Talk:History of gunpowder

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: INicolas225.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Image

I removed the image from this article[1], which clearly from another website created in year 2000 http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~dispater/handgonnes.htm. Eiorgiomugini 05:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eiorgiomugini. Reproductions of ancient paintings are free of copyright in the United States. This is called PD-Art on Wikipedia. This image is therefore Public Domain. Thank you to restore it. Here is the PD-Art tag for your information:

Arlight, fine, but I think the caption of the image needs some source. Eiorgiomugini 06:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

May I know why material supposedly from Encyclopedia Britannica (though I myself haven't checked it) is being deleted? Is the material misattributed? Or is the source considered unreliable?[2]Bless sins (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the very extended discussion in the main Gunpowder article. Hopefully that will answer most or all of your questions. Regards. Meatwaggon (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

user:Meatwaggon is undoing other editors (user:Pyrotec and user:Ammar shaker) and removing Britannica.

He's getting away with it because of the following things he said to me, which drove me away:

• your feeble attempt to sound ecumenical notwithstanding, as if that was somehow going to fool anybody.
• Oh, if I could only convey the depths of my amusement at this statement.
• he seems to be doing a bang-up job so far.
• I could also easily make an idiotic parade of your own recent diarrhea of edits to this page.
• so ignoring your idiotic attempts at caricaturization.

This was in answer to "why material supposedly from Encyclopedia Britannica is being deleted"? The copy/paste of quotes is given here BTW.

Vtria 08 (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[sock]

Nobody drove you away, Vtria. Or was it Moerou? You've had so many names. You also said you were going to appeal to an administrator. What happened? Decided to be nice? Or was it because you felt they might actually follow up on my assertions about you? You tucked tails and ran, though I asked you to stay and answer for yourself. The fact that you now come over here to whine speaks volumes about your intellectual integrity. Not to mention you conveniently failed to include the context of my posts and have been able to hide your personal attacks against me with this method of list-posting. Anywho, now that you're here, care to answer some of the more vexing questions that you pointedly and repeatedly chose to avoid before? Or are you just going to run again? BTW, you also represented like you had additional sources which back you up, which you said you could post screenshots of. Where are they, pray tell? It's been several days now, and not having enough time to post them is becoming less and less of an excuse, especially given the plethora of edits you've made here in the recent past. Everybody is still waiting in rapt attention for you to educate us, Vtria. Meatwaggon (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

CORNING

The current text contains a reference which seems to me to have a misinterpretation. It might be a terminology problem. Gunpowder cannot be made properly without liquid in order to generate sufficient contact between the saltpetre and charcoal. This occurred very early, perhaps from the invention. Corning, as usually understood, came considerably later. Uncorned powder was called serpentine and was still used in guns in the mid 16th century. The current text confuses two issues.91.111.99.98 (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC) hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.89.5 (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

sources

I can not find this: Ahmad Y Hassan (1987), "Chemical Technology in Arabic Military Treatises", Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (New York Academy of Sciences): does someone have a volume number?J8079s (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No sorry. However, Ahmad Y Hassan is a Professor of the History of Arabic Science and has published other books which cover part of this history, for example: Hassan, Ahmad Y and Hill, Donald R. [1986] (1992). Islamic Technology: An illustrated history. Paris: UNESCO ISBN 93-3-1027330-6 and Cambridge, New York and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-42239-6. The use of the {self published} flag is inappropriate since there is no evidence that Ahmad Y Hassan added the material himself; neither is the use of the {primary source} flag. The web site that you object to is (or is stated to be) part of a UNESCO project.Pyrotec (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Found it myself vol. 500 ISBN 0897663969 maybe someone with access to the ""Annals"" could check and see if could be used to replace the self- published stuff.--J8079s (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Self-published

The claims made on the web site cited in the article are contradicted by all the reliable sources. See: A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder Partington ISBN 0801859549 and: Chase, Kenneth (2003), Firearms: A Global History to 1700, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521822742. Thank you J8079s (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

