Talk:Dardanelles Gun

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dardanelles Gun article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Ottoman

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Ottoman military history task force

Turkey Mid‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

infobox

The infobox has empty fields that can be filled by someone in the future with more information on the gun, so we should leave it for now. Chessy999 09:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of not having a lame edit war about this I've restored the spare infobox fields (and tidied it up). I have, however, kept my into changes. Instead of reverting the whole thing with an inaccurate edit summary (there's nothing "incorrect" about removing blank fields from an infobox), this is what should have been done in the first place. Chris Cunningham 11:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, emptied one's can be filled later by people with better sources of information. Chessy999 08:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

links

http://www.trivia-library.com/b/military-and-war-weapons-the-cannon.htm how can someone put this such idiotic and subjective link here!? direct quote from site: "Called the "Precursor of Antichrist" by Christians because he was a sadist, a bisexual, and a sodomite, Sultan Mohammed II of the Ottoman Turks laid siege to Constantinople in April, 1453." that is unacceptable and not suitable for wikipedia, so i am removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.70.197 (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a Christian who is somewhat biased against Muslims (but I would not say prejudicially so, not because I don't believe it would be prejudice, but because I'm rather more sympathetic to the Christian side in Christo-Muslim wars, and must recognize the essential bias there), even I have to agree with you. I mean, without making the usual cheap shot about Turks and their stereotypes with regards to sexual perversions, which are not less applied to Greeks, I wouldn't be surprised if Mehmet II was all of those things. At the least being a Sadist in those times was just considered to be one's management style (indeed the word had yet to be invented as the Marquis had yet to have been born). Likewise it would not be surprising if the Sultan would have been considered a Sodomite by Christians of the time, as many people of today do not realize that "Sodomy" during that time was a more general term describing virtually any sexual act not for the purpose of reproduction. (Also attitudes towards sin were very different then. It was much more felt that sins were bad things that people did, rather than things bad people did.) Yet as far as I know there's nothing to support that he was any of those; nor is there anything to support the notion that Christians of the time would have known if he was. Even without that just taking a guess here, I'd say it was not any of those things Christians held against him. (I mean honestly, on the off-chance someone might think the conquest of Constantinople was O.K. we have to invent some other stuff?) 76.111.80.228 (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precision error

“762 mm”? Please, people. It seems quite clear that 30 inches is an approximate caliber, and 762 is a conversion at far too high precision. The variation in calibre is probably several centimeters. The other stats are also unreasonably precise, are unsourced and in fact conflict with the sources in the references section. I’m tempted to delete it, but this page seems to have been the subject of enough silly revert-warring already. -Ahruman (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It fired large granite balls, not a standard artillery round. Chessy999 (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That’s sort of my point. Granite balls hand-hewn to 762 mm in diameter with less than half a mm of variation is immensely unlikely, even if the Turks happened to be using the modern definition of an inch, which isn’t very plausible either. As such, the stat “Caliber: 762 mm (30 in) is clearly wrong. -83.252.216.147 (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC) (bah, logged out. -Ahruman (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

90 days

Constantinople was attacked in April 1453, then, article says "After about 90 days, on May 29, 1453 ...". 90 days can't fit into two month... --Tigga en (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It took time to knock the walls of down, read here walls of Constantinople Chessy999 (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IN the wiki article on fall of constantinople it states the guns sucked and the damage was repaired before turks could exploit it. I think the fall of con. article is more accurate and this one is obviously a glamourfication of the events yo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.169.140 (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Actually this is wrong. Constantinople was besieged many times before 1453. When it turned out that present cannons weren't good enough, they stopped the attack and wnet back to build better cannons. In 1453 Ottomans had the ultimate bombard which didn't suck and succeeded (appearently eh?) Prievous bombards have failed but "the" great bombard didn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.0.126 (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

considering most other sieges took many months if not years 90 days is a bargain. --Armanalp (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG

Constantinople was NOT taken "through an unprotected sorty gate" - only a few Turks made it in that way and were repulsed after planting the flag on or near the Kerkoporta, the Turks here were all killed, but the flags were bad for morale, the defenders in the central section of wall thought the city was doomed.

