82 replies to this topic

[Non-Han Nan Ban]

The History Channel actually featured an awesome Arab invention of a gunpowder-weapon dating from the 13th or 14th century: a small rocket-propelled torpedo that packed a pretty powerful punch in damaging ships. They recreated the device to see the size of the explosion it could make, and it was fairly impressive.

Then of course, by the late 13th, early 14th century Chinese rocketry was greatly advanced, with hand held rocket launchers and multistage rockets. The Huolongjing text (compiled before 1375, when Liu Ji died) attests to this.

Eric (En Rui)

[Tibet Libre]

Are you making this up as you go?

No, you just have to read your own evidence carefully:

Then there was a reprinted edition of the entire Wujing Zongyao in 1510 AD, this complete version being the oldest extant copy available.

Being the "oldest extant copy" available, noboby can rule out any later amendments, unless you are prepared to believe Needham that "these blocks were re-carved directly from tracings of the edition made in 1231 AD".

On the general subject:
The whole problem with determing the early history of European, Arabic and Chinese gunpowder arms lies with PHILOLOGY and TERMINOLOGY. In most cases, the ancients simply transfered old names for the new weapons and the task of any serious historian is to determine when the source speaks of what. It goes without saying that in this context the earliest inventors of gunpowder weapons correlates strongly with those whose historians are prepared to apply the most generous interpretation. This also applies not only to literary sources, but also to the dating of archaeological finds. Against this background, I do think that the early history of firing arms will remain for some time in constant flux, as long as there is no general agreement on textual interpretations in Latin, Arabic and Chinese sources.

Edited by Tibet Libre, 19 September 2007 - 09:35 AM.

[Non-Han Nan Ban]

Being the "oldest extant copy" available, noboby can rule out any later amendments, unless you are prepared to believe Needham that "these blocks were re-carved directly from tracings of the edition made in 1231 AD".

Even if one was doubtful about the 1510 version being a faithful tracing from the 1231 edition of the Wujing Zongyao, there is also the gunpowder formulas of the Huolongjing (compiled before 1375), which are significant because they are much more potent in the level of nitrate than the formulas provided in the Wujing Zongyao. For example, the Wujing Zongyao formula with the highest grade of nitrate had a percentage of about 50%, whereas the Huolongjing's formula with the highest grade of nitrate had a percentage of about 91% (pretty much at maximum explosive potential). That is a pretty drastic difference in nitrate level than the most nitrate-enriched formula provided in the Wujing Zongyao. It is a possibility that the people who reprinted the Wujing Zongyao in 1510 were somehow unfaithful to the original written in 1044, but the evidence of these formulas not being as advanced as those in the Huolongjing suggest that they are the originals, because they were weaker and not as refined. Even if one was to outright deny the validity of the Wujing Zongyao of 1510 being a faithful original, there are many other texts from the Song Dynasty and Yuan Dynasty that attest to the gradually more effective and destructive force of gunpowder weapons, which were primitive bombs at first, but by the late 12th to early 13th century the gunpowder used was strong enough to tear through cast iron bomb shells, as records of the time period explain in vivid detail.

The whole problem with determing the early history of European, Arabic and Chinese gunpowder arms lies with PHILOLOGY and TERMINOLOGY. In most cases, the ancients simply transfered old names for the new weapons and the task of any serious historian is to determine when the source speaks of what. It goes without saying that in this context the earliest inventors of gunpowder weapons correlates strongly with those whose historians are prepared to apply the most generous interpretation. This also applies not only to literary sources, but also to the dating of archaeological finds. Against this background, I do think that the early history of firing arms will remain for some time in constant flux, as long as there is no general agreement on textual interpretations in Latin, Arabic and Chinese sources.

Very true. I am not very knowledgeable in Arabic, I must admit, but I do know the terminology for the cannon in the Chinese language was the same as the Song era term for the trebuchet catapult. In Latin there were similar conspicuous phrases that make it hard to determine if gunpowder weapons were used or not, unless specifically noted and explained in detail. I'm presuming the same confusing standard in the earliest possible accounts in Europe also apply to the non-Latin Vulgar dialects and languages. But like the Chinese, it is hard to determine.

Eric

[Tibet Libre]

Even if one was doubtful about the 1510 version being a faithful tracing from the 1231 edition of the Wujing Zongyao, there is also the gunpowder formulas of the Huolongjing (compiled before 1375), ... Even if one was to outright deny the validity of the Wujing Zongyao of 1510 being a faithful original, there are many other texts from the Song Dynasty and Yuan Dynasty that attest to the gradually more effective and destructive force of gunpowder weapons...

And these other Chinese sources are later than Roger Bacon's formula and possibly also the Arabic, which was my whole point.

Very true. I am not very knowledgeable in Arabic, I must admit, but I do know the terminology for the cannon in the Chinese language was the same as the Song era term for the trebuchet catapult. In Latin there were similar conspicuous phrases that make it hard to determine if gunpowder weapons were used or not, unless specifically noted and explained in detail.