So what. The appropriate response is to quote all three sources and to highlight that there is a difference. al-Hassan has three books published by UNESCO (one of which, see above, was also published by Cambridge University Press); he was Director of the Institute for the History of the Arabic Science, University of Aleppo and more recently at the Department of Middle Eastern Studies, University of Toronto. He appears to meet the criteria of a reliable source. Please do not use flags such as primary sources or self published just because you disagree with the content.Pyrotec (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, upon rereading it my reply above seems to be somewhat harsh; it was not intend to be so.Pyrotec (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess this has been discussed before Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 18 I just read this stuff to be more informed. I think that there is room for more mainstream info.J8079s (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion indicates that 1) He is a reliable person (although biased) and 2) His website is self-published. I think the tags should stay.J8079s (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Critique of "History of Gunpowder"

The organization of the article, I believe is equally as important as the quality of information given in the article. The article begins by giving a statement of what Gunpowder is and the chemicals used to create it in the second half of the 19th century. The article then discusses the origins of gunpowder and its development and spread from “Chinese alchemy” to 17th Century Europe.

After a brief introduction to the topic of gunpowder, the “Contents” box is listed and breaks down links of information on the Wikipedia page into sub-categories. 1. Original Development, 2. Medieval history, 3. Early Modern history, 4. See Also, 5. Notes, 6. References. Topics 4, 5, and 6, while important don’t really offer much in terms of subject matter to the history of gunpowder topic. Part 2 is broken down into 4 subcategories; China, Islamic world, India, and Europe, while Part 3 is broken down into 2 subcategories; Mughai India, and Early Modern Europe. The “Early Modern Europe” subcategory additionally has four more sub-sub-categories; Military, Mining, Canals, and Tunnel Construction. This organization is very important to me as a reader, because it lets me know exactly what the page is about before I even begin reading.

I know the subject is about gunpowder, and I know the article will discuss origin, culture/ country history of gunpowder in the medieval period, early modern gunpowder history in India and Europe, and uses for gunpowder in military, mining, canal building and tunnel construction.

The sources and illustrations are useful because of the organization of the article page. Since the page is laid out chronologically, the sources are also in a chronological order, which allows me to skim through them quickly to get the information I want out of it. The illustrations which accompany the chronological development of Gunpowder are very interesting, however completely useless at the same time. Some of the early illustrations of “original development” subcategory show pictures of the formula for gunpowder on 1044BC. While interesting, since I cant read Chinese, the pictures are relatively useless to me. Also, a picture of an early “handgun” from the Yuan Chinese Dynasty around 1300 is shown and helps illustrate the uses and applications of the gunpowder material. The majority of pictures do not even show gunpowder, rather they show pictures of cannons and explosive inventions like dynamite to illustrate the uses of gunpowder. I like the idea of focusing on the results of the subject (gunpowder) in addition to the history and development of itself.

The thoroughness of the article is rather weak in my opinion. The article gives a broad depiction of gunpowder, its uses, and the development. In two short paragraphs under Early Modern warfare, the article discusses the advancement in metallurgy and weapons and its relationship to gunpowder, while completely missing the development of more sophisticated gunpowder like we have today. I assume the article wanted to focus on early history of gunpowder, however, gunpowder’s history is much longer than 11th Century to mid 19th Century. Therefore, the article failed to include the History of Gunpowder in more modern times, leaving out crucial details of the History of Gunpowder. I would suggest lengthening the article until at least World War II with the development/ evolution of new gunpowder/ cordite or possibly combining the article on cordite, even if it is just a brief 3-4 paragraph insert on the origins of modern gunpowder.

The treatment of Wikipedia has always been of having a lesser credibility to that of another “more official” encyclopedia. I was always told never to quote or use Wikipedia as a reference, since anyone can write anything about the subject. However, the article on the History of Gunpowder offered a good generalized and well supported amount of information and appears to be very credible with the sources mentioned at the bottom of the page. Wikipedia is extremely easy to navigate and is a great starting point for articles and information on the internet when doing a research assignment. One source leads to another which leads to another which leads to another and eventually you end up finding extremely accurate primary sources, all thanks to the starting point of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-11dalthoff (talk • contribs) 18:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggested edit

Strike "Zhenyuan miaodao yuolüe" and replace with "Zhenyuan Miaodao Yaolüe (真元妙道要略)".

