THE DESTROYER
In considering the cause of particular wars (or causes of war in general) the available options can probably be distilled down to three ― Man, Machine, Moment. The decision to go to war (or stumble into it) usually involves a madman with grandiose ideas, or the arrival of a military weapon that changes the odds of winning, or the emergence of an obvious power imbalance between populations, (and most likely, elements of all three). As the historian Geoffrey Blainey has noted, the actual ignition of conflict requires someone, somewhere, to think they hold the advantage in one of these areas, sufficient to get away with aggression and be victorious, and BIFFO! its on. Such was the case in 1453 with the Sultan Mehmet II, Conqueror of Constantinople, and his super cannon Basilik.
1. The Madman
Alexander Christie-Millar, 2024, To the City: Life and Death Along the Ancient Walls of Istanbul, William Collins, London, p. 43, 49-50
"On that winter's day in Edirne, the young man who would conquer Constantinople watched as his great cannon was fired for the first time. He was twenty years old, pale-skinned with large dark eyes beneath arched eyebrows and a narrow chinless mouth that fell away under a hawk-like nose ... the single compelling portrait that exists from around that time, a medallion of unknown date and authorship that shows a slender youth in profile with a beard looping from chin to ear and a turban tipped forward to reveal the rest of his scalp shaved up to the crown at the back of his head ... gaunt and brittle-seeming, tense with untested ambition ... appointed a provincial governor at age five, became sultan at twelve ... fathered his first son at fifteen, went to war at sixteen ... at nineteen became sultan once more on his father's death ... prepared for the business of ruling almost from birth ...
He extolled the conquering zeal of his earlier ancestors ... 'They were never content with what they had, nor allowed others to be. They never considered what was present of any value, as they always went after the things they did not have, and they considered what they had not yet attained but had in mind, as if they already had it' ...
He condemned the kind of inaction that left one responding to crises rather than pre-empting them ... 'Go and tell the emperor that the present ruler is not like his predecessors
... The things which they were unable to do, he can achieve at once and with ease, and those things that they did not wish to do, he both desires and is determined to accomplish'."
A Closer Look: The Magnus Princeps Relief, ('A rediscovered portrait medallion of Sultan Mehmed II, Conqueror of Constantinople, the star lot of our upcoming Islamic and Indian Art auction on 21 May in London'), <bonhams.shorthandstories.com/a-closer-look- at-the magnus-princeps-relief-mehmed-ii-medallion/>
"This rediscovered Renaissance bronze portrait medallion, produced by an Italian artist around 1450, depicts the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II ― better known to the world as 'Mehmed the Conqueror' for his capture of Constantinople from the Christians in 1453.
... The importance of this medallion cannot be overstated : it would have been produced as a personal commission for Mehmed, using drawings taken from life. It is the earliest known portrait depicting the Sultan ... It is also the only portrait depicting him prior to the conquest of Constantinople, predating all other known portraits by at least 20 years. It can be seen to embody the young Sultan's imperial aspirations as the inheritor of the Roman Empire.
Sultan Mehmed is depicted here as a young man, in his late teens, at a time he is still seeking to legitimise his reign. He sets his sights on the greatest gamble of all : the conquest of Constantinople ― the largest Christian city in Europe ― a feat which had already been attempted and failed by earlier Ottoman rulers including his father.
Around the portrait is the Latin inscription 'MAGNVS PRINCEPS ET MAGNVS AMIRAS SVLTANVS DNS MEHOMET', which translates to 'Great Prince and Great Amir Sultan Lord Mehomet'. The lack of imperial title in the inscription confirms that it was made prior to the Conquest of Constantinople, and uses the same titles as those on a treaty between the Ottomans and Venice in 1446.
The cast piercing placed exactly at the geometric centre of the medallion implies that it was made to be worn. It is therefore believed to have been a personal talisman which encapsulated Mehmed's imperial vision. The undecorated reverse ― extremely unusual for a portrait medallion ― can be seen as further support for this hypothesis : the place where the sitter would normally boast of their achievements, Mehmed intentionally leaves blank ...
The prominent features of the Sultan are echoed in important later depictions of him ..."
['constanzo-da-ferrara-mehmed-ii-1430-1481-sultan-of-the turks-1451-c.-1477-bronze.-samuel-h.-kness-collection.-national-gallery-of-art-d.c.-4096X4006']
Peter Francopan, 2024, 'Facing the World: Mehmed II', Bonham's Magazine, Spring Issue
"Prior to his accession as sultan in 1451, Mehmed was an emir of Manisa in Western Anatolia, sent there to learn the rudiments of political power. At this time, succession could be easily derailed by civil war or the appearance of pretenders to the Ottoman throne. Indeed, his father, Murad II, had abdicated in favour of his then 12-year-old son in 1444, but then returned to the throne only two years later to put down a revolt by the Janissaries (the sultan's household guards). It would not be until Murad's death in 1451 that Mehmed finally took a firm grip on the empire.
