The Project Gutenberg EBook of Gunpowder and Ammunition their Origin and Progress, by Henry W. L. Hime This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. Title: Gunpowder and Ammunition their Origin and Progress Author: Henry W. L. Hime Release Date: March 22, 2017 [EBook #54411] Language: English Character set encoding: UTF-8 *** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GUPOWDER, AMMUNITION--ORIGIN, PROGRESS *** Produced by deaurider, Turgut Dincer and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from images made available by the HathiTrust Digital Library.) Cover image created by transcriber and placed in the public domain. GUNPOWDER AND AMMUNITION BY THE SAME AUTHOR STRAY MILITARY PAPERS. With 2 Plates. 8vo, 7s. 6d LUCIAN, THE SYRIAN SATIRIST. 8vo, 5s. net. THE OUTLINES OF QUATERNIONS. Crown 8vo, 10s. LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. LONDON, NEW YORK, AND BOMBAY GUNPOWDER AND AMMUNITION THEIR ORIGIN AND PROGRESS BY LIEUT.-COLONEL HENRY W. L. HIME (LATE) ROYAL ARTILLERY LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON NEW YORK AND BOMBAY 1904 All rights reserved CONTENTS PART I THE ORIGIN OF GUNPOWDER CHAP. PAGE I. Introduction 3 II. Saltpetre 12 III. The Greeks 29 IV. Marcus Græcus 57 V. The Arabs 90 VI. The Hindus 105 VII. The Chinese 124 VIII. Friar Bacon 141 PART II THE PROGRESS OF AMMUNITION IX. Analytical Table of Ammunition 165 X. Hand Ammunition:— Fire-Arrows and Fire-Pikes 168 Hand Grenades 169 XI. War Rockets 172 XII. Gunpowder 177 XIII. Shock Projectiles:— Darts, &c. 199 Round Shot 200 Case 207 Shrapnel 208 XIV. Igneous Projectiles:— Hot Shot 217 Incendiary Fireballs 217 Incendiary Shell 220 Carcasses 224 Explosive Fireballs 224 Explosive Shell 225 XV. Igniters:— Hot Wires, Priming Powder, Matches, and Portfires 228 Tubes 230 Time Fuzes 231 Percussion and Concussion Fuzes 244 XVI. Signals 246 TABLES vi TABLE PAGE I. Methods of Refining Saltpetre 27 II. Greek Fires 32 III. Sea Fires 41 IV. Analytical Table of Ammunition 167 V. Price of English Powder at Various Times 184 VI. Connection between Size of Grain, Muzzle Velocity, and Pressure 195 VII. Composition of English Powder at Various Times 197 VIII. Composition of Foreign Powder at Various Times 198 IX. Price of Metals in 1375 and 1865 204 X. Comparative Cost of One Round fired with Shot of Different Materials, cir. 1375 205 XI. Comparative Pressure on Bore when firing Shot of Different Materials, cir. 1375 206 XII. Composition of Matches at Various Times 229 XIII. Composition of Time Fuzes at Various Times 243 XIV. Composition of Signal Rockets at Various Times 246 XV. Fixed Lights 246 XVI. Fireworks 247 Index 249 BOOKS OFTEN QUOTED The following works are frequently quoted, and are only designated by the author’s name. Thus, “Elliot,” ii. 75, means Sir H. M. Elliot’s “Hist. of India, as told, &c. &c.,” vol. ii. p. 75. Bacon, Roger, Opera quædam hactenus inedita, ed. by Professor Brewer; Rolls Series, 1859. Berthelot, M. P. E., La Chimie au Moyen Age, Paris, 1893. Brackenbury, Lieut.-General Sir H., G.C.B., “Ancient Cannon in Europe,” in vols. iv. and v. of Proceed. Roy. Artillery Institution, Woolwich, 1865-6. Elliot, Sir H. M., “Hist. of India, as told by its own Historians,” ed. by Professor J. Dowson, M.R.A.S., London, 1867-77. Jähns, Oberst-Lieut. M., Handbuch einer Geschichte des Kriegswesens, Leipsig, 1880. Napoleon III., Études sur le Passé et l’Avenir de l’Artillerie, Paris, 1846-71. Nye, Master-Gunner N., “Art of Gunnery,” to which is added a “Treatise on Artificial Fireworks” (separately paginated), London, 1647. Reinaud (Professor) et Favé (Capitaine), Du Feu Grégeois, &c., Paris, 1845. Romocki, S. J. von, Geschichte der Explosivstoffe, Hanover, 1895. Whitehorne, P., “Certain Waies for the ordering of Souldiers in Battelray,” London, 1560. PART I THE ORIGIN OF GUNPOWDER CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION I vii 3 Much discussion has been caused in the past by the vagueness of the word gunpowder. The following are the meanings which this and a few other words bear in these pages:— Explosion.—The sudden and violent generation, with a loud noise and in a time inappreciable by the unaided senses, of a very great volume of gas, by the combustion of a body occupying a comparatively very small volume. Progressive Combustion.—Combustion which takes place in a time appreciable by the unaided senses, such as that of rocket composition or a bit of paper. Gunpowder.—A mixture of saltpetre, charcoal, and sulphur, which explodes. The signs of its explosion are a bright flash, a loud noise, and a large volume of smoke. Incendiary (for “incendiary composition”).—A substance or mixture which burns progressively, although fiercely, and is hard to put out. Machine always means an apparatus of the ballista type. Cannon includes bombards, mortars, guns, &c. Musket includes all hand firearms charged with gunpowder. II Of the many difficulties that beset the present inquiry, two deserve special mention. The first is the want of simple exactness in most early writers when recording the facts from which we have to draw our conclusions. At times their descriptions are so meagre that it is difficult, if not impossible, to decide whether certain projectiles were incendiary or explosive. At other times they abound in tropes and figures of speech which amount to an unintentional suggestio falsi. “The missiles spread themselves abroad like a cloud,” says a Spanish Arab; “they roar like thunder; they flame like a furnace; they reduce everything to ashes.”1 A projectile full of blazing Greek fire appeared to Joinville to be of portentous bulk. It flew through the midnight sky with thundering noise like a fiery dragon, followed by a long trail of flame; and it illumined the whole camp as with the light of day.2 Even to approach the truth, we must prune such figures of rhetoric; and this is a dangerous operation, for we may prune too much. The only safeguard against these suggestive metaphors is to keep steadily in view the distinctive peculiarities of incendiary and explosive projectiles. The incendiary shell was simply an envelope intended