"Zhenyuan miaodao yuolüe" seems to be a Pinyin rendering, but I don't believe Pinyin contains a "yuo".

I haven't found any reliable sources, not to imply I'm in any way qualified to search. As a possible lead, a purported soft copy of Zhenyuan Miaodao Yaolüe can be found here.

Chouhouzi (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggest merge with gunpowder article

Why does article need to stand alone? Why shouldn't it part of the article on gun powder? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Summary style, a Wiki guideline that specifies that certain articles should have their own sub-articles if they are too large. The topic of gunpowder is a rather large one, so to have its own history sub-article comes as no surprise. That being said, it appears that someone has recently tagged this article as being too large to navigate, meaning that this one might be broken up into further sub-articles in the near future! I find that to be just fine, since the history of gunpowder is a huge topic in its own right that spans virtually the entire globe and developed at different paces in different regions of the world. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Despite this the mongols were heavy in numbers and conqured China

"Despite this the mongols were heavy in numbers and conqured China" - incongruous.. removed (20040302 (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC))

American Civil War

Caves mined for the saltpeter by the Confederate Nitre and Mining bureau included Lookout Mountain Caverns, Morrell Cave, Nickajack Cave, Organ Cave and the Sinnett-Thorn Mountain Cave System.

Isaac M. St. John was appointed head of the Confederate Nitre and Mining Bureau. A number of southern businessmen, chemists and college professors worked with the Confederate Nitre Bureau, including Richard Sears McCulloh, Nathaniel Thomas Lupton and John Cubbins.

John B. Salling claimed to have been a peter monkey and saltpeter miner as a private in Company D, 25th Virginia Infantry, in Scott County, Virginia, during the Civil War, and claimed to be Virginia's last surviving Confederate veteran.

This text seems overly detailed for an article on the world history of gunpowder. Maybe an article on Confederate munitions industry would be the right place for it. Rezin (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Article tagged for being too long to comfortably navigate

@Underbar dk: hello. You tagged this article back in January as being too long to read comfortably. I share the same opinion, but you need to be a little more constructive than to just place a tag and a little editing here and there. You need to inform the editors here on the talk page about your concerns. It would be helpful if you could point out which areas need to be parsed down and split off into new sub-articles where necessary. It would be a shame to lose any of this information, so new sub-articles all around sounds like a good solution. Those new sub-articles could also be linked into the main article on gunpowder, as well as in other articles related to gunpowder warfare. Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Good to see you, @PericlesofAthens:. I agree, and I've tried splitting off some information into new articles (eg. at Siege of De'an) before getting distracted by other matters, so for that I apologize. Personallyh, I think the article at its current state mixes both historical narrative and historical analysis, and goes into both rather too deeply for what should be a general article. I would try to cut down on the blow-by-blow accounts of the wars and battles, so I think sections like "Jin-Song Wars" and "Mongol Wars" are good candidates to move, perhaps in a "Gunpowder" section in their respective articles. There are also repeated content that has already been split off but is somehow still on this article (like the "Volley fire" section is already covered by the Volley fire article), so those could be pared down. We can also split the Chinese dynastic history of gunpowder into a series of articles, so that the Song is not the only dynasty to get an article dedicated to their gunpowder artillery. Also pinging the major contributor to the relevant sections @Yprpyqp:. _dk (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply, Underbar dk! I agree that excessive detail about individual battles can be moved to articles about those specific wars. However, I'd be careful about removing too much information on volley fire. Just because it has its own article doesn't mean it shouldn't be prominently featured in this one with its own section or sub-section; information in several articles are allowed to overlap to a certain degree. In this case we could still retain a moderately large section devoted to it, but shortened per Wikipedia:Summary style, with a prominently-displayed "main article" link for "Volley fire" at the top of that section. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Splitting the article is an excellent idea. In the style of the "Science and technology of the X dynasty" articles, I suggest naming the articles as "Gunpowder technology of the X dynasty" or something similar. We should probably also consider splitting parts of the article to a dedicated Historiography of gunpowder article.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 01:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Discovery, not invention

