doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Iron / Steel possible defiinitions

Pete:

It does make sense. But it depends on the looseness of the terms, the generic component or the strict component. In many readings, the terms get intertwined and it's all 6s & 7s. And at one time before pig iron was at 95%, possibly when the ore was 1/2 that, the hearth, furnace & forge were one in the same or all in one complex. Now I am referring to low Earth or low hearths that were used to convert ore(early on) or pig iron to wrought iron. And this lead to the development of the puddling furnace. Note that we are compressing time over several hundred years. Also, maybe an example/type or pic would be beneficial, i.e. Catalan, Lancashire, Osmund(type referred to), Stuckofen, Blauofen, R.F. Mushet, Bessemer, Siemens(or Siemens-Martin), Price, M. Fabre Dufaur, Chenot process, ect.

Another interesting link: http://www.finspong.se/hafla/language/english.htm

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Agoston's Guns for the Sultan is much more about cannons than shoulder weapons, and little more is said about the transfer of pattern welded technology from the Ottomans to Europe. So we still don't know who brought the first pattern welded musket barrel to...where?...Spain to France to Liege? Hungary to Germany to Liege? Both directions? Nor when?

p.91
From Arnold Pacey, Technology in World Civilization: A Thousand-Year History, 1990
(In the early 1600s)…Raimundo Montecuccoli…claimed that the metal of the Turkish muskets was of good quality and that their range and force were greater than those of the Christian muskets…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 were coiled into a spiral. This method produced great strength in the barrel that could withstand higher explosive pressure.

p.95
With regard to hand firearms Janissary tufenks closely resembled the muskets their Spanish and Venetian opponents used…

p. 192-193
Between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries, direct military conflicts, the employment of European military experts and, to a lesser degree, illegal trade in weaponry ensured relatively easy dissemination of up-to-date technologies and military know-how in the Sultan’s realms.
Istanbul was more than a simple recipient of foreign technologies with its Turkish and Persian artisans and blacksmiths, Armenian and Greek miners and sappers, Turkish, Bosnian, Serbian, Hungarian, Italian, German, and later French, English and Dutch foundrymen and military engineers…Turkish, Arab and Persian blacksmiths added to (the European's) expertise of the metallurgy techniques of the Islamic East that produced the world-famous Damascus blades. To what extent Europeans could and did profit from this technological dialogue must be the subject of further research.

Pete,

Those terms are quite percise enough, even in translation. Those are essential functions. The only change I would suggest is that forging was sometimes used to "squeeze" slag out of iron, to close up voids/porosity, and to improve crystal structure.

Furnace is easily most complex one in practice and can overlap sometimes with hearth. They were used to "freshen" iron, that is remelt it to reduce/remove impurities, usually slag (a feature of Vallon hearth/forges and done in first of two hearths/forges), to homogenize composition, as well as in a wide variety of methods to make steel(s), eg., blister steel, crucible steel, bessemer steel, etc., etc.

In another aspect, even long, long ago irons and steels of different physical properties were used for different purposes, in civilian as well as military production.

On a side note, at least in Sweden, again long, long ago, there were ores said to be "steel ores". These were rather difficult to characterize then because of lack of knowledge and means of detection. Hindsight would note that these "steel ores" had accessory minerals that contributed Mn, etc., resulting in "natural" alloys and/or unappreciated aspects of smelting and forging resulted in suitable C contents.

Niklas

To revdocdrew, pete m, ellenbr and other interested parties: There has been of late a renewed interest in the culture and history of the Ottoman Empire in Turkey, which was suppressed for many years and later simply avoided after Kemal Ataturk's creation of the Republic. Within the current climate, it may be possible to access old Ottoman records pertaining to the topic at hand, if someone can present me with any kind of detailed information indicating the likely repository. I am on a first name basis with the sole surviving adopted daughter of Ataturk, and am confident that she could and would use her good offices to gain access to official records that might not otherwise be available for public viewing. Regretably, my time is not as free as others, otherwise I would embark on a fishing expedition of my own.

