[Julian Reynolds]

Kurt, thanks for that clarification. I take your point that Chinese history is indeed 'derivative' ie. based on previous sources, and chronicles may be many times removed. As such, we can only really say that X was writing in the Y century reporting the contemporary writings of Z. But if that is all that we have to work with, then what alternative have we got to try and set a time line for events? It doen't help much to say that because the sources are re-digested and re-written, and that there is no contemporary primary source, then it can never be proved (or worse still, it never happened). I guess you have, as you say, got to understand the way Chinese history is chronicled, and make certain extrapolations. Just because there is a stronger, later primary source from Arabic sources, does not dismiss or negate the weaker, earlier derived evidence from China.

As you say, there is no doubt that the explosive properties of 'gunpowder' (before it became used as such) was widely known. If you throw into the mix a raging war against a powerful enemy (the Mongols), and chronicled examples of gunpowder being used offensively against them (and later, examples from the Mongols themselves), I like to think you can draw the conclusion that the Chinese originated the use of gunpowder as a weapon in war, bearing in mind the 'fuzziness' of the sources and how much credence you give them. But then, who am I to say so?

It's something for people who make their living (historians?) doing so, to argue over for centuries.....

Julian

[Randall Moffett]

Julian,

To me this is one of the major issues with the entire development of firearms anywhere in the world. This is especially true in China where they liked to attribute developments to earlier dynasties and people in respect and honor. Sort of like in Classical Athens and Solon, you want the law to look legitimate and of great importance so you tack it on to someone of great importance. Loads of laws are attached to him even though he had been dead for some time. Basically one of the issues is we cannot simply accept sources that are a hundred, or hundreds, of years later claiming something unless there was contemporary evidence present. Lack of any strong supporting evidence in the period it supposedly took place indicates a discrepancy.

We see similar issues in European development as well with people going back and adding things in when it was common. We see some curious hand even 'add' guns into a battle in the late 13th century in Italy in a 13th century manuscript, a slight little arrow and now you have the earliest use of firearms, not really but this is similar to what later writers are doing here. Or the German Monk who claimed in the 15th century they had created gunpowder.

The alternative is to look at when the accounts of clear evidence are taking place and go from there. If a number of people are writing about firearms around the same time and their descriptions are solid and show a clear knowledge of them but they claim this took place 150 years before, when no one is writing about this, it seems more likely the later writers are describing contemporary events and technology not ancient ones. Happens in medieval Europe all over in the later 14th century, lets retroactively update the battle or siege.

It would be hard to say by the 13th century the Chinese had not begun to use gunpowder in weapon forms but I think the context is often surpassed in interpretation. Just like the Edward I siege on Berwick at the end of the 13th century where people were claiming a hundred plus years ago he was using cannons, when a good thorough reading does not support this but some type of explosive or flammable projectile. Most of the sources I have seen from 13th century China sound much more like this but I agree some seem to indicate some type of early firearm but the clarity of many of these accounts is still rather ambiguous. Once you cut out the accounts that are nearly 100 years later it is surprising what you are left with though and interesting enough largely complementary at that.

As to the debate.... yeah it is never going to end so might as well set up a chair, umbrella and enjoy.

RPM

[Kurt Scholz]

It's the story of the guy looking for his key under the street lamp because it gives light while he knows he lost the key somewhere else without light available.

The written and pictorial evidence for military applications of salpeter formulas is synchronous across Eurasia. This should be no wonder because the possibility was well known and this was a well connected continent, at least from a Muslim point of view.
Differences can be established by tracing salpeter in vessels far to large or otherwise unsuitable for the previous medical applications and a rise of salpeter mining with increasing intentional modification of stables and other excrement processing facilities for this purpose. This is the hard evidence that can be dated reliably. But if all you know is scripture and art you keep searching underneath the street lamp and produce volumes over which you can argue with friends underneath the street lamp.

[Julian Reynolds]

The problem with looking at developments in saltpetre production and using that as your yardstick, is pretty plain: it does not tell you anything at all about the origins of its offensive use as gunpowder in projectile weapons, which was the original query.