It is little wonder, then, that Mehmed took such great pains to define his own position, using whatever means that came to his attention ― including a variety of fashionable artistic representations. Indeed, it was probably during this time of unrest, while he was at Manisa, or shortly after his father's death, that he commissioned this particular bronze portrait.
Emerging from studios in Italy in the late 1430s, this type of Renaissance medal provided the nobility with a sense of identity, a form of self-promotion cast in reassuringly solid metal. The stylistic characteristics of Mehmed's medal are in keeping with his Italian contemporaries. It was clearly modelled by a skilled Western artist, though one whose identity is yet to be confirmed. The absence of any design or lettering on the reverse ensures the viewer's focus is all on the portrait itself, while the neat piercing above Mehmed's profile indicates its function as a personal talisman, to be hung around the neck.
With stylistic roots in the coinage of imperial Rome, the medallic portrait provided Mehmed with a visceral sense of his own imperial legitimacy, identifying him as the successor to the empire of Constantine the Great. This was in accord with a broader Ottoman vision: the dynasty referred to the south-eastern provinces as Rumeli or Rum ― a Turkish reference to Rome. It is nonetheless fascinating that Mehmed should have chosen ― amid all the political uncertainties of his teenage years at Manisa, at a critical period in his ascendance ― to define and cultivate in this specific way an 'awareness of his connection to the Roman legacy'."
2. The Massive Cannon
Michael Ducas, 1462, Byzantine History, in JR Melville Jones, 1972, The Siege of Constantinople 1453 : Seven Contemporary Accounts, Amsterdam, section 4, chapters 35, 37
"It had happened that ... there came from Constantinople a craftsman who had great skill in the casting of cannon, a Hungarian. He had come to the city sometime previously, and made his abilities known to the Emperor's ministers. They brought him into the presence of the Emperor, and he was granted a pension, but this was far below what was due to his qualifications, and in fact they did not even pay over his paltry allowance to him. Because of this he became desperate, and one day he left Constantinople and went over to the Turks. The Sultan welcomed him with open arms, treated him honourably and provided him with food and clothing; and then he gave him an allowance so generous, that a quarter of the sum would have been sufficient to keep him in Constantinople.
Mehmet asked him if he was able to cast a cannon large enough to fire a shot which would make an impression on the walls of the city, in spite of their strength and thickness. He replied, 'If you so wish, I can cast a cannon as large as the shot that is being shown to be now. I know what the walls of the city are like. The shot from my cannon could reduce them, and even the walls of Babylon itself. I can see to every detail of making them; but I do not know what the range will be, and I will give no guarantee of this'.
'Build me the cannon', the Sultan replied, 'and I myself will concern myself with the range of it'. So they started to collect the bronze, and the craftsman began to make the moulds for his work. The operation of casting was completed within three months, and the result was a monstrosity of the most fearful and extraordinary kind."
"In January he [the Sultan] left Didymoteichum for Andrionople, where he saw to the preparation of the equipment for his campaign, and decided to test the cannon which the Hungarian had made. It was carefully set into position before the main gateway leading into the palace which he had built that year, the ball was fitted into it, and its ration of powder weighed out. It was planned to fire it the next morning, and public announcements were made throughout Andrionople, to advise everyone of the loud and thunderous noise which it would make, so that no one would be struck dumb by hearing the noise unexpectedly or any pregnant women miscarry. In the morning the gunpowder was lit, there was a great rush of hot air, and the shot was driven forth, leaving the cannon with a loud explosion which filled the air with clouds of smoke. The sound was heard a hundred stades away, and the shot travelled a thousand paces from the point of firing, making a hole six feet deep at the point where it landed; so great is the power of the combination of substances which propels the shot."
"January passed, and at the beginning of February the Sultan ordered his great cannon to be transported to Constantinople. Thirty wagons were joined together, and sixty oxen, picked for strength, drew it behind them. Beside the cannon there marched two hundred men, on the one side and on the other, pulling it along and keeping it straight, and making sure it did not slide from its course. Fifty carpenters went ahead, and two hundred labourers with them, to build wooden bridges over any irregularities in the surface of the road. It took the months of February and March to bring it to a point five thousand paces from the city."