Constantinople was taken because half of the defenders abandoned the walls through a sally port which constantine xi opened for the wounded Giovanni Giustiniani. This was the only unlocked way back into the city for the men at the walls. They were slaughtered before the Turks under Mehmet II were even able to step inside the inner walls en masse. The Janissaries were able to storm the ramparts and force open the Fifth Military gate. After they entered the city itself they unlocked the Charisian Gat and the gate of St. Romanus to let the rest of the army in.

The two incidents with the Smaller gate (Kerkoporta) & Giovanni Giustiniani's Sally port have made people generalize and excite the popular myth that the city was taken because they "left a gate unlocked" - this is simply not true. You can find plenty of encyclopedic sources which claim this, but this is not ultimately how the city was taken. There are NO contemporary or eyewitness accounts which claim the city was taken through "an unprotected sorty gate" - Someone please read a book before you start writing things.

Also, it should be mentioned that although the Hungarian gun is likely similar to the Great Gun at the siege of Constantinople, almost ALL experts agree that the "Great Gun" exploded and was melted down after the siege to make smaller cannon. This article implies that this is Mehmet II's "Great Gun," which it isn't. This gun would not have been present in Constantinople in 1453. Read a book people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.138.62 (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, different guns and histories have been confused here, I rectified that. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is not important that this concrete cannon was built in 1464. Hungarian Cannon is a suite of cannons in Turkey from 1452 to 1470's, wich were built in the same technology and the same extents. Why are you vandal? --Celebration1981 (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read about first Hungarian Cannon

http://www.trivia-library.com/b/military-and-war-weapons-the-cannon.htm

Sultan Mohammed II of the Ottoman Turks laid siege to Constantinople in April, 1453. He brought with him 68 Hungarian-made cannons, the largest of which was a gigantic 26-ft.-long gun that weighed 20 tons, fired a 1,200-lb. stone cannonball, and required an operating crew of 200 men. For 50 days, the Turkish cannons bombarded Constantinople and ripped holes in its walls, but each time the Turks charged into the gaps, the defenders repulsed them and hastily rebuilt the walls. Finally, on May 29, 1453, a destructive cannonade toppled a wide stretch of the walls, and 12,000 elite Turkish troops successfully rampaged into the city. --Celebration1981 (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a reliable, scholarly source, and they just got their facts wrong. In contrast, Schmidtchen in Dardanelles Gun not only described the 1464 gun in detail, but he also added a picture of the cannon, then still in the Tower of London, with the offical plate stating that the gun was cast in 1464 by a certain Munir Ali acccording to an inscription on the gun. This is as clear as it gets. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I think, all facts and sources are irrevelant for you. You are childish. What you do it is simple vandalism. I think, an admin must to delete your registration. --Celebration1981 (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Dardanelles Gun" versus "Muhammed's Great Gun" versus "Great Turkish Bombard"

Celebration1981 and Gun Powder Ma - your edit warring has been confusing and not productive. Please do not accuse each other of vandalism and debate the issue(s) civilly here as to why either should be named as you claim. I would like to see some sources with these claims - cheers... Dinkytown 19:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The theme of the article

The theme of the article is not exactly the cannon which is displayed in Fort Nelson. The article's original theme this cannon family (Dardanelles) which had a lot of products. The cannon in the picture is no more than a survivor representative of this cannon-family. --Celebration1981 (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weight

The article states the weight of the Dardanelles Gun of 18,6 metric tons as quoted by Schmidtchen. The data sheet of the Royal Armouries states a weight of 16,8 tons as well as the Guinnes Book of Records. I guess Schmidtchen quoted a wrong weight. --Bullenwächter (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oldes cannon?

I have removed the statement: It's also the oldest cannon that still present. "Guinness Records". Retrieved 20 July 2013.. Here probably the Guinness Book of Records is wrong or they have definde some criteria to make the Dardanelles Gun the oldes one survived. There are some cannons loder than the Dardanelles Gun Mons Meg and Dulle Griet both first half 15th century which is not clearly dated. Dulle Griet was made before 1452 and the File:Cannons abandonded by Thomas Scalles at Mont Saint-Michel.jpg were produced before 1434. Faule Grete was cast in 1409 almost 55 years before Dardanells Gun. And this are only cannons present in the Wikipedia. --Bullenwächter (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]