Wikipedia

Talk:Gunpowder/Archive 2

< Talk:Gunpowder
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Meatwaggon in topic disgrace
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Who invented it?

Latest comment: 17 years ago38 comments14 people in discussion

Its vox populi that the chinese came up with it first, but somehow, i read yesterday in a Nietzsche book (i think it was the antichrist) that the germans invented powder first. Now, as anyone might know, Nietzsche was in a mental institution when he wrote his most famous works (wich explains a lot of things). But, my question is, why did he sayd that?, was it just ranting or did he really had proof?

The Chinese were using black powder for fireworks and signaling around 1000 AD; An Arab (I don't know his name) used it to propel an arrow from a reinforced bamboo tube in 1304. A German monk, Berthold der Schwarze, is credited with inventing gunpowder and bronze cannon in 1313. There are documents that suggest Roger Bacon knew the formula for black powder in 1249. Probably it depends partly on definition; Is it gunpowder if it's not used in a gun? What exactly is a gun? Is any deflagrating mixture gunpowder? Anyway, whether or not Nietzsche's assertion is correct, it is at least reasonable.
Some references:
Tom harrison 12:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Berthold Schwarz is a mythical figure. However he was commonly credited with discovering gunpowder at the time Nietzsche was writing—benvenuto 17:25 18 November 2005

From a recent version of the article:

James Partington states in A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder:

Gunpowder is not, of course, an 'invention' in the modern sense, the product of a single time and place; no individual's name can be attached to it, nor can that of any single nation or region. Fire is one of the primordial forces of nature, and incendiary weapons have had a place in armies' toolkits for almost as long as civilized states have made war.