to convey into the interior of a fort, ship, &c., a quantity of combustible matter, which burned with such violence as to set fire to everything inflammable that was near it. The primary object of the explosive shell, on the other hand, was to blow up whatever it fell upon. It might occasionally, by the intense heat generated by the explosion,3 set fire to its surroundings when inflammable; but this was a mere incidental consequence of its action. Its aim and end was to explode. When a musket or cannon was fired there was a bright flash, a loud, momentary report, and a large volume of smoke.4 When an incendiary missile was discharged from a machine there was no flash, but little smoke, and the only sounds were the whizzing and sputtering of the burning mixture and the creaking and groaning of bolts, spars, ropes, &c.:— “With grisly soune out goth the greté gonne.”5 An explosive missile made its way through the air with little noise6 and less light:7 during its flight the blazing contents of the incendiary shell doubtless gave out much light and made a considerable noise, as described by many early writers. When an explosive shell reached its object there was, sooner or later (if it acted at all), an explosion, occasionally followed by a conflagration: an incendiary shell produced a conflagration only. The second difficulty arises from the change of meaning which many technical words have undergone in the lapse of years. The Arabic word barúd originally meant hail, was afterwards applied to saltpetre, and finally came to signify gunpowder. Our own word powder, which at first meant a fine, floury dust (pulvis), is often used in the present day to designate the stringy nitrocelluloid, cordite—smokeless powder. The Chinese word yo means gunpowder now, although its first meaning was a drug or plant. For centuries gunpowder was called kraut in Germany, and to this day it is called kruid in Holland. The Danish krud has not long become obsolete. The present Chinese word for firearm, huo p’áu, originally meant a machine for throwing blazing incendiary matter. The Arabic word bundúq at first meant a hazel-nut, secondly a clay-pellet the size of a hazel-nut, thirdly a bullet, and finally a firearm.8 The Latin nochus, a hazel-nut, is used, strange to say, to designate a smoke-ball by an old German military writer, Konrad Kyeser, whose “Bellifortis” dates from 1405.9 The word was also applied in Germany to bullets in general, and more particularly to projectiles discharged by machines. The word Artillery, both in France and England, originally meant bows and arrows. In his original account of the battle of Cressy, Froissart calls the apparatus and bolts of the Genoese crossbowmen leur artillerie; while a few lines further on he speaks of the kanons of the English.10 Ascham, writing in 1571, says: “Artillerie nowadays is taken for 4 5 6 7 two things: gunnes and bowes.”11 Selden reminds us that gonne, our present gun, at first meant a machine of the ballista type.12 It is used in this sense in “Kyng Alisaunder,” 3268, written a.d. 1275-1300, and other metrical romances. Like the Arabic bundúq, the word is occasionally applied to the projectile, as in the “Avowing of Arthur,” st. 65. It is used in the modern sense, as cannon, in the “Vision of Piers the Plowman,” Passus xxi, C text, 293, a poem begun in 1362 and finally revised by its author in 1390; and in all three meanings by Chaucer, in poems written during the last quarter of the fourteenth century;—as a machine in the “Romaunt of the Rose,” 4176, as a projectile in the “Legende of Good Women,” 637, and as a cannon in the “Hous of Fame,” 533. “When the thing is perceived, the idea conceived,” says Professor Whitney, “(men) find in the existing resources of speech the means of its expression—a name which formerly belonged to something else in some way akin to it; a combination of words,” &c.13 For example, a word, W, which has always been the name of a thing, M, is applied to some new thing, N, which has been devised for the same use as M and answers the purpose better.14 W thus represents both M and N for an indefinite time,15 until M eventually drops into disuse and W comes to mean N and N only. The confusion necessarily arising from the equivocal meaning of W during this indefinite period, is entirely due, of course, to neglect of Horace’s advice to coin new names for new things.16 Had a new name been given to N from the first, no difficulty could possibly have ensued, and our way would have been straight and clear. But as matters have fallen out, not only have we to determine whether W means M or N, whenever it is used during the transition period,17 but we have to meet the arguments of those, never far off, who insist that because W meant N finally, it must have meant N at some bygone time when history and probability alike show that it meant M and M only. Examples, enough and to spare, of such arguments will be met with shortly. In consequence of the change of meaning which many military words have suffered, no translation of passages in foreign books containing ambiguous words should be relied upon, if access to the originals, or faithful copies of them, can be obtained. As an example of the necessity for this precaution, let us compare a few sentences relating to the siege of Jerusalem, a.d. 70, from the “Polychronicon” of Higden (d. cir. 1363), Rolls Series, iv. 429 ff., with the translations of them by Trevisa, 1385, and by the author of MS. Harl. No. 2261, of a.d. 1432-50. A (1) Inde Vespasianus ictu arietis murum conturbat (Higden). (2) Thanne Vaspacianus destourbed the wal with the stroke of an engyne (Trevisa). (3) Wherefore Vespasian troublede the walle soore with gunnes and other engynes (MS. Harl.). B (1) Josephus tamen ardenti oleo superjecto omnia machinamenta exussit (Higden). (2) But Joseph threwe out brennynge oyle uppon alle her gynnes and smoot all her gynnes (Trevisa). (3) Then Josephus destroyede alle theire instruments in castenge brennenge oyle on hit (MS. Harl.). C (1) Quo viso tanta vis telorum ex parte Titi proruit, ut unius de sociis Josephi occipitium lapide percussum ultra tertium stadium