No distinction can made between medicinal/alchemical use of the substance and its use for making explosives, purely by looking at production volumes and techniques on their own. You need the evidence of its use, not just its production.

And if you surmise that it is indeed increased production intended for use in explosives, how are those explosives to be used? To make loud bangs? To throw fire? Or to fire a projectile?

By the time you see enough examples of increased production to warrant a noticeable trend, surely you are way past the origins phase and into the phase where the technology is considered widespread.

All you can say with certainty, is that production of saltpetre became more 'industrial' as the centuries progressed (although I use the term very loosely, as the most common way of extracting it at this early stage was digging up stables and leaching the collected soil). And of course, you can say that increased production reflects a corresponding increase in demand.

Improvements in the technology and sophistication of manufacture merely show evidence of an ability to better exploit the resource, and are not evidence of origination. Just because you can produce something better and in larger quantities does not mean you invented it, or are even the most prodigious user of that 'something'. Just that you are better at making it to meet a demand.

To learn 'how' it was used, you need to find documented evidence of its use, not its manufacture, surely?

Julian

[Kurt Scholz]

It's simple. Everyone knew how to make a bang with salpeter. That was known long before any useful guns or other salpeter applications for warfare appeared. The first one to step up production from the previous limited medical level has other uses that really make an impact. Before guns were really effective there were some freaks who experimented with them, but we have no clue that the depicted item uses gunpowder or some other combustable susbstance mixed with salpeter. I don't know why you guys are so into finding the first gun. The problem is that before gunpowder appeared everyone knew how to build a tube and put explosve powder into it (sulfur and salpeter medicine) that propels a projectile, but that was for a long time a stupid idea for warfare applications. When salpeter became a viable option the production had significantly dropped in price and an extensive network of feces processing had to set up that was not required before.

[Julian Reynolds]

This type of reasoning is just flawed. It is akin to saying that, in order to prove who originated the use of 'guns' in warfare, one must look at who was the best at producing lead. After all, lead is used in bullets, which are uniquely used in guns, so it must follow that if you are making lots of it, then you must be making (and using) lots of bullets. It is flawed on so many levels (there really isn't any need to point them out), and implies a causality that simply isn't there. I don't think there is a huge amount more that can be said about the direction of this line of argument.

Julian

[William P]

not too surprised that people are obsessed about finding who developed the first guns because lets face it, the deploymnet of gunpowder weapons, fundementally change the face of warfare (ok, i realise it took more than just the development of the musket and cannon to rewrite military tactics, but it was still a definate gamechanger particularly in the development of fortress design, i mean, the fact we have something that the cannon almost always shoots in a petty flat trajectory, compared to trebuchets,
meant that high walls are smply not gonna cut it althoug this admittedly fails to explain mortars, then again, mortars are in a rally high arc, trebuchets are in a much lower, yet still somewhat parabolic trajectory that a high wall can overcome,
the fact a bombard can now just topple that high wall makes said walls more of a liability since theyre nowsuch a big target.

and it also might in turn, rewrite and topple the immensel popular noton that the chinese invented it and it was spread to everyone else later.
discovering thateuropeans/ muslims developdit on their own also helps explain the reasons behind the old adage 'china invented gunpowder but didnt invent the gun'
i.e how the cinese nvented gunpowder mae a few things but somehow europeans managed to take it and make it positively lethal and then turned around and bsolutely booted the ass of chinese armies when they met in the 18th and 19th centuries i.e opium war.

although i get the feeling thats easily explained by the political and scientific mindset of the various regions through time
i.e european kingdoms were war mad and constantly competeing with each other. plus weregoing into a scientific and classical education boost, so anything to give an edge over the other side was readily adopted
the european wars, like with swordsmanship techniques, and armour manufacture.
as has been pointed out with WMA curricula, using things that dont work wll get you killed vry fast. by people who are smart enough to

wheras like japans edo period, china stagnated in quite few ways martially

but if gunpowder was an independant inentions among muslims and europans, it changes the paradigm a bit

for example ive heard in a few 'sources' not good ones but a perception is that the muslims took chinese powder which was, initially not very goodas a propellant and then refined the formula to make it more powerful and more useful as a propellant.

dunno how true this is though

[Timo Nieminen]

[Jojo Zerach]

I'm not sure of the source, but I remember hearing early Chinese gunpowder burned a lot slower 13th-14thC gunpowder, and wasn't really suitable for cannons or guns. (Hence their use of fire lances and related weapons.)
And either way, I believe corned gunpowder is a 14thC European invention.