Tom Harrison Talk 14:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, this statement from Partington sounds extremely suspect logically, and seems to be more designed to deny the Chinese the honor of being the first to invent gunpowder than any serious and rigorous statement to the contrary. First of all, he plays fast and loose with the word invention, implying that any "invention" MUST be the product of a single time and place. I don't know any definition of invention which requires that time, place (or person) be known with certainty, and I don't know that Partington himself places such absurd restrictions on the definition in application to other inventions. The "Romans invented X", the "French invented Y", fine. But the Chinese couldn't have invented gunpowder because we cannot attach a specific year and specific city to its birth? The second part of his statement "nor can that of any single nation or region" is also patently ridiculous even on cursory examination. From the evidence presented just in this article we already know that there is strong historical support for the use of gunpowder in China before other places. Third, the latter sentence in this quote is yet more surreal than the first, where Partington talks about fire IN GENERAL, and that since fire cannot be attributed to any one inventor, that therefore......gunpowder could not have been invented by the Chinese? Sure, incendiary weapons have long had a place in armies' toolkits, but unless Partington's IQ dropped temporarily, how does that mean gunpowder as a distinct entity could not have been developed by the Chinese? People here seem quite intent on distinguishing gunpowder from black powder, so that maybe the Chinese invented gunpowder, but certainly the Europeans invented the more useful black powder. Why then do these same people not use Partington's curious logic to acknowledge that since black powder was an evolution of gunpowder, the developers of black powder certainly cannot be given credit for creating it? Perhaps Partington had a temporary bad hair day (or perhaps he had more insidious motivations), but unless he can show that earlier incendiary weapons directly led to the development of gunpowder specifically (say, Greek fire -> gunpowder), that the principles behind earlier incendiaries served as seeds of ideas for the natural evolution of gunpowder from those same incendiaries, then he has absolutely no logical or historical basis to claim that "Gunpowder is not, of course, an 'invention' in the modern sense, the product of a single time and place; no individual's name can be attached to it, nor can that of any single nation or region. Fire is one of the primordial forces of nature, and incendiary weapons have had a place in armies' toolkits for almost as long as civilized states have made war". Meatwaggon 02:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Partington is a distinguished scholar and historian of science. Joseph Needham cites him in Science and Civilisation in China. It is entirely appropriate to quote from Partington's work. Tom Harrison Talk 11:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No, he doesn't had a qualification on historian background, could he read manuscripts, latin or classic chinese texts? That's the main problem James Riddick Partington Biography Eiorgiomugini 11:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
He was sufficiently well-qualified to have been president of the British Society for the History of Science, according to the reference you provided. Tom Harrison Talk 12:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Well-qualified on reputation you meant, the problem is that he doesn't had a qualification on historian background, its not something for him to make such quote with regard to the History and origins, maybe you can placed it under the Composition, characteristics and use, since his field is on chemistry, but not under the History and origins. Eiorgiomugini 12:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I meant exactly what I wrote, thank you. As a chemist and as president of the British Society for the History of Science, he is well-qualified to write about the history of gunpowder. No doubt that is why Needham, another distinguished scholar, cites him in his own work. Tom Harrison Talk
Needham actually cites from primary sources more from him, although he might quote some example from his work, but that doesn't makes him a scholar or historian on such issue. Please provide a sources that James Riddick Partington is actually a historian or scholar, did he had any degree, PhD for a historian? Eiorgiomugini 12:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
His body of published work on the history of science, and his position as president of the British Society for the History of Science clearly show that he was a respected historian. But there's no point in each of us repeating arguments the other has found unpersuasive. I think a second opinion is called for. Tom Harrison Talk 13:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
It won't be unpersuasive, if you had provided a source. Since you're the one who made this addition, its your responsible to provide a sources which you cited. So far I had seen only one of his published work on the history of science, even which he doesn't had a qualification on historian background. I think we should just placed the quote under the Composition, characteristics and use instead of History and origins Eiorgiomugini 13:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Partington is obviously a citable scholar. If you don't agree with that, you can settle the issue by quoting some part of the WP guidelines where it states that, in order to be quoted, a scholar MUST have a Ph.D. in EXACTLY the field he is being cited in, and then proved documentation that Partington does not have such a degree. Also, what does "its your responsible to provide a sources which you cited." mean? Are you asking for a valid source that proves that a source is a valid source? If you're going to argue a point, perhaps you should get a friend who speaks English to help you. Also, Partington is not saying anything controversial here. He isn't saying that some particular person did or didn't invent gunpowder. He's just saying that it's too simple a thing to be "an invention" in the modern sense, and it was probably invented independently by various people at various times. Since English isn't your native language, perhaps this wasn't clear to you. KarlBunker 14:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't makes such assumption that I couldn't even know what your simplicity quote are. I never state that his work can't be quoted on this article, but not under the History and origins, YOU should had quoted his work under Composition, characteristics and use instead of History and origins. Since you want to make an addition, you should be the one to provide a cited work from a historian, not some guys who are ignorance in this field. And lastly, he's not a HISTORIAN, not unless you could proved it. He is NOT well-qualified to write about the history of gunpowder, so cited his garbage somewhere else. Eiorgiomugini 14:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
"Partington is not saying anything controversial here. " Its seem like you should had get a friend who speaks English to help you, because he also state that "no single nation or region can be attached to the discovery of gunpowder". Certainly, incendiary weapons have had a place in armies' toolkits for almost as long as civilized states have made war, since fire is primordial forces of nature, and had been used since the paleolithic times. But what has it got to do with the discovery of gunpowder? Eiorgiomugini 15:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I confess I got childish there for a minute. I apologize, and I've deleted my last comment (Bad bunny! Bad!). KarlBunker 15:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding Roger Bacon -- yes, he's often credited with the invention of gunpowder, but from what I can tell, he was describing the formulation of it but did not make any claims to inventing it; his were the first descriptions in the West of gunpowder. He may well have introduced it to the West as well, probably picking it up from the Arabs during the Crusades. He can be worked in, but not as inventor. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem is that, the article seem to imply that someone had credited him as one of the inventor, even as clearly shown from his work, he's not an inventor for such powder, he also mentioned that the gunpowder from his times was "known in diverse places". No modern historian would had been absurdness enough to credited this discovery to him, at least not in the sense for a competent historian to do that. Eiorgiomugini 16:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Right. So the solution is addin to the article something along the lines of "In the West, Roger Bacon was the first to describe the formula for gunpowder in his blah-blah-blah in whatever-year-it-was, leading many in the ensuing centuries to the mistaken belief that Bacon invented gunpowder -- even though Bacon himself mentioned that gunpowder was known in diverse places." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"Four Great Inventions of Ancient China - Gunpowder Credit for the invention of gunpowder also goes to ancient China. Ancient necromancers discovered in their practice of alchemy, that an explosion could be induced if certain kinds of ores and fuel were mixed in the right proportions and heated, thus leading to the invention of gunpowder. In the Collection of the Most Important Military Techniques, edited in 1044 by Zeng Gongliang, three formulas for making gunpowder were recorded; an explosive mixture of saltpeter, sulfur and charcoal. Dr. Needham identified these as the earliest formulas of such a kind. The method of powder-making was introduced to the Arab world in the 12th century and to Europe in the 14th. Gunpowder was originally used for making fireworks and its later adaptation revolutionized warfare across the world. Ancient necromancers put minerals and plants together, hoping to make some medicine to keep alive forever. Flying firearrows(Tang Dynasty) Grenades (Song Dynasty), Bronze cannons (Yuan Dynasty)..."

