

Fernando.

[katana]

Hi Fernando ,
thanks for posting further passages from the book, it backs up alot of what I have already said. Even the mention of "....... the damascened nine palms barrel trembling in the light of the table lamps...." seems to confirm that these barrels were Ottoman manufactured by the process I mentioned in my last post.

It was also stated that at the time of the siege it was acknowledged that the Ottomans had superior gunpowder. Its finer grain had a faster ignition which provided faster velocity of the projectile. If, as mentioned in the excepts, a 'double charge' was required it can only mean 1. the caliber was larger and therefore the 'ball' heavier or 2. the barrel was significantly longer....to overcome the increased friction of the ball with the barrel as it is propelled through it.......or 3 ...a combination of 1 and 2.

"..........At the left flank of the advance, a series of Tüfekchi entered formation off the limit reached by the arquebuses and shot a mantle of fire from their nine palm muskets ......."
This also suggests that my asumption that these 9 palm muskets were specialist weapons used at distance ....before the two army 'fronts' could engage in force, is also right.

The Tüfekchi were the Janissary (elite soldiers) musketeers

I have tried, in vain, to find a picture, hopefully one will "turn up"

All the best
David

[fearn]

Here's a reference to an "8 palm" turkish miquelet. I don't know much about these muskets, but the few pictures I've seen of them had longish barrels. I'm not sure why one that's 180 cm or longer is out of the question.

[fernando]

Hi Fearn,
I guess that one, being XVIII century, is 'too modern' for the context .
Fernando