[Kurt Scholz]

Slow burning powder usually has not well purified salpeter and often little sulfur. Add to this that the Chinese experimented with arsenic as part of the formula in order to create a chemical weapon. To purify salpeter you had to get especially the salt out of the mixture. There are some medieval recipes on that difficult process that is not necessary for medical and incendiary applications as well as for limited explosions.
China did develop bamboo firearms, including a kind of wooden gun that due to their material are not well preserved and can work with much less explosive powder than the Western armament (not requiring much purification and making guns cheaper, but with less range and power).
Early on guns were used to propel wooden projectiles and not lead that did have many other applications while a large scale production of salpeter didn't have any other applications because of the very limited requirement of salpeter as a medicine and a meat preservation salt. Even more so this does apply to methods of separating salpeter and salt that is not required for civilian applications (until mining uses gunpowder).
China had early on conquered most of eastern Asia and thus rarely met an enemy beyond the capability of raiders on horseback. That's why their military development was concerned with other objectives like securing against rebels and coups d'état. Think of them as the military continuation of the French gendarmes and the longest surviving ancien régime that started to topple after the French revolution due to changed weaponry and tactics that did give insurgents the chance to learn how to win.

[Julian Reynolds]

Some very fancy and surprisingly shaped handgonnes from 15thC Europe (pics trawled from the vikingsword forum), just for the heck of it:

[William P]

and thus the ol' double barrel was born.

i still cannot get over the posting of that german and danish late 16th century revolving firearms, seriously, if i saw those in movies, like say, one about oliver cromwell, or queen elizebeths wars, id have thought the director was making stuff up (although he wuld be if he depicted them being used in any significant numbers)

i think the term, 'truth is stranger than fiction DEFINATELY applies to ancient A&A

as for cannons not effecting fortress design in china, i guess, thats why they dididnt suddenly develop big star forts,
since as you point out, they used rammed earth
europeans on the other hand used walls faced with stone but were mostly filled with rubble which is a LOT weaker than solid, homogenous rammed earth

on a side note, in bernard cornwells sharpe series, in the first book sharps fortress which covers the british seige of seringpatam, apparently the indian lord had a inner wall of soft clay which
niether my cannon nor joshuas trumpets can topple, apparently because fairly soft clay will simply absorb the impact and be compressed, rather than be broken in any significant way.

im wondering if thats true.

[Philip G.]

William P wrote: "on a side note, in bernard cornwells sharpe series, in the first book sharps fortress which covers the british seige of seringpatam, apparently the indian lord had a inner wall of soft clay which
niether my cannon nor joshuas trumpets can topple, apparently because fairly soft clay will simply absorb the impact and be compressed, rather than be broken in any significant way. "

I think this information is legit. The green park of the city I grew up in (Moers) once was a Durch star fort. As a child I took a tour and the guide explained the same thing; that the fort was protected by walls/slopes of soft clay, which were better protection against cannon balls then stone walls.

[Kurt Scholz]

There were many earthen fortifications that proved well suited to high speed low mass cannonballs. Unfortunately, not all of them coincide with the existence of cannons, like the La Tène fortifications. The issue with the cannon was that the most expensive and safest fortification up to date became extremely unstable to the latest advancement in weaponry, although the mixed brick and stone walls of Byzantine origin fared better. So as a stop gap measure the walls had to decrease in height and increase in thickness provided by earth or other similar shock absorbent stuff. The downside of this was that the wall became stable again, but the whole infantry based defense was again more exposed to enemy storming attempts that prior had been defended against by raising the height of the stone wall. So the only conclusion was to get a stopper for approaching infantry such as a ditch and a mass killer and destroyer of engines and tools, a kind of cannon. Depending on the problem at hand, some architects got going with star fortresses and all that while others took less extensive steps towards security.