excuteretur (Higden). (2) Whan that was i-seie there fil so gret strenthe of castynge and of schot of Titus his side, that the noble knyght of oon of Josephus his felowes was i-smyte of that place with a stoon and flewe over the thrydde forlong (Trevisa). (3) Titus perceyvenge that, sende furthe a sawte and schotte gunnes to the walles in so much that the hynder parte of the hedde of a man stondenge by Josephus was smyten by the space of thre forlonges (MS. Harl.). D (1) Admotis tandem arietibus ad templum (Higden). (2) At the laste the engynes were remeved toward the temple (Trevisa). (3) Titus causede his gunners to schote at the Temple (MS. Harl.). No suspicion rests upon either of these translators; yet, were the original lost, a covert allusion to cannon might be discovered in Trevisa’s translation of B and C, and the Harleian translation of A, C, and D would be put forward as proof positive of their use. III The claims of the Greeks to the invention of gunpowder are examined in Chap. III. Chap. IV. is an inquiry into the nature and authorship of the Liber Ignium of Marcus Græcus. The claims of the Arabs, Hindus, Chinese, and English are considered in Chaps. V.-VIII. In Part II. the progress of Ammunition is very briefly traced from the introduction of cannon to the introduction of breechloading arms. As the book is addressed to the officers of the Army, who seldom have a library at command, the authorities for the statements of important facts are generally given at length. On all controversial points, when a foreign authority is quoted 8 9 10 11 the original18 is given as well as the translation. I have endeavoured to acknowledge my obligation in all cases where quotations have been borrowed from others without verification. The invention of gunpowder was impossible until the properties of saltpetre had become known. We proceed, therefore, in the following chapter to determine the approximate date of the discovery of this salt. CHAPTER II SALTPETRE The attention of the ancients was naturally attracted by the efflorescences which form on certain stones, on walls, and in caves and cellars; and the Hindus and nomad Arabs must have noticed the deflagration of at least one of them when a fire was lit on it. These efflorescences consist of various salts,—sulphate and carbonate of soda, chloride of sodium, saltpetre, &c.—but they are so similar in appearance and taste, the only two criteria known in primitive times,19 that early observers succeeded in discriminating only one of them, common salt, from the rest. So close, in fact, is the resemblance between potash and soda, that their radical difference was only finally established by Du Hamel in 1736. Common salt received a distinctive name in remote times; all other salts were grouped together under such vague generic names as nitrum, natron, afro-nitron, &c. No trace of saltpetre has hitherto been found anywhere before the thirteenth century. The Greek alchemists of preceding centuries are silent. There is no saltpetre in the earliest recipe we possess for Greek fire, No. 26 of the Liber Ignium,20 ascribed to one Marcus Græcus, either as given in the Paris MSS. of 1300, or in the Munich MS. of 1438. It is true that the phrase sal coctus in this recipe has been translated by saltpetre in M. Hœfer’s untrustworthy Histoire de la Chimie, but as MM. Reinaud and Favé remark: “Rien n’autorise à traduire ainsi; le sel ordinaire a été souvent employé dans les artifices.”21 There is no instance in Latin, I believe, of saltpetre being designated otherwise than by sal petræ (or petrosus), or by nitrum, singly or in combination with some other word, as spuma nitri. The substitution of sal petræ for sal coctus, in later editions of the recipe, only shows that when the valuable properties of saltpetre became known it was employed instead of common salt. The very fact of the change having been made by most of the later alchemists, proves that to them sal coctus did not mean sal petræ, but something else. If sal coctus had meant sal petræ, what need was there for the change? This change, however, was not universal. In the version of recipe 26, given in the Livre de Canonnerie et Artifice de Feu, published in Paris in 1561, but written long before by a fire-worker well acquainted with saltpetre, we find: “prenez soufre vif, tarte, farcocoly (sarcocolla), peghel (pitch), sarcosti (sal coctum), &c.”22 The word coquo (to boil or evaporate) was necessarily connected with the preparation of common salt by evaporation,23 and coctus would correctly distinguish evaporated or artificial salt from natural or rock salt. In his “Natural History,” xxxi. 39 (7), Pliny tells us that salt is found round the edges of certain lakes in Sicily which are partially dried up in summer by the heat of the sun; while in Phrygia, where much greater evaporation takes place (ubi largius coquitur), a lake is dried up (and salt is deposited) to its very middle. Sal coctus was salt recovered from salt water by natural or artificial heat, as distinguished from natural, or rock salt, which was dug out of the ground.24 The Arab alchemists before the thirteenth century are as silent as the Greeks: nothing that can be identified with saltpetre is to be found in their voluminous works. The evidence of Geber, so often cited to prove that saltpetre was known to the Arabs in the ninth century, has been stripped of all authority by M. Berthelot, who has satisfactorily proved that there were two Gebers. The real Arab, Jabir, says nothing of saltpetre, but he mentions a salve used by naphtha-throwers25 as a safeguard against burns. The other Geber, or pseudo-Jabir, was acquainted with saltpetre, as well he might be; for he was a western who lived some time about the year 1300,26 and wrote a number of Latin works falsely purporting to be translations from the Arabic of the real Jabir. All doubt about the matter has been removed by M. Berthelot’s publication of the real Jabir’s Arabic writings.27 It has been also suspected that the sal Indicus of the Liber Sacerdotum, cir. tenth century,28 a salt again mentioned in the Liber Secretorum of Bubacar, cir. 1000,29 means