I see that most editors have voiced issues about vagueness and problems with the article and I agree. To start with, looking at other discoveries and inventions, Wikipedia correctly uses the term "discovered" for discoveries made inadvertently as is is the case with gunpowder's discovery.N34B2 (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The first physical explosive?

Not clear to me what this means. Was there some other sort of non-physical explosive before? - Snori (talk) 09:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Too long?

Frankly the problem is not just that it's too long to easily navigate, but that it includes far too much material that isn't directly relevant. What, for example, is a whole section on "volley fire" doing here? In most cases it looks as if we have good links to main articles on these other topics, so trimming here will not result in a nett loss of information. Thoughts? - Snori (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I have now trimmed that whole section out. - Snori (talk)

...and am working through trimming others. - Snori (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Please make sure when you're trimming that the material can be found in other wiki pages if it sourced. If it can't be found in another page then make one before mass deletion of content, which is not trimming.Qiushufang (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I am very aware of this, but the problem is that a lot of this detailed material is not relevant or necessary to this article. In most cases there is a "main" article that covers the topic in detail, and where these details could go if they have merit. - Snori (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how erasing the entire section on the transmission of gunpowder counts as trimming irrelevant content. @Underbar dk: and @PericlesofAthens: have already talked about this above and created a page for some of the content that they removed. Why not follow the example instead of conducting mass deletion of content? The suggestion on top of the page mentions splitting content into sub-articles. Have you tried doing that? Qiushufang (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've now had a go at this for that example. Thoughts? - Snori (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive deletion of content by Gun Powder Ma

There has recently been a slew of disruptive editing by Gun Powder Ma. Behavior includes mass deletion of content including several sources. The reason for doing so cited by him includes misrepresentation of just one of the deleted sources by Agoston. However the direct quote is never given by the user in the talk page, nor did the user address the fact that doubt over the use of arquebuses is directly stated in the content he deleted. The entire passage the user did not cite is given below:

Initially the Janissaries were equipped with bows, crossbows, and javelins. In the first half of the 15th century, they began to use matchlock arquebuses, although the first references to the Ottomans’ use of tüfek or hand firearms of the arquebus type (1394, 1402, 1421, 1430, 1440, 1442) are disputable. Most historians agree that in the 1443–44 wars against the Hungarians and at the second battle of Kosovo (1448) the Ottomans used tüfek, which were either arquebuses or small cannons. The fact that fortress inventories of the mid-15th century listed tüfeks alongside cannons (top) suggests that by this time the tüfek had evolved into handheld firearms of the arquebus type. Murad III (r. 1574– 95) equipped the Janissaries with the more advanced matchlock musket. The Ottomans were known for their expertise in siege warfare, and Ottoman gunners reduced even the modernized European forts in Hungary with astonishing effectiveness.

Here it can be clearly seen that Agoston does not deny the usage of arquebuses in the first half of the 15th century, and in fact directly supports the claim. However he says it is disputable in regards to the earliest years and in fact could have been small cannons as late as 1448. However he also notes that tufeks were listed as a separate item aside from cannons in support of his claim. Instead of adding further material supporting Agoston, Gun Powder Ma simply mass deleted not only the sourced material citing Agoston, but also several other sources including Needham, Saidel and Nicolle on several other pages. This is actually what is called misrepresentation of sources. When questioned over this, Gun Powder Ma did not address these concerns and engaged in circular reasoning asking for a negative, when he is the one who should be justifying the deletion of content. The user also did not address the fact that it is already addressed in the source that they may have been small cannons. Qiushufang (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, all these references are "disputable" according to Agoston himself. Therefore, they should not be stated as fact. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. Problem solved. Qiushufang (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