Raimey,

The "German method" mentioned in this article indeed came from what is today Germany and was basically what replaced rather crude furnaces that made osmund pig iron (and hence sometime called osmund furnaces). FYI, osmund pig iron was hacked into chunks having defined weights. These chunks were packed into specific sized kegs and often used as valuta in trade and other business exchanges. These chunks were reported to not have been further processed in early Sweden, until Gustav Erikson (today called Gustav Vasa) brought in German iron workers. Before that, osmund was shipped to Germany, processed and Swedes bought tools, implements, etc. from Germany. Bad economic situation that Gustav Erikson changed. Bringing in Valloner was later step in same direction.

Locally, in Uppland region of Sweden, the German method was replaced by Vallon method, which used less energy and produced much higher quality iron. However, German method continued to be used because it produced iron suitable for many uses. In various places, Lancashire method did replace older method, be it German or Vallon.

Next time I am back in Sweden I hope to visit some non-Vallon järnbruk, as well as some ancient Cu mines, etc.

Niklas

skatr2: Thank you for your kind offer. My primary interest is in identifying the names of damascus patterns, and the makers who supplied those patterns to US and British gunmakers.
Would you be so kind as to share your thoughts on the 'Arabesque and Damascus' album?
http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery.fcgi?p=999&gid=18112027
Thanks! Rev. Drew Hause M.D. revdoc2@cox.net

Drew,

The question I was seeking an answer to was, "Amongst the French and Belgian makers, who was the 1st in each country to produce a repeatable, recognizable pattern and bring it to market?" A very narrow question. Perhaps the records exist somewhere in France or Belgium, but the information available currently to me does not lend itself to answering the question.

I think your question is much broader. At that level, I no longer look for a single path. What Ágoston brings to the table, in my view, is the broad influence of the Ottoman Empire. The foundry established in Istanbul employed craftsman from around the mediterranean.

We know that the Italians were actively trading with the Ottomans in the late 1500's. Ágoston also talks about the empire in Hungary. We know from Elgood that Hungarian gunmaker Caspar Hartmann was making damascus in 1634. We know from "Espingarda Perfeyta" that twist was being produced in Portugal around 1715. By 1770 we are seeing sxs flintlocks with twist barrels from Liege and just a few years later from St. Etienne. Gaier points to even earlier in the 1700's but does not provide documentation. By 1790 the English are working on patents and doing metallurgical studies of wootz. So the technology was spreading across Europe.

Have you seen a European produced damascus or twist barrel that dates earlier than this? Perhaps it will require a road trip.

Back to Ágoston. It is very common, looking at American gun makers to find them clustered around arsenals, which were government foundries. I believe that eventually, we will see the same thing within the Ottoman Empire. If the records ever surface that is.

Put another way. I no longer look for a river by which the technology traveled. I think of it more as a slow flood that worked it's way under all the doors. Perhaps I am wrong, not a 1st.

Pete

skatr2,

I have given your kind offer more thought. OK, time for a real fishing expedition.

Are there any records of gunsmiths working in Greece, Hungary, Bosnia or Serbia that were producing sporting arms for the nobility? If so, who were they and when were they active? Especially interesting in any thing that dates prior to 1680.

This would give us names and dates to search the literature and museum collections.

Pete

The question I was seeking an answer to was, "Amongst the French and Belgian makers, who was the 1st in each country to produce a repeatable, recognizable pattern and bring it to market?"

I like your thinking Pete (and just want a picture of that pattern and to know what they called it )

If you look even further back in history, Istambul (formerly Constanopel and known to Vikings as Miklagård, with which they had extensive trade) was a major business, cultural, industry center for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years. People from far, far away traveled to and from there frequently. I agree with Pete (and anyone else) that there must have been a huge number of channels through which technology advances spread in all directions. Backward Europe must have benefited greatly from that, for a very long time.

David S. Landes, in Wealth and Poverty of Nations, Norton and Co. 1999, in English. gives a heavily researched, long-term perspective on technological advances and retreats across the world. Glad I can reference a book you folks can read (grin!).

Niklas