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
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
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 noise[6]
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 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 the original[18] 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.