No, the problem is that you are blindly restoring sources that you have evidently not read. You also restored the Saidel reference that does not make such a claim. Or could you provide the exact page number? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The Nicolle reference that you wildy restored is not correctly cited, either. What Nicolle really says is that the Janissaries only gradually accepted the arquebus after witnessing it against the Hungarians in 1440-1443. That makes you wrong on all three sources. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

What claim exactly did I make about these sources? I stated that you did not give an appropriate reason for deleting content sourced using these sources. "Wild restored" seems rather dramatic when all I did was revert unspecified changes to citations for which no reasons were given. Neither Saidel or Nicolle were mentioned. You quoted Agoston using a single word, "disputable", which I have since proven is a misrepresentation of the source material. If you had actually read the entire paragraph as you had claimed, you would have known this, and improved upon the article rather than opting for mass deletion. It was even already stated in the content you deleted, as I have mentioned many times and you have chosen to ignore, that they may have been small cannons instead. I have improved on the material to make it more apparent as you should have done from the start. This is what an editor is supposed to do, not mass deletion of content based on a personal nitpick.Qiushufang (talk) 04:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I have been removing falsely sourced contents that failed verification, and said so in the edit summaries, while you restored them without bothering to read them. This is disruptive. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Dazu rock cannon.png
• Hand cannon dazu rock carvings.png

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Ningxia gun.jpg (discussion)
• Xanadu gun.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Awe inspiring long rang cannon.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Crouching tiger cannon.png (discussion)
• Ding liao da jiang jun.png (discussion)
• Great general cannon.png (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Arabic gunpowder weapons.jpg (discussion)
• Shouyuquanshu 1638.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Changes to chronological order to alphabetical?

You can't be serious right? If all items are listed in alphabetical order, then why are all the history pages categorized in chronological order? Please stop being facetious, you know this is not how wikipedia works.Qiushufang (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

a reply to problematic user Qiushufang from the view history page

"the sources were added by a now banned account,...." you are wrong, it was now blocked and not killed in "real" life, the sources weren't originally from that specific "account" as you call it, they were older and added from another article by that I.P. if you had cared to notice, by the way it's an I.P. and not an account

"....because they caused disruptive editing,...." you are lying as usual and that's your "excuse", that I.P. was blocked because it was from an I.P. proxy server and not for some sources that "caused" "destructive" editing

"....and also added primarily non-English sourced texts...." and also other articles have primarily non-English sourced texts because they are very difficult to be found in other languages

"....with barely any citations" with "barely" any citations? are you looking with your eyes open? you expecting it to be a pot pourri or something, find them your own self to their specific language if they are easy then and don't expect it all from others, they are not your slaves after all

The solution to all of this is to simply make an account. Do not resort to insults. Inundating with 10 references for a single line of text does not leave anybody with confidence and suggests you do not have a good understanding of the subject material. If you did, you wouldn't need 10 references for anything, it just suggests you found them after being called out. Qiushufang (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

a notice

the fire arrows are not rockets, they are rocket arrows — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.73.240.234 (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

about the deletion of some sections about history by Qiushufang

@Qiushufang this is ridiculous you are doing, you seem to be jealous and keep deleting some sections about history because you don't like and have monopolized the whole article, what's that complex of yours?

that's a biased point of view and not neutral

you are twisting the historical facts for yourself, history is history, truth is truth and cannot be deleted

here are the sections you are deleting together with references and bibliography:

Arabia

Historian Jean De Juanville confirms Al Hasan Al Ramma describing a strange rocket powered projectile that was used by the Arabs against the units of Louis IX during the seventh crusade. Jean De Juanville notes that the French faced these projectiles for the first time when they attempted a maneuver on the banks to one of the eastern arms of the Nile river in their attempt to capture Damietta. But the reaction of the Arabs on the other side of the bank was immediate and launched projectiles that ended up flaming on the French cavalry.