saltpetre. Both these works are translations from the Arabic or Persian,30 and sal Indicus is the literal translation of the Persian—ھﻨﺪي ﻧﻤﻚ (nimaki Hindi) = ﺳﯿﺎه ﻧﻤﻚ (nimaki siyah) = salt of bitumen; a substance of the same family as the “salt of naphtha” also mentioned by Bubacar. There is no word for saltpetre in classical Sanskrit, sauverchala being a generic term for natural salts, which corresponded to, and was as comprehensive as the nitrum, spuma nitri, &c., of the West. “Recent Sanskrit formulæ for the preparation of mineral acids containing nitre, mention this salt under the name of soraka. This word, however, is not met with in any Sanskrit dictionary, and is evidently Sanskritised from the vernacular sora, a term of foreign origin.”31 Both Professor H. H. Wilson and Professor M. Williams, in their Sanskrit dictionaries, “erroneously render yavakshara as saltpetre, as also does Colebrooke in his ‘Amara-kosha.’”32 The word means impure carbonate of potash obtained by the incineration of barley straw.33 At length, however, notwithstanding coarse scales and clumsy apparatus, the want of all means of registering time and temperature, and the absence of any general principle to guide them in their researches, the alchemists succeeded in differentiating certain natural salts from the rest, and among them saltpetre. The Chinese were acquainted with it about 12 13 14 15 16 the middle of the thirteenth century.34 Abd Allah ibn al-Baythar, who died at Damascus in 1248, tells us that the flower of the stone of Assos was called Chinese snow by the Egyptian physicians and barūd (i.e. saltpetre) by the (Arab) people of the West.35 Friar Bacon, whose De Secretis was written before 1249, and Hassan er-Rammah who wrote 1275-95, were thoroughly acquainted with the salt. A grand chemical discovery had been made, and saltpetre became known from China to Spain. The Egyptians thought fit to call saltpetre “Chinese snow,” but this does not justify the conclusion that the discovery was made by the Chinese. Consider our own phrases “Jerusalem” artichoke, “Welsh” onion, and “Turkey” cock. Jerusalem is a gardener’s corruption of girasole, the Turkey came from America, and the home of the Welsh onion is Siberia. The Persians called their native alkaline salt jamadi Chini, and no one will suggest that this substance came from China. It is evident from the way in which it is mentioned by the alchemists of the thirteenth century, and from their primitive methods of refining it, that saltpetre was then in its infancy. Roger Bacon speaks of it as one would speak of a substance recently discovered and still little known—“that salt which is called saltpetre” (illius salis qui sal petræ vocatur).36 Marcus Græcus thought it necessary to explain what the word means, in his 14th recipe which probably belongs to the latter years of the thirteenth century.37 The methods of refining the salt given by Marcus and Hassan leave no possible doubt that in their time it had but just come into use. It is true that Bacon’s method was much superior, if the solution of his steganogram given in Chap. viii. be accepted. But it would have been past all explanation had the method of the greatest natural philosopher of the age been found to be no better than that of an Arabic druggist or a European fireworker. As the matter is one of the greatest importance, the methods of all three are given in full, together with that of Whitehorne, 1560. The Waltham Abbey method is added, as a standard by which to judge them. To admit of easy comparison, the corresponding operations are marked with the same letter. The five methods are summed up in Table I. Waltham Abbey, 1860. A. Preparation of grough from natural saltpetre.38 Natural saltpetre is dissolved in boiling water, the insoluble impurities removed, and the solution evaporated by the sun or artificial heat. The solid residue is grough saltpetre, and contains 1 to 10 per cent. of impurities, consisting of the chlorides of potassium and sodium, sulphates of potash, soda, and calcium, vegetable matter, sand, and moisture. B. Boiling the solution of grough saltpetre. The grough saltpetre is placed in an open copper with a false bottom; water is added, and heat applied until the mixture boils at 110° C. C. Removal of the insoluble impurities. The scum which rises to the surface during this operation is removed by ladles; the sand and heavy impurities fall upon the false bottom, which is removed just before the mixture boils. The boiling is continued until the scum ceases to rise. D. Second boiling of the solution. Cold water is added; the solution is boiled for a few minutes, and then allowed to cool somewhat. E. Filtration. At 104.5° C. the mother liquid is transferred to a tank with holes in its bottom, closed by filters. F. Use of wood-ash, charcoal, &c. If the impurities prevent the liquid from passing freely through the filters, it is treated with glue, wood-ash, or, better, with a little animal charcoal, which seizes on the impurities and rises to the top as scum. G. Crystallisation. The mother liquid filters into the crystallising trough at 70.2° to 65.8° C. H. Stirring the depositing solution. The solution is kept in constant agitation by poles whilst cooling, in order that it may deposit in minute crystals, called saltpetre flour. Large crystals contain more or less of the impure mother liquid. I. Washing and drying. The agitation is discontinued at 25.8° C. and the mother liquid drawn off. The flour is drained on an inclined plane, transferred to a washing vat, where it is washed three times with cold water, and then finally dried. Whitehorne, 1560. A. Preparation of grough from natural saltpetre. On the bottom of a vessel pierced with “three or fower littell holes” is placed a linen cloth, “or else the end of a 17 18 19 20 21 broom, or some straw.” A layer of nitrified earth, “a spanne thicknesse,” is laid on this, and on the earth “three fingers’ thicknesse” of a mixture of “two parts of unslacked lime and three of oke asshes, or other asshes.... And so, putting one rewe” of saltpetre alternately with one of the mixture, “you shall fill the tubbe ... within a