Wikipedia Commons File: The Great Turkish Bombard at Fort Nelson.jpg, (author Gaius Cornelius, date 26 Apr '06)
"The Dardanelles Gun is a similar super-sized cannon that was built in 1464 by Turkish military engineer Munir Ali and modelled after the cannon built by Orban".
 |
Currently in the Royal Armouries at Fort Nelson, Portsmouth, England |
"The Dardanelles Gun is a siege gun dating from soon after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. It is cast in bronze and was made in two parts : the barrel [LHS of images] which holds the shot and the chamber [RHS of images] which holds the charge. The two parts screw together [male extension RHS, female intrusion LHS] and there is a ring of sockets at the ends of each section; these take levers to facilitate screwing and unscrewing the parts."
COMPARISON of ARTILLERY SPECIFICATIONS
The Great Constantinople Cannon The Great Turkish Bombard
Military Engineer Orban the Hungarian Munir Ali
Casting Date 1452 1464
Bronze Weight 19 tonnes 16.8 tonnes
Total Length 8.2 metres (27 feet) 5.2 metres
Barrel Calibre 0.75 metres (30 inches)
Cannonballs 540 kilograms (1200 lbs) 300 kilograms Firing Range 1,600 metres (1 mile) 1,600 metres
Rate of Fire 7 shots per day 15 rounds per day
Present Status Ruptured 1453? No longer extant. 'Gifted' to Q Victoria 1864
Christie-Miller 2024, Ch 2, 'The Buried Gate', in To the City: Life and Death Along the Ancient Walls of Instanbul, pp. 38, 40
"There was not one wall but two that ran parallel: the high inner wall and the lower outer wall, and even a third and fourth if you included the scarps that once held up the banks of the moat ... From the inner wall to the moat's outer scarp was a distance of more than two hundred feet, so that the fortifications were not so much a line through the city as a zone within it ...
It was while exploring this wall zone that I found the cannonballs. They were lying near the exposed and broken lintel of an old gate; it had once been designated for military use but was long abandoned and had only been uncovered by some recent excavation. The site was unguarded and there was no sign of any work being done. Nearby, two large orbs of stone lay nestled into the soil like a clutch of fossilised eggs. They two had been recently unearthed, but looking around, I saw fragments of others, broken and moss-covered, strewn among the rubble. The size of them astonished me; each was more than two feet across, barely large enough for me to encompass with my arms ...
Later, I read about the life of these stone orbs, the processes and elements that created them and the artillery piece that fire them ... 'cannonballs from the Black Sea, saltpetre from Belgrade, sulphur from Van, tin from overseas trade, scrap bronze from the church bells of the Balkans'. The eight metre-long cannon that fired them was, cast upright like an obelisk, muzzle to the earth, inside a great pit. The mould consisted of a solid inner core to create the hollow of the barrel, and a larger outer casing surrounding it like a scabbard. This was bound about with iron hoops before wet sand, stone, wood and earth were packed tightly around it to hold in the thirty tonnes of molten bronze that would be poured into the top. Afterwards the whole thing was left to slowly cool. Later it was dug out and hauled from the ground by teams of oxen, like the idol of a vanished people; its moulds were cracked away, and the final object deposited into the light."
A Kakaliagos & N Ninis, 2019, 'Damage and failure of Orban's gun during the bombardment of Constantinople walls in 1453', Frattura ed Integrita Strutturale, 50, 481-496
"At the dusk of the Late Medieval period, during the first half of the 15th Century, Guns with enormous proportions appeared in the European battlefields. These guns manufactured by craftsmen originating from the traditional bell manufacturers in Europe were called Bombards ... These heavy guns were mainly deployed during city sieges, hurling stone cannonballs of very large diameters. Rate of fire was slow and aiming on the target was also cumbersome requiring several trial shots to identify the successful cannonball trajectory ...
"During the Siege of Constantinople in 1453, a Bombard with huge dimensions was deployed. The Gun was ordered by Sultan Mehmet II and manufactured by Oban, a skilled master craftsman from Hungary. Bombards often tended to explode inflicting severe casualties ... According to historical reports, Orban's gun had the same fate, killing both Orban and the gun crew ... In order to focus on the structural response of the gun powder chamber .... it was necessary to numerically reconstruct the weapon ... thus identifying gun dimensions, gun powder charge and force capacity of the exploding gunpowder inside the gun chamber ... and associated temperature effects produced by powder ignition.
"The force of the expanding gunpowder gas during ignition of the charge creates a force which in turn accelerates the cannonball inside the barrel towards the muzzle ... It was considered that ... pronounced thermal effects and projectile surface imperfections in Orban's gun ultimately decelerated a projectile's forward accelerated motion inside the barrel after ignition ... It is considered that under repeated gun firing, residual thermal stresses and corresponding dilations and micro-distortions of the cannon bore may have resulted in imperfections of the original cannon bore geometry ... lead[ing] to pronounced contact friction to internal bore surface ...