The weird weapon was a flattened missile in the shape of a biconvex disk with a charge of black powder and a tail to stabilize the orbit. During movement flames came out of small openings which Al Hasan Al Ramma identified with the term "ikrich", while the propulsion was achieved with three rockets by which the two were combined so that they could be used as guide rods for the middle third and far more powerful rocket.

Byzantium

At about 668 AD engineer Kallinikos presented a variant of the older incendiary substances which consisted of nitric acid, carbon, tar, petroleum, lime, sulfur and resin, and used as a means of launching the cannon and siphon of Ctesibios (286-222 BC) to which he applied an air pump. The use of the air pump (which was also Ctesibios invention) obviously belonged to an older period, as it eliminated the need to use chemicals and especially ammonia which was so scarce to find in mineral form. It is certain that Kallinikos had the writings of Ctesibios with the general title "Υπομνήματα" ("Memos") from which he utilized various pumping mechanisms and the cannon, as well as works of Heron and Philo.

Although the exact composition of the incendiary substance remains unknown as the later Byzantine engineers and military successfully kept its secret sealed, emperor Leo III (717-741 AD) delivered another variation which consisted of carbon, niter and sulfur, which in reality was nothing else than the later black powder. Kallinikos incendiary substance was the well known "υγρόν πυρ" ("liquid fire") also known as "Ελληνικό πυρ" ("Ellinik fire" or "Greek fire") and was used mainly by the fleet of the Byzantines, but the other incendiary substance that was described by emperor Leo III differs that it was not a sea weapon (because it deactivated in the water) and was probably linked to a later report by pope Leo VI (929 AD) that described methods of destroying ships from the land with incendiary weapons which were launched with smoke and loud noise. The use of two different incendiary substances in composition shows that the cannon and siphon of Ctesibios was utilized to launch the early type of gun powder as a simple fire tube with a sealed rear end, while to launch the liquid fire as a siphon it was combined with an air pump.

There are countless reports on the use of the fearsome effective liquid fire which was a basic weapon of the marines who were specially trained in the use of portable hand fire tubes (also known as portable handcannons) and portable "χειροσίφωνων" ("handsiphons", also known as portable flamethrowers).

Roberto Valturio at about 1450 AD in his work with the title "De re militari" supports that at the reign of pope Leo VI (886-911 AD) the Byzantines used fire tubes that were opened at both ends to launch rockets. Marcus Graecus in his treatise with the title "Liber ignium ad comburendos hostes" that is dated between the years 1225-1250 AD notes however that the methodology and the technical knowledge of rocketry was very old and already known since emperor Leo III.

Bibliography

• Francesco Petrarca, "De remedis utriusque fortunae", i, 99, fol., page 83, A.A. vol. I, Basil, 1544.
• P.K.B. Reynolds, "The vigiles of imperial Rome", page 97, London, 1926.
• H.D.L. Viereck, "Die Romische flotte" (The Roman fleet), Kohlers Verlag, Herfrod, page 119, 1975.
• Leo Magnus, "Bellum vandalis", 160, Bonn, 1931.
• Λέων VI (Leo VI), "Τακτικά" (Tactics), XIX, 57, Bonn, 1926.
• Λέων VI (Leo VI), "Περί θαλάσσης" (About sea), 60, 61, 64, 65, Bonn, 1926.
• Ιωάννης Μαλάλας (Ioannis Malalas), "Χρονογραφία" (Chronography), L. Dinforf, Bonn, 1831.
• Paul Hamlyn, "The encyclopaedia of space", page 19, 1969.
• Frederick Ordway III and Wernher Braun, "History of astronautics", page 47-49, Larousse, 1969.
• F. Matschoss, "Geschichte der dampfmachine" (History of the steam engine), page 27, Berlin, 1909.
• Titus Livius, "Ab urbe condita", XXXVII, 11, vol. IV, B.G. Teubner, Leipzig, 1991.
• Titus Livius, "Ab urbe condita", XXXVII, 28-30, vol. IV, B.G. Teubner, Leipzig, 1991.
• Ammianus Marcellinus, "Res gestae", XXIII, 4.28, vol. I, B.G. Teubner, Leipzig, 1999.
• Flavius Vegetius, "Epitoma rei militaris", IV, 18 and V, 44, B.G. Teubner, Leipzig, 1995.
• Aulus Gelius, "Noctes Atticae" (Attic nights), i, 34, vol. I, B.G. Teubner, Leipzig, 1991.
• Πολύβιος (Polybius), "Ιστορίαι" (History), XXI, 7, vol. IV, B.G. Teubner, Leipzig, 1995.
• Διόδωρος Σικελιώτης (Diodoros Sikeliotis), "Ιστορική βιβλιοθήκη" (Historical library), XX, 97.2, vol. V, B.G. Teubner, Leipzig, 1985.
• Ανώνυμος ή Ήρων Βυζάντιος (Anonymous or Heron of Byzantium), "Πολιορκητικά" (Sieges), XXII, 5-10, page 262, Imprimerie Imperiale, Carl Wescher, Paris, 1867.
• Γεώργιος Ηλιόπουλος (Georgios Iliopoulos), "Η χαμένη πυραυλική τεχνολογία των αρχαίων Ελλήνων" (The lost missile technology of the ancient Greeks), Ιχώρ (Ihor), 27, Greece, 2002.