spanne of (its mouth), and the rest you will fill with water.” The water, on percolating through the mass, drips into a brass cauldron which, when two- thirds full, is boiled “till it come to one-third part or thereabouts. And after take it off and put it to settell in a great vessell,” when it is to be “clarified and from earthe and grosse matter diligentlie purged.” B. Boiling the solution of grough saltpetre. The solution is then “taken and boyled of new.” F. Use of wood-ash, animal charcoal, &c. When the solution boils and throws up scum, it is treated with a mixture of “3 parts of oke asshes and 1 of lime, together with 4 lbs. of rock alum to every 100 lbs. of the mother liquid.” “In a little time you shall see it alaie, both clear and fair and of an azure colour.” C. Removal of insoluble impurities. The heavy impurities, which sink to the bottom, are got rid of by pouring the clarified mother liquid into another vessel. G. Crystallisation. “Take it out and put it in vessels of woode or of earth that are rough within, with certain sticks of wood, to congeal.” I. Washing and drying. “This same saltpeter being taken from the sides of the vessel where it congealed, and in the water thereof washed, you must lay it upon a table to drie throughly.” F´.39 Use of wood-ash, animal charcoal, &c. “Minding to have (saltpetre) above the common use, for some purpose, more purified, &c. (which for to make exceeding fine powder, or aqua fortis, is most requisite so to be):—take of the aforesaid mixture (F) ... and for every barrel of water you have put in the cauldron ... you must put into it five potfulls” of the mixture. “In the same quantity of water so prepared, put so much saltpeter as it will dissolve.” D. Second boiling of the solution. Boil the whole until it “resolve very well.” E. Filtration. When the scum rises, transfer the mother liquid to a tub with holes in the bottom, on which is laid a linen cloth covered with a layer of sand four finger-breadths deep. D´. Third boiling of the solution. The filtered liquid is boiled again “in order to make the greater part of the water seeth away.... Make it boil so much until you see it ready to thicken, pouring in now and then a little of the mixture” (F). G´. Final crystallisation. The mother liquid is then transferred to wooden troughs “to congeal,” for which three or four days are allowed. “After this sort thou shalt make the saltpeter most white and fair, and much better than at the first setting.” “Liber Ignium,” cir. 1300. A. Preparation of grough from natural saltpetre. If natural saltpetre is dissolved in boiling water, cleansed, and passed through a filter, and boiled for a day and a night; the (grough) saltpetre will be found deposited in crystals at the bottom of the vessel. The original is as follows:— “Nota, quod sal petrosum est minera terræ et reperitur in scrophulis contra lapides. Hæc terra dissolvitur in aqua bulliente, postea depurata et distillata per filtrum et permittatur per diem et noctem integram decoqui, et invenies in fundo laminas salis conielatas cristallinas.”40 Hassan er-Rammah, 1275-95. A. Preparation of grough from natural saltpetre. “Take white, clean, bright (natural) saltpetre ad lib., and two new (earthen) jars. Put the saltpetre into one of them, and add some water. Put the jar on a gentle fire until it gets warm” (and the saltpetre dissolves. Skim off) “the scum that rises” (and) “throw it away. Stir up the fire until the liquid becomes quite clear. Then pour it into the other jar in such a way that no scum remains attached to it. Place this jar on a low fire until the contents begin to coagulate. Then take it off 21 22 23 24 the fire, and beat (the crystals) gently.” F. Use of wood-ash, animal charcoal, &c. “Take dry willow wood, burn it, and plunge it into water according to the recipe for its incineration. Take three parts by weight of the saltpetre” (just obtained), “and the third of a part of the wood-ash, which has been carefully pulverised, and put the mixture into a jar—if made of brass, so much the better.” B. Boiling the solution of grough saltpetre. “Add water and apply heat, until the ashes and saltpetre no longer adhere together. Beware of sparks.” The original is as follows:—41 ﺑﺎب اﻟﺒﺎرود ﺣﻞ ﺻﺜﺔ وﺗﺎﺧﺬ اردت ﻣﮭﻤﺎ اﻟﻨﺎرى اﻟﻨﻘﻰ اﻻﺑﯿﺾ اﻟﺒﺎرود ﯾﻮﺧﺬ وﯾﻮﻗﺪ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺎء وﯾﻐﻤﺮ اﻟﻮاﺣﺪ اﻟﻄﺎﺟﻦ ﻓﻰ وﯾﺤﻂ ﺟﺪد طﺎﺟﻨﯿﻦ ﺟﯿﺪا ﺗﺤﺘﮫ واوﻗﺪ ﻓﺎرﻣﮭﺎ رﻏﻮﺗﮫ وﺗﻄﻠﻊ ﯾﻔﺘﺮ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻟﯿﻨﺔ ﻧﺎر ﻋﻠﯿﮫ اﺧﺮ طﺎﺟﻦ ﻗﻰ اﻟﺮاﯾﻖ اﻟﻤﺎء وﯾﻘﻠﺐ ﻏﺎﯾﺔ اﻟﻰ ﻣﺎؤه ﯾﺮوق ﺣﺘﻰ اﻟﻰ ﻟﻄﯿﻔﺎ وﻗﺪا ﻋﻠﯿﮫ وﯾﻮﺧﺬ ﺷﻰ اﻟﺘﻔﻞ ﻣﻦ ﯾﺘﺮاك ﻻ ﺑﺤﯿﺚ اﻟﺼﻔﺼﺎف اﻟﺤﻄﺐ وﯾﻮﺧﺬ ﻧﺎﻋﻤﺎ وﺗﺼﺤﻨﮫ وﺗﺸﯿﻠﮫ ﯾﺠﻤﺪ ان اﻟﺒﺎرود ﻣﻦ وﯾﺰن اﻟﺤﺮاق ﺻﻔﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ وﯾﻐﻤﺮ ﯾﺤﺮق اﻟﯿﺎﺑﺲ وﯾﻌﺎد ﺑﺎﻟﻤﯿﺰان ﺻﺤﻨﺘﮫ اﻟﺬى اﻟﻔﺤﻊ رﻣﺎد ﻣﻦ واﻟﺜﻠﺚ اﻟﺜﻠﺜﯿﻦ اﺟﻮد ﻓﮭﻮ ﻧﺤﺎس طﺎﺟﻦ ﻓﻰ اﻻﻋﺎدة ﻛﺎﻧﺖ وان اﻟﻄﺎﺟﻨﯿﻦ اﻟﻰ ﻣﻦ واﺣﺬو ﯾﻠﺘﺰق ﻻ ان ﺑﺤﯿﺚ وﺗﺤﻤﺼﮫ ﻣﺎء ﻗﻠﯿﻞ ﻋﻠﯿﮫ وﯾﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﻨﺎر ﺷﺮر Roger Bacon, cir. 1248. A. Preparation of grough from natural saltpetre. Carefully wash the natural saltpetre, and (as far as possible) remove all impurities. Dissolve it in water over a gentle fire, and boil it until the scum ceases to rise, and it is purified and clarified. Let the operation be repeated again and again, until the solution is clear and bright. Let it then deposit its crystals of the stone which is not a stone,42 and dry them in a warm place. B. Boiling the solution of grough saltpetre. Pulverise the crystals of grough saltpetre thus obtained, and immerse them in water. Make a powder of two purifying substances in the proportion of 3:2. Dissolve the crystals over a gentle fire. F. Use of wood-ash, charcoal, &c. To the powder add some animal charcoal, and thoroughly incorporate the ingredients (in a vessel). Then pour the hot solution upon it, and your object (of clarifying the mother liquid) will be gained. C. Removal of the insoluble impurities. If (by its appearance and taste you judge that) the solution is good, pour it out (into a crystallising vessel, leaving the heavy impurities behind). G. Crystallisation. (The mother liquid is now allowed to