[William P]

i know that there was 2 philosophies in the renaisance to fortress design in terms of covering blind spots at lease, one was the angle bastion, which became the basis for starfort design. the other was the idea of, placing a number of strategically placed 'redoubts' i.e low walled, pit like forts i front of the walls that could provide self supporting crossfire through handguns and light cannon, as well as being supported by a ring of low to the ground gun positions right n front of the main castle wall, its best explained with a picture, which i am finding is very difficult to locate

but ill say little more on seige since its moving off topic of the subject of early handgonnes
and into that of cannons and seige warfare.

so ill change the topic by asking for those that have shot handgonnes, what sort of distances can one, with a reasonable degree of reliability hit a man, im primarily talking about the 'barrel on the end of a broom handle' form as opposed to the hook gun which looks, quite sensibly, like someone stuck a gun barrel on a crossbow stock.

which isnt a great leap to make, i mean both weapons have fairly similar trajectories, and it makes sense one would have thought to put a gunbarrel on a crossbow stock.

[Kurt Scholz]

and please specify munitions and werapons used for hitting something.

[Julian Reynolds]

Google is your friend! A simple search brings up this:

http://www.musketeer.ch/blackpowder/handgonne.html

Including a test of copies of two pole handgonnes (the Tannenberg and the Danziger one).

Julian

[Randall Moffett]

Julian,

We should be careful with his testing and results as for the primary reason he is using modern black powder which is just about as similar to medieval powder of the 14th and 15th centuries as a AK47 is to a 14th century pole gun. This is one of the key issues with almost all testing of medieval guns. Medieval powder, even corned powder burns slower than what we and even people a few hundred years ago were using. As far as I know there are only a handful of people that have made and burned medieval type powders, based on existing directions of mixture and such. The result of the powders til at least the c. 1410 is a slow burning powder which takes time to build up the needed powder to expel the projectile. As well his conclusions might be somewhat correct but we need to be aware that a modern black powder carried much better and is faster to fire than medieval powder.

His distances and claims of aim are a bit odd as well. 25 strides is fairly close. About as close as when we see much ability of longbows to pierce some plate. If this is the closest range he can hit an object it is likely half or even less that of a bow or crossbow could do in a similarly trained man. As well two meters distance for penetration tests using modern powder seems very unimpressive.

Now that said I think his testing and his creation of the guns is fantastic but thinking you can get results medieval people did without using the same vital components is never going to give he right results. It is not only him as many modern people interested in older guns do the same thing. WIlliams has figured a fairly significant gain in joules from the older powder to corned powder in the 2nd quarter of the 15th. I do indeed wish I had some early firearms as he does as I'd be tempted to mix some of my own powder from the recipes I have from the 14th and 15th.

The RA did some testing a few years back on medieval powders but I cannot find the article anywhere. I will Email Thom or Graham and ask them if they can find a citation for me next week.

RPM

[Julian Reynolds]

Randall,

The page I linked to is part of a much more in-depth look at medieval black powder shooting. If you follow the links, the author goes on to make black powder and compares it to modern black powder:

http://www.musketeer.ch/blackpowder/homemade_bp.html

Some interesting stuff there which I too, would like to emulate, but making black powder in the UK is tricky.....

Julian

[Randall Moffett]

Right but he seems to be using the store made powder for his testing for aim and penetration.

The powder comparison seems to be the only time he makes mention to making his own and using it to mark the differences.

Now he may have used it in the aim and penetration tests but it does not look to be so from his description.

I found this the case with crossbows as well in the UK. I was in the middle of making one when I decided I had better figure some more about the possible issues and ran out of time then moved to the US.

There are some groups in the UK that do some great medieval reenactment but my guess is few use older powder types and get the store bought stuff. It is just a pain to make so for logisitcs it is just easier.

RPM