Ok, so I have four issues. One, you are a banned user using multiple IPs to avoid your ban. That's pretty significant. Two, your content has very few inline citations. Three, the citations you do have all reference sources several decades old at the very least, which does not bode well for your already dubious additions. Four, you list a bunch of sources, most of which are not in English, also incredibly old, and without inline citations. Qiushufang (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I am responding to the request edit template at the top of this section. This looks more like a content dispute rather than a conflict of interest, so I am going to decline this ticket. This is not a judgement of whether the information should be added, but rather an acknowledgement that this is the wrong template for this. I encourage both sides to seek help on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard or a Wikipedia:Third opinion as I do not think this back-and-forth is productive. If you have any questions or concerns, please post below. Z1720 (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @185.157.232.78:, I have closed the request edit as "declined". The request edit template is for users who have a conflict of interest with the article because they know the person in real life or they work for the article's business. If you would like other opinions on your edit, please post a request at WP:3O, at WP:RFC or WP:DRN.

In my opinion, some of the sources are too old; I avoid sources printed before 1946. If the information is verified then a more current researcher will verify the information. Also, the suggested prose puts references at the end of the section, instead of using inline citations after every sentence or every paragraph. While not necessary to have an inline citation after every sentence, it is recommended that editors cite information inside their writing. This allows readers and other editors to know where exactly each piece of information came from. For example, if two sentences use information from one book, and the third sentence takes information from a second book, then cite the first book after the second sentence and the second book after the third sentence.

If you have any questions about suggested edits to this article, please post below and an editor will help. You can also use the help desk (click me!) to have an experienced editor help with your edit. Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Awe-inspiring long range cannon.png (discussion)
• Barbarian attacking cannon.jpg (discussion)
• Chinese mortar or bombard of 1377.jpg (discussion)
• Convocation of eagles chasing hare arrow.png (discussion)
• Fire lance.jpg (discussion)
• Greatgeneralcannon.png (discussion)
• Huolongjing Eruptor.jpg (discussion)
• Huolongjing bomb.jpg (discussion)
• Manual Fire Arrow.jpg (discussion)
• Ming artillerymen.jpg (discussion)
• Organ gun.jpg (discussion)
• Poison eruptor.jpg (discussion)
• Seven barreled organ gun.jpg (discussion)
• Taku Composite Metal Cannons.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

AtLA ref

″Then everything changed when the Jin dynasty attacked″ LOL, cute. Gotta' tip my cap to you, fellow avatard. 2600:1700:DA90:2AB0:B809:A944:A2AA:BA84 (talk) 10:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Taku Composite Metal Cannons.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Fire lance.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Gunpowder formula

"which contains a collection of factoids on Chinese weaponry."

So these were plausible but incorrect statements about Chinese weaponry ?

146.198.42.246 (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)