"According to historical reports, the gun produced a pronounced increase in temperature along the barrel ... which in turn may have resulted in an early explosion of the gun (Phrantzes, Chronicon; Chalcocondyes). It was considered that Orban's gun cannonballs were manufactured by stonemasons. This procedure may not necessarily have resulted in an absolutely perfect smooth cannonball surface ... As a result of this, an increased friction would be present at granite ball contact to bore internal surface ...
"The stress situation in the powder chamber under combined action of blast internal pressure and induced temperature due to powder ignition was evaluated. It was identified that combined internal pressure and temperature induced residual plastic deformations ... As the gun crew tried to cool the bombard within a short period of time, residual stresses were potentially increased. Successive firing of the bombard resulted in a continuous deterioration of powder chamber structural response ...
"... after repeated firing of the gun, residual plastic deformations and associated stresses due to combined action of internal pressure and temperature ['... abrupt temperature rise of hot expanding gases produced during ignition ... from the time of gunpowder ignition (2,018 degrees Celsius) to the time when the cannonball exits the muzzle (1,122 degrees) the resulting temperatures were substantially higher than the bronze melting temperature (900 degrees) ...'] together with successive loading and unloading ... can contribute to the overall structural deterioration of the gunpowder chamber ...
"Recognising the fact that bronze material as produced during the Late Medieval period could not exhibit a significant strain hardening behaviour and considering the effect of imposed dilations due to internal blast combined with temperature, it can be concluded that exceeding deformation limit ... failure of the gun can be expected ... The situation as presented above supports historical reports that the bombard exploded killing both the gun crfew and Orban (Phrantzes).
3. A Critical Power Imbalance
Giacomo Tedaldi, 1453, Survivor of Siege Account, in JR Melville Jones, 1972, The Siege of Constantinople 1453: Seven Contemporary Accounts, Amsterdam, section 1.
ARMED FORCES
[THE TURKS]
"At the siege were altogether two hundred thousand men, of whom perhaps sixty thousand were fighting men, thirty to forty thousand of them being mounted. A quarter of them were equipped with coats of mail or leather jackets. Of the others, many were armed after the fashion of France, some after the fashion of Hungary and others again had helmets of iron, and Turkish bows and crossbows. The rest of the soldiers were without equipment, except the they had shields and scimitars, which are a kind of Turkish sword. The rest of the two hundred thousand were thieves and plunderers, hawkers, workmen and others who followed the army."
"The Turkish fleet, within and without the harbour, consisted of between sixteen and eighteen tall galleys, sixty to eighty galliots of from eighteen to twenty benches of oars each, and sixteen to twenty smaller vessels suitable for carrying horses, of a sort called palendins, and a number of other small craft of various kinds."
[THE GREEKS]
"In the city there were altogether 30,000 to 35,000 men under arms, and six to seven thousand fighting men, making 42,000 at the most."
"In the harbour, to defend the chain, there were thirty Christian nefs and nine galleys, that is, two light galleys, three Venetian merchant galleys, three belonging to the Emperor and one to Messire Giovanni Giustiniani Longo, a Genoese in the service of the Emperor of Greece."
THE CONTEST
[The WALLS]
"Constantinople is very strong, of a triangular form. The land walls are 6,000 thousand paces in length [1,000 paces = 1 mile or 1,600 metres], the walls facing the sea five, and those facing the harbour and the Bosphorus six again. The land walls are very thick and high, with barbicans and battlements above them, and false walls and ditches running along outside them. The principal walls are twenty to twenty-two brasses in height, three and in some places six brasses thick and in a few places eight. The false walls outside are built up to a height of twenty to twenty-two brasses, and are three brasses thick. The ditches are thirty-five brasses wide and fifteen brasses deep. The brasse contains at most about three and a half palms by the Avignon standard [1 palm = 3 inches, 1 brasse = 10½ inches or 0.267 metres]."
[The CANNONS]
"At the siege there were several large cannon and a large number of culverins and other equipment for hurling projectiles. Among the rest there was a very large metal cannon, cast in one piece, which threw a stone of eleven spans [1 span = 9 inches or 0.228 metres] and three fingers [1 finger = ⅞ inch or 0.022 metres] in circumference, weighing nineteen hundred pounds. The others threw shot of eight, ten or twelve hundred pounds. Each day the cannon were fired between a hundred and a hundred and twenty times, and the siege lasted for fifty-five days. It has been calculated that they used a thousand pounds of gunpowder each day ..."
..............................................................................................................................................................
Comments
Post a Comment