crystallise.) H. Stirring the depositing solution. (While depositing), stir the solution with a pestle. Collect the crystals as best you can, and gradually draw off the mother liquid. The original is as follows:— Calcem diligenter purifica, ut fiat terra pura penitus liberata ab aliis elementis. Dissolvatur in aqua cum igne levi, ut decoquatur quatenus separetur pinguedo sua, donec purgatur et dealbetur. Iteretur distillatio donec rectificetur: rectificationis novissima signa sunt candor et crystallina serenitas. Ex hac aqua materia congelatur. Lapis vero Aristotelis, qui non est lapis, ponitur in pyramide in loco calido. Accipe lapidem et calcina ipsum. In fine parum commisce de aqua dulci; et medicinam laxativam compone de duabus rebus quarum proportio melior est in sesquialtera proportione. Resolve ad ignem et mollius calefac. Mixto ex Phœnice adjunge, et incorpora per fortem motum; cui si liquor calidus adhibeatur, habebis propositum ultimum. Evacuato quod bonum est. Regyra cum pistillo, et congrega materiam ut potes, et aquam separa paulatim.43 TABLE I. Methods of Refining Saltpetre. 25 26 27 Roger Bacon, cir. 1248 A B F C G H ... ... ... ... ... Hassan er-Rammah, 1275-95 A F B ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Liber Ignium, cir. 1300 A ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Whitehorne, 1560 A B F C G I F´ D E D´ G´ Waltham Abbey, 1860. A B C D E F G H I ... ... A = Preparation of grough from natural saltpetre. B = Boiling the solution of grough saltpetre. C = Removal of insoluble impurities. D = Second boiling of the solution. E = Filtration. F = Use of wood-ash, animal charcoal, &c. G = Crystallisation. H = Stirring the depositing solution. I = Washing and drying. The simple and highly probable conclusion to be drawn from the foregoing facts is, that saltpetre was not discovered until the second quarter of the thirteenth century; but this conclusion is not universally accepted. It is said by some that although saltpetre was unknown to the rest of the world until then, it had been secretly used by the Greeks for five hundred years. This theory will be examined in the following chapter. CHAPTER III THE GREEKS Homer knew nothing apparently of incendiary compositions. When the Trojans set fire to the Greek ships, he certainly says that they burned with “unquenchable flame” (ἀσβέστη φλόξ), Iliad, xvi. 123; but this is a mere figure of speech, for presently afterwards he tells us that Patroclus extinguished the fire (κατὰ δ’ ἔσβεσεν αἰθόμενον πῦρ), 293. The Assyrian bas-reliefs in the British Museum prove that liquid fire was used in warfare in very remote times. Whether the Greeks adopted its use from the Orientals or originated it themselves, there is little evidence to show; but traces of it are found at an early date, for instance at the siege of Syracuse,44 413 b.c., and the siege of Rhodes,45 304 b.c. Vessels full of burning matter were thrown, at first by hand, from walls and the tops of forts upon besiegers; and when shell of suitable construction had been devised, these missiles were discharged from machines. The earliest instance of the use of firearms by the Greeks is found in Thucydides, ii. 75, where it is stated that at the siege of Platæa, 429 b.c., the Platæans found it necessary to protect a wooden wall by skins and hides against the fire- arrows (πυρφόροις ὀïστοῖς) of their Peloponnesian besiegers. By the time of the Roman Empire, fire-arrows were so well known as to be mentioned by the Latin poets,46 and the historians speak of fire-lances which were discharged from machines47 (adactæ tormentis ardentes hastæ). Vegetius, who lived in the fourth century a.d., gives the composition of fire-arrows;48 and Ammianus Marcellinus, who lived about the same time, points out their defects. First, the fire-arrow had to be discharged with a low velocity—ictu enim rapidiore extinguitur; it was extinguished by the cooling effect of the air when discharged with the full force of the bow. Secondly, in addition to its low velocity (and consequently limited range) it was extinguished when covered with clay.49 However, the composition was easy to light and hard to put out—even with clay or vinegar; its viscosity enabled it to stick to the body it struck; and, becoming more and more fluid from the heat of combustion, it “spread like wild-fire.” But the use of incendiaries was not confined to grenades and arrows. At the siege of Platæa, just referred to, the Spartans piled up faggots of brushwood against the walls, and, after pouring a mixture of sulphur and pitch on the heap, set fire to it in order to burn the town.50 They would have gained their object but for a rainstorm which put out the fire. We have here perhaps the earliest historical account of the composition of an incendiary—429 b.c. At the siege of Delium, 424 b.c., a tree was cut down and hollowed out, so as to form a tube, and from one end of it, which was protected by a covering of iron, was hung a cauldron containing a burning mixture of charcoal, sulphur, and pitch. Into this cauldron was introduced an iron bellows-pipe, leading from the end of the tree from which it hung. Having transported the machine close to the wall of the town (the cauldron to the front), the besiegers inserted the snout of a large bellows into the other end of the hollowed tree, and blew them. A great flame was thus produced; the wall, in which there was much wood, was set on fire; the heat of the fire and the vapour of the incendiary drove the defenders from the walls, and the town fell.51 Its simplicity shows that the mixture belongs to the infancy of incendiaries in Greece. We meet with fire-ships as early as 413 b.c., when the Syracusians employed one ineffectually against the Athenian fleet;52 and a special incendiary for naval use is recommended by Æneas, the tactician, about 350 b.c. It consisted of sulphur, pitch, incense, pine-wood, and tow. The mixture was stowed in egg-shaped, wooden vessels, admirably adapted for their purpose, which were thrown lighted upon the enemy’s decks.53 28 29 30 31 TABLE II. Greek Fires. Æneas.54 cir. 350 b.c. Vegetius.55 cir. a.d. 350. Liber Ignium.56 