Enough is enough. Are you people purposely trying to turn Wikipedia into a garbage dump of lies, half-truths, and equivocations? Being neutral, does not mean equivocating facts until they are no more than the shadows of misinformation. Step out of your bigotry for a moment and face up to the truth! It is truly disappointing to see that Wikipedia the free encyclopedia has turned into Wikipedia the free fabrication. Yours, =Axiom= 03:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, 69.194.137.183 -- If you can provide a quote where Needham or some other historian says that gunpowder is clearly and definitely a Chinese invention, I for one would be happy to see that added to the article. It wouldn't be acceptable as the only scholarly opinion voiced in the article, since that wouldn't reflect the current balance of opinions among historians. But it would make an interesting counterpoint to the Partington quote that is currently in the article.
Just note that it has to be the words of Needham or some other historian, not something that is spoken by the article as if it was unquestioned fact. KarlBunker 04:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Note that the editor in question has been indefinitely blocked for legal threats at Talk:Crossbow. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Gunpowder was definitely invented in China.This article makes it sound as if you can't really know if the Chinese really invented it.

"The origin of gunpowder was probably Chinese, for it seems to have been known in China at least as early as the 9th cent. and was there used for making firecrackers. There is evidence suggesting that it came to Europe through the Arabs." (http://www.bartleby.com/65/gu/gunpowde.html)

I am changing the article and WILL leave it as I changed it until somebody can counter the evidence from a more trustworthy source. Mine is from The Columbia Encyclopedia, the sixth edition. (Wikimachine 15:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

The earliest types of Gunpowder (such as black powder) as well as the origins of its development should attribute to China. Such claims are made by the Encyclopædia Britannica [1] [2] and the Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition [3]. I think it is widely accepted that it was first invented in China. --67.2.148.187 07:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

In the past I've objected to language that name China as the origin of gunpowder with that much certainty, but as I've seen more and more references, I've come to agree that that's the widely accepted view. I've altered the wording of that part of the article a bit for better flow and to give more info. KarlBunker 10:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The article currently puts forward the view that gunpowder may have been discovered independently by different cultures. I think we should also add the other (and more widely held view) that it spread from China to Europe. I propose the following change:

It is generally thought that the knowledge of gunpowder gradually spread west, via the Silk Road, from China to the Middle East and then Europe. However, some historians believe that gunpowder was probably discovered independently by different cultures at different times. As James Partington writes in his History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder:

Gunpowder is not, of course, an 'invention' in the modern sense, the product of a single time and place; no individual's name can be attached to it, nor can that of any single nation or region. Fire is one of the primordial forces of nature, and incendiary weapons have had a place in armies' toolkits for almost as long as civilized states have made war.

