14 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Very good, but ..., June 26, 2005
This review is from: Guns for the Sultan: Military Power and the Weapons Industry in the Ottoman Empire (Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization) (Hardcover)
Guns for the Sultan is a very important book that deserves a wide success amongst historians specialized in military affairs. The research performed in Turkish archives is probably the first of this type in quality and quantity and the information given to the reader is absolutely priceless. A real must for anybody seriously interested in military technology. But two caveat are essential.
First. The author is not sufficiently familiar with both European ancient artillery and small arms. Just a few examples. Bronze bombards as large as the great ottoman' ones, and sometimes larger, were regularly produced in Europe during the second half of the XV century (see, for instance, Leonardo, Windsor 12647). None remains, as the cost of bronze was always high while its melting point was low and so it could be recycled conveniently and easily in new models: a number of huge wrought-iron pieces survives probably because it was too expensive to dismantle them.
As far as mortars are concerned it is well known that weapons firing effective bombs with high parabolic trajectories were commonly used only starting with the XVII century. Moreover it is incorrect to state, for example, that a 300 lb mortar shot projectiles weighting 300 lb (150 kg or else): the caliber for this kind of ordnance was nominal as the bombs, hollow and filled with gunpowder, were much lighter.
It is inappropriate to compare the composition of Ottoman bronze cannons with the composition of bronze given by Biringuccio whose information is often superficial and sometimes incorrect. In the evaluation of ancient cannon bronze it is also inappropriate to consider only the percentage of copper and tin as this alloy usually contains other elements, as zinc and silica, that have a significant influence on the final quality of the cast.
Second. The author, as far as the question of Ottoman technological inferiority is concerned, reaches conclusions that are amply contradicted by a number of Venetian state documents. The poor quality of Ottoman ordnance is, as a matter of fact, constantly reported since the second half of the XVI century: captured Turkish guns were amply used to cast new artillery but its bronze had to be purified and good English tin had to be added.
Captured Ottoman gunpowder was considered as "decayed" and used only to reclaim the expensive saltpeter.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No