1200-1225. Kyeser.57 1405 Wild Fire.58 1560 Carcass Composition.59 1903. Sulphur Sulphur Sulphur Sulphur Sulphur Sulphur Pitch Bitumen Pitch ... Pitch Tallow Pine-wood60 Rosin Sarcocolla61 ... Charcoal Rosin Incense Naphtha Petroleum Petroleum Turpentine Turpentine Tow ... Sal Coctus62 Salfanium? Bay Salt Crude Antimony ... ... Oil of Gemma ... ... ... ... ... Tartarum63 Saltpetre Saltpetre Saltpetre In such ways were incendiaries employed by the Greeks for nearly eleven centuries after the siege of Platæa. During this long period the composition was of course improved, and the mixture of the seventh century a.d. burned more fiercely, and was harder to put out than that of the fourth century b.c.; but nevertheless the two mixtures were of the same species. At length, in the decade 670-80, a new species was devised. For the sake of clearness, the old incendiary mixtures will henceforward be called Greek fire; the new one “sea-fire.” We are told by Theophanes in his “Chronography,” written 811-815, that in the year 673 an architect called Kallinikos64 fled from Heliopolis in Syria to the Romans (i.e. Constantinople), and eventually compounded a “sea-fire” which enabled them to burn large numbers of the Moslem vessels engaged in the Seven Years’ War, 65 671-677. This incendiary was again employed with success against the Moslems during their second attack against Constantinople, 717, and at the decisive naval victory over the Russians under Igor in 941. The evidence of Theophanes about Kallinikos is corroborated almost verbally by the Emperor Constantine VII., Porphyrogenitus, in Chap. xlviii. of his “Administration of the Empire”: “Be it known that under the reign of Constantine Pogonatus (668-685) one Kallinikos, who fled from Heliopolis to the Romans, prepared a ‘wet-fire’ to be discharged from siphons, by means of which the Romans burned the fleet of the Saracens at Cyzicus and gained the victory.”66 It is true that when writing to his son (in Chap. xiii. of the same work) the Emperor gives (or tells his son to give) a different version of the invention of sea-fire: “If any persons venture to inquire of you how this fire is prepared, withstand them and dismiss them with some such answer as this—that the secret was revealed by an angel to the first Emperor Constantine” (a.d. 323-337).67 But this passage only proves that the Emperor was mendacious and his people superstitious. There can be little doubt that this great invention was made by a Greek for the Greeks in the decade 670-680; but what was the nature of the mixture? All we know for certain about it is that it was a State secret, was intended for sea service, burned with much noise and vapour, and was projected from siphons. In other words, the mixture fulfilled the following conditions:— (1) Its composition could be kept secret. (2) It had some close connection with the sea, or water. (3) It burned with much noise and smoke. (4) It had some close connection with siphons, or tubes. The fact that the sea-fire was made a State secret proves that it did not belong to the same family as the Greek fire of Æneas and Vegetius which, in one form or another, had been known all over the East from time immemorial. It was a new mixture—i.e. either a mixture containing some substance not hitherto known, or a mixture of known substances not hitherto combined together for warlike purposes. Many hold that an unknown substance was employed, and, further, that it was no other than saltpetre. We might, of course, fall back on the conclusion established in Chap. ii., and reply that saltpetre was not discovered until the thirteenth century and could not have been used as an ingredient of an incendiary in the seventh century. But the conclusion drawn in Chap. ii. was not a certain one: it was there characterised as highly probable. Saltpetre might possibly have been employed, and a belief which is shared in by some good writers deserves respectful consideration. We have, therefore, to investigate how far a saltpetre mixture would satisfy the above four conditions. There was absolutely nothing to attract public attention in the purchase from time to time of common, well-known substances, such as sulphur, quicklime, naphtha, &c. &c., by the authorities of the Arsenal; but the suspicions of the spies and traitors, always to be found in Constantinople,68 would have been instantly roused by the importation of any new or rare substance such as saltpetre. And whence could saltpetre have come? M. Berthelot recognises the importance of this question, although he cannot answer it: “Comment se procurait-on le salpêtre?... Aucun renseignment n’est venu nous l’apprendre. Ce point pourtant est capital.”69 Saltpetre would naturally have been obtained from the countries where it was most abundant and cheapest—from the East; but the Greeks could not have relied upon this source of supply, for whenever political complications arose between the Emperor and the Caliph—and they were interminable—the ports of Egypt and Syria were closed against Greek ships. However, saltpetre did not grow in the streets of Constantinople: the natural salt (if used) must have been collected somewhere, and sold to Government by someone, and transported somehow to the capital; and what despot could have tied the tongues of collectors, merchants, sailors, and porters? The mere facts that only one State trafficked in saltpetre, that this State only bought it in 32 33 34 35 36 time of war, and that this State alone employed sea-fire, would have immediately betrayed the secret of its composition to these men, and what was known to them was known to the world. It is most improbable that the use of saltpetre could have been concealed for one year, much less the five hundred years during which the secret of the sea-fire was successfully guarded. I may be reminded of the Emperor Constantine VII.’s statement (in Chap. xiii. of his “Administration, &c.”), that on one occasion a Roman general, corrupted by a large bribe, did reveal the secret and shortly afterwards, when entering a church, was consumed by fire which fell from heaven upon him. The story is obviously legendary. The