203.206.208.11 06:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Please don't use weasel phrases like "It is generally thought that..." A credible source that fairly unambiguously credits gunpowder to the Chinese is Jack Kelly's Gunpowder. You should find some pretty thorough citations of that book in the black powder article. Kelly's book is a pop history, so not it's not nearly as scholarly as Partington, but after reading Partington, I think what he means in the above passage is not so much gunpowder as incendiary weapons, which have unequivocally been invented independently by different cultures at different times, but that may just be my POV. JFD 22:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, well, here's something interesting: I just went through Partington's chapter on gunpowder in China and nowhere does he mention the mid-9th century "Classified Essentials of the Mysterious Tao of the True Origin of Things" which Kelly cites as the first documentation of a proto-gunpowder. Needham seems to accept it as a reference to true gunpowder, or at least he dates the invention of gunpowder to China in the +9th century. According to the introduction to the 1999 edition of Partington by Bert Hall, "Gunpowder proper seems to have first appeared in 1044 A.D. in China, and to have worked its way westward over the next three centuries by routes still uncertain," referring to the 1044 "Collection of the Most Important Military Techniques" which includes three recipes for "gunpowder proper." Does anyone know if the "Classified Essentials of the Mysterious Tao of the True Origin of Things" was not available when Partington was writing his book (which was first published in 1960)? JFD 04:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I've checked the following sources, which all say that the knowledge of gunpowder spread from China to the West:
Brown, G. I. (1998). The Big Bang: A History of Explosives. Sutton Publishing.
Ebrey, Patricia Buckley (1999). The Cambridge Illustrated History of China. Cambridge University Press
Gernet, Jacques (1996). A History of Chinese Civilisation. Cambridge University Press
World Book Encyclopedia (2005).
Kelly gives the most detailed explanation. He states that it probably spread from China to Europe. He lists the following three points of evidence:
1. Precedence: its first recorded appearance in Europe is some 300 years after the first Chinese reference.
2. In China, gunpowder was gradually refined over the course of several hundred years, whereas in Europe it appeared suddenly, in a relatively mature form.
3. The early European recipes for gunpowder contained the same poisons (such as arsenic) as the Chinese formula. Since these chemicals do not add anything beneficial to the performance, it would be an unlikely coincidence for both recipes to contain them if they had evolved independently.203.206.208.11 23:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This is my attempt at adding a line that states the knowledge of gunpowder in Europe probably spread from China. Please feel free to suggest how it can be improved:
There is no direct record of how gunpowder came to be known in Europe. Most scholars believe that the knowledge spread west from China to the Middle East and then Europe, possibly via the Silk Road.[1][2][3][4] Other historians believe that gunpowder was probably discovered independently by different cultures at different times. As James Partington writes ......Cowrider 09:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that would be an excellent addition. Of course, it would be best to use full "cite book" templates for the references. KarlBunker 05:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
All this, and still no ancient source that attests Chinese gunpowder? The recipe given in the Chinese source does not describe gunpowder, which is defined in our own encyclopedia as "black powder (S+KNO3+charcoal) or smokeless powder." S+KN03+realgar makes another, less powerful, incendiary, which, as I understand it, would not be explosive enough to use in a gun. I have read elsewhere that the charcoal, particularly the method of producing an ideal charcoal, is actually the key to the explosive power of black powder. Surely the Chinese alchemists would have thought of simply adding more saltpetre, if that had been the only problem with their recipe. From the sources given here, including those given by users who favor the theory of a Chinese origin of gunpowder, it does not appear that the Chinese ever made what we are calling gunpowder. They made another explosive that was sufficient for grenades, rockets, and arrow-bombs, but not for guns. A couple users have been kind enough to cite secondary sources for the claim that Chinese had a real gunpowder and guns in the twelfth century. However, in this case, that is not adequate. We need either a clear citation of a primary source that unambiguously describes guns or gunpowder (with charcoal), or a detailed analysis of the secondary sources, with full citations, including page numbers. Thanks, and peace. Ocanter 18:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Ocanter, where is your source that Chinese gunpowder is in the form that you described? And why is proof that Chinese had cannons by the 12th century not adequate? It would be clearer if you emphasize for what is this not adequate for? Proof that the Chinese had gunpowder or proof that they had cannons? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.116.25.201 (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