Same also in Arabic, where the key word Naphta also earlier denoted something very different from gunpowder. I recently read that the same philological problem also plagues the Indian evidence, so it is pretty much a universal problem.

I do not doubt that Chinese sources can reliably identified of speaking (much) earlier than elsewhere about incendiary gunpowder, but whether gunpowder was first used as a propellant in China, or in Islam or Europe is still open to debate, given that no single authority is in command of all the relevant languages, necessary philogical skills and technical knowledge.

[copdoc]

And these other Chinese sources are later than Roger Bacon's formula and possibly also the Arabic, which was my whole point.
Same also in Arabic, where the key word Naphta also earlier denoted something very different from gunpowder. I recently read that the same philological problem also plagues the Indian evidence, so it is pretty much a universal problem.

I do not doubt that Chinese sources can reliably identified of speaking (much) earlier than elsewhere about incendiary gunpowder, but whether gunpowder was first used as a propellant in China, or in Islam or Europe is still open to debate, given that no single authority is in command of all the relevant languages, necessary philogical skills and technical knowledge.

Good point. I will leave it to the linguist to argue the first inventors as languages change meanings quickly in short periods of time making it difficult to determine what was meant buy various names and phrases over the years. I think many of the final answers are going to be buried in antiquity.

Even thought basic formulae are similar there are many variables that can determine whether “black powder” was an explosive, propellant, rocket fuel or a pyrotechnic formulae that burns. Nice discussion from Tactical Tao. Other nitrates can also be used as an oxidizer and many organics can be used as the reducing agents. I would think “black powder” was most likely a toy for a long time before an effective weapon was developed.

I have replicated an arrow firing, fire lance from just bamboo using a bamboo sub-caliber chamber similar to the 40mm M79/203 grenade system. A smaller inner chamber allows faster burning powder to be used as a propellant. It works fairly well but is not safe to shoot except remotely. Whipping the outer chamber with hemp or silk could improve safety. This is a simple idea that could have been used if it was known. On the other hand the longer narrow chambered hand cannon such as the Tannenberg-gonne allow slower burning powder to be used as a propellant. There are a lot of different formulae that could be used for both rockets and guns. I am interested any known dimensions of early Chinese guns, especially the bore to chamber ratios.

. Does anyone know of any of the early powder chamber dimensions in the Chinese or Arabic guns? Also any information on material used, outer diameter, bore diameter etc. Does anyone know if the “Crouching Tiger” cannon has a reduced powder chamber?

[TacticalTao]

Good point. I will leave it to the linguist to argue the first inventors as languages change meanings quickly in short periods of time making it difficult to determine what was meant buy various names and phrases over the years. I think many of the final answers are going to be buried in antiquity.

Even thought basic formulae are similar there are many variables that can determine whether “black powder” was an explosive, propellant, rocket fuel or a pyrotechnic formulae that burns. Nice discussion from Tactical Tao. Other nitrates can also be used as an oxidizer and many organics can be used as the reducing agents. I would think “black powder” was most likely a toy for a long time before an effective weapon was developed.

I have replicated an arrow firing, fire lance from just bamboo using a bamboo sub-caliber chamber similar to the 40mm M79/203 grenade system. A smaller inner chamber allows faster burning powder to be used as a propellant. It works fairly well but is not safe to shoot except remotely. Whipping the outer chamber with hemp or silk could improve safety. This is a simple idea that could have been used if it was known. On the other hand the longer narrow chambered hand cannon such as the Tannenberg-gonne allow slower burning powder to be used as a propellant. There are a lot of different formulae that could be used for both rockets and guns. I am interested any known dimensions of early Chinese guns, especially the bore to chamber ratios.

. Does anyone know of any of the early powder chamber dimensions in the Chinese or Arabic guns? Also any information on material used, outer diameter, bore diameter etc. Does anyone know if the “Crouching Tiger” cannon has a reduced powder chamber?

http://homepages.tig.../handgonnes.htm

oh and another article on gunpowder saying chinese invented it about 1000 A.D

http://www.hackman-a...boutgunpder.htm

[copdoc]

http://homepages.tig.../handgonnes.htm

oh and another article on gunpowder saying chinese invented it about 1000 A.D

http://www.hackman-a...boutgunpder.htm

Thanks I had not seen the first site in a while, it is a very good one. I did not see any specific data on the Chinese hand cannon. Length, bore diameter, chamber diameter, etc.

I also would like to know if there is any speculation as to what the carriage of the "Crouching Tiger" cannon would have looked like. I think Jieming told me that he suspected there was another set of "legs" on the back.

[Intranetusa]

Gunpowder explosives invented in the late Tang, early Song dynasty 9th-12th CE.

This is the mainstream historical view.


Btw, saltpeter explosives invented in the Han dynasty 200 BCE - 200 CE.