venal general is as unreal as the fire from heaven; he is merely introduced to us as “an awful example,” and we cannot endow him with reality by rejecting the fire. The claim of the Marquess Carabbas to reality is not established by denying the existence of Puss-in-Boots. Had the secret been divulged the sea-fire would have been used against the Greeks, and no mixture that can be identified with it ever was. A saltpetre mixture, then, would not, in all probability, have fulfilled the first condition, nor would it have fulfilled the second. There is no conceivable connection between saltpetre and the sea, or water in general. A saltpetre mixture (of suitable proportions) would have proved a much better incendiary than Greek fire, but it would have acted as effectively from a fort as from a ship. Indeed, if we consider the ill effect of the moist sea air on the impure saltpetre of early times, we are justified in saying that the action of such mixtures on land would have been better, in general, than at sea. A saltpetre mixture would have fulfilled the third condition by burning with much noise and smoke, which we may suppose to be the essential meaning of the Emperor Leo’s phrase, “thunder and smoke.”70 We cannot reasonably attach greater significance to one of the commonest of all metaphors, thunder, which has been applied times unnumbered to the human voice, to the bursting of a child’s cracker,71 and to the whirring of a dart. “Never burst such peals from the thunder-cloud,” says Vergil, as were produced by the javelin thrown by Æneas.72 As regards the fourth condition, the above statement of the Emperor Constantine about sea-fire and siphons73 completely justifies us in concluding that there was some necessary connection between the two things. Now, there was no necessary connection between saltpetre mixtures, even when explosive, and siphons. Small quantities of such mixtures could have been, and eventually were, thrown by hand, in grenades, like Greek fire. Saltpetre mixtures, therefore, would not have fulfilled the fourth condition. The result of the foregoing inquiry is, that a saltpetre mixture would have only fulfilled one, the third, of the four conditions to which the sea-fire was subject; and we have now to cast about for some mixture of known substances, not hitherto combined together for warlike purposes, which would have fulfilled them all. A clue to the composition of the Kallinikos mixture may perhaps be found in its Greek name, “sea-fire” or “wet- fire.” One substance had long been known with whose combustion water was closely connected—quicklime, and with its properties Kallinikos, as an architect, must have been perfectly familiar. Its temperature rises—to 150° C. (302° F.) if the quantity be large—when sprinkled with water, and it can consequently be employed to ignite substances with low points of ignition. For example, if a mixture of quicklime and naphtha be thrown into water, the rapid rise in temperature of the lime causes a sudden and strong development of vapour from the naphtha, which on mixing with the air becomes highly explosive. Such a mixture, it is almost unnecessary to add, could not be handled with safety after it has been wet. Plutarch was aware of the explosive nature of naphtha vapour. “Naphtha,” he says, “is like bitumen, and is so easy to set on fire that, without touching it with any flame, it will catch light from the rays which are sent forth from a fire, burning the air which is between both.”74 Pliny speaks of the heat developed by quicklime when sprinkled with water. “It is strange,” he says, “that what has already been burnt should be ignited by water” (mirum aliquid, postquam arserit, accendi aquis).75 The same property is implicitly referred to in the “Kestoi,” attributed to Sextus Julius Africanus of Emaus, who lived under Alexander Severus, 222-235. The military portions of this work, however, must have been written long afterwards, in the end of the sixth or the beginning of the seventh century at the earliest; for Belisarius, who was born in 505, is mentioned in the sixty-sixth chapter.76 In the forty-fifth chapter there is a recipe for a quicklime- asphalt composition, which is called “automatic fire.” This mixture was used by jugglers to exhibit “spontaneous combustion,” a little water being secretly poured on a plate on which a ball of the composition was placed.77 It contained very little quicklime (παντελῶς ὀλίγον). Cameniata tells us that at the storming of Salonika in 904 the Moslems threw “pitch and torches and quicklime” over the walls.78 By “quicklime” he probably meant the earthenware hand grenades, filled with wet quicklime, described by the Emperor Leo, who then sat on the throne (886-911). “The vapour of the quicklime,” he says, “when the pots are broken, stifles and chokes the enemy and distracts his soldiers.”79 The simplest and most probable explanation of the nature of the sea-fire then is, that it was a sulphur-quicklime- naphtha mixture of the same family as those shown in the following Table. TABLE III. Sea-Fires. Liber Ignium.80 cir. 1300. Liber Ignium.81 cir. 1350. De Mirabilibus82 cir. 1350. Kyeser.83 1405. Hartlieb.84 cir. 1425. Sulphur. Sulphur. Sulphur. Sulphur. Sulphur(Oil of). Quicklime. Quicklime. Quicklime. Quicklime. Quicklime. Oil. Turpentine. Naphtha. Petroleum. Mastic. Gum Arabic. ... Wax. Wax. Gum Arabic. 37 38 39 40 41 ... ... Oil of Balm. ... ... N.B.—None of these mixtures professes to be the official Greek sea-fire, the exact composition of which is unknown; but the “De Mirabilibus” mixture is probably a close approximation to it. Although called sea-fires here, they were not so called by their western authors, who were ignorant of the use and even of the name of sea-fire. The first four recipes are described as mixtures which will ignite “when rain falls upon them.” Hartlieb alone foresaw that such mixtures would ignite “if thrown upon water.” Such a mixture would have completely fulfilled the four conditions already mentioned. First, the secret of its composition was easy to keep, since it lay in the choice and proportions of known ingredients; not in the use of one...