Thanks for asking. Gee, maybe we'll get somewhere. My source is Needham, v.7. I have the book at my other job, I'll take a look at it tomorrow. I didn't give the realgar recipe, though, somebody else did. That was not the earliest recipe, either. The circa 1040 recipe involved about ten substances, which Needham, in his forulae, simply lumps together as "carbon matter." He qualifies it, however, as a "proto-gunpowder," because, for one thing, it's not a powder, but a "sticky mess," and for another, it wouldn't be much use in guns, at least not guns that shoot bullets at people with the intent of killing them. The 1040 recipe was specifically for a bomb, wrapped in pine sap, apparently intended to explode on impact. I'll look for the page number tomorrow. The cannons you mentioned, if the date is accurate (in the one case, it's based on an archaeological dating, and in the others, on inscriptions), show only that they had some kind of explosive-based ballistics. It doesn't tell us anything about the effectiveness of the propellent, or what kind of missile they used. Ocanter 20:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see you have read Needleham v. 7. Then you should know that Needleham in that book mentions that the Chinese eventually added more and more saltpetre into their gunpowder as they moved from weak cased grenades to hard cased grenades, though I forget the page number. But as for the cannons, what does that have to do with China not inventing gunpowder? What is the evidence that the Chinese gunpowder isn't true gunpowder? Where's the additional source? And how is Needleham's evidence a secondary source? In volume 7, I remember him showing a picture of the earliest cannon available to the Chinese, and archeological evidence is a primary source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.116.25.201 (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
Yes, we Anglophones are greatly indebted to Needham, a truly great scholar. If there were a Needham in every area of anthropology and history, the world would be a better place. Yes, I saw the cannons and handguns, and they are cool as all hell. The only issue I have with the article is a semantic one. We seem to be defining gunpowder very specifically to mean the modern propellent at the start of the article, then finagling the definition to mean "any saltpetre explosive" in the history section so that we can claim Chinese alchemists invented it. It's just a semantic difference, but I think we should be consistent. The "source" is the definition we gave at the start of the article. Personally, I think the early pine tar bombs and grenades are bad as hell. I think we should rewrite the history to explain the development of saltpetre explosives, culminating in modern gunpowder. "China invented it" is too simple. It's not wrong, it's just too simple. Ocanter 04:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you put it that way, it's not just simple, but unsolvable. The ancient Chinese never put a precise formula to the molecular level for the ingredients except the basic compounds, that's for sure. Thus, if you put it that way, we can't prove things either way. Both simple and unsolvable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.116.25.197 (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
I modified the terminology in a way that I think makes the history of the development of gunpowder more clear. I changed the language of the history section to make it consistent with our own definitions. I'm sure some Sinophiles will object that I am not applying, as Needham does, the name "gunpowder" to even the most accidental combination of saltpetre and anything. But we must ask ourselves whether our aim is to glorify the history of China or to provide users an understanding of the development of saltpetre explosives. My terminology is consistent with the definition and use of the term gunpowder everywhere else in the article. We only changed the definition in the history section so that we could claim it was invented in China, even though there is no Chinese recipe for actual gunpowder before Roger Bacon. By actual gunpowder, I mean exactly what we said at the top of the article, black powder or smokeless powder. The Chinese recipes given in the 1044 Wu Ching Tsung Yao are certainly not gunpowder. They fall under the "big sticky mess" category. The Huo Lung Ching recipes from c. 1350 are a little better, but still not Bacon's black powder. The first Chinese recipe cited by Needham for black powder is from 1628 (Needham v.7, p. 345). We need to make this clear to our users. Ocanter 00:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Rofl at above bickering

Chinese people invented gunpowder and a whole lot more besides. Many of the greatest inventions still used today came from China. Why waste time with delusional arguing over plain facts? Try being productive and read this instead:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostempires/china/age.html

Maybe you'll end up educating yourself.

disgrace

Latest comment: 17 years ago22 comments8 people in discussion

this article is a disgrace. gunpowder ushered in the gun and forever altered human history. The article (as is) is all about imperial chinese this and taoist monk that. It reads like a chinese travel guide. Let's get rid of all this POV garbage. Cwiki 00:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't be stupid. I'm willing to bet you don't talk this way about Wiki articles on Greek or Roman inventions. Meatwaggon 05:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I myself am not a Chinese but I think that this article is fine. What. Do you want to make it some European invention article? China had it for the longest. It's Chinese invention. What I think is how people support these arguments that make the origin of the gunpowder so ambiguous. Additionally, gunpowder was not limited to the usage of gun. It was used in rockets. (Wikimachine 18:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC))


Yeah right. rockets. whoopee. Cwiki 22:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

And "eruptors" and firecrackers. Scares the shit out of horses, which seems to be sensible application of a not-so-great new technology when the main threat is a bunch of rancid steppe nomads. In Europe sieges were more important, hence the use of powder with artillery. Your criticism is based on the historian's fallacy in its technological form. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


Is that right. God I get sick of people on this site throwing around logical fallacy terms without explaining themselves. In what way is what I said a historian's fallacy. You think it's only in hindsight that people look back and consider that the gun was important? You think anyone would care less about firecrackers if they had a gun handy.Cwiki 06:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I am very sorry Cwiki, but this is about gunpowder, not about guns or cannons. The major reason why this article associate very much with firecrackers or fire arrows is because these were the earliest uses of the gunpowder during its pioneering age, and this article traces the development of gunpowder.
If you are concerned about cannons, or guns, please go to those articles and work on them. We don't intend to make this article a mess of variety of weapons that were used with the gunpowder. Good luck! (Wikimachine 17:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

Who is "we". Look up any history of gunpowder and it talks about the massive effect guns had on the world. To casually dismiss the impact of guns, and prefer to focus on Chinese firecrackers, is narrow minded. The article has improved, but still has a Chinese slant. I notice you are Korean yourself. The biggest impact of gunpowder was felt in the Western world. I didn't say that gunpowder was a European invention. The history of gunpowder revolves around its invention in the East, its spread along the Silk Road to the Persia, its use against the West during the Crusades, and the power the West derived from it once they got their hands on it. Firecrackers really weren't that important. Cwiki 06:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't know anything, buddy. I'm not sure of which nationality you are, but if you think that Europeans made better use of the gunpowder, you are dead wrong. Chinese and Koreans also made use of cannons. They made use of guns as well (including the Japanese, of course) (but Japanese couldn't make good cannons until the 1800s). Rather, for a long long time, Korean and Chinese cannons were much better in terms of destruction and range than European cannons (again, until the 1800s). If you think we are talking about firecrackers here, it's only a small element of what they did. Fire arrows that could travel up to around 1-2km. Have you ever seen a pre-modern European invention that had a range of 1-2km? No. Please, study some history yourself before posting these insulting remarks. (Wikimachine 13:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

Here are my sources.

  1. 6. 천자총통

조선시대의 총통 중 크기면에서나 화력면에서 가장 우수한 것은 천자총통이다. 총통은 화력과 크기에 따라 천, 지, 현, 황의 순서대로 이름을 붙였다. 천자총은 이름에서 알 수 있듯 총통 중 크기가 가장 크고 화력 역시 가공할 위력을 보인다. 천자총통 무게가 30kg에 사정거리가 960미터에 이르는 대장군전을 발사시키는 대포이다. 임진왜란때 거북선에 배치돼 왜선을 격침시킨 일등 공신으로 몸체에 새겨진 명문을 통해 명종때 만들어졌음을 짐작할 수 있다.

Korean cannon during the late 16th century had a range of 960m (approximately 1km). The English cannon during the late 16th century had a range of 760m. Who wins? (Wikimachine 14:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC))


Citing a reference written in Korean was enough to convince me that you do not have a POV problem. Cwiki 05:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Is something wrong with Korean sources? Is English language the univeresal code for all evidences? What is wrong with you. I got a data from an English source about an English cannon &, since I couldn't find an English website hosting about Korean cannons, I searched on a Korean website. (Wikimachine 18:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

If you want to cite a reference to bolster an argument you are having with someone in an English-language forum, then use English-language references. Also lighten up a bit. Cwiki 11:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh well. They deleted what I had fixed. Like you wanted I put a section about European usage of the section. Guys, that was a pretty neat section. Instead of deleting it with the excuse that it was badly organized, you guys should have added onto the info. So, I'll put what I put back on so that you guys can fix it -that is, if you agree. (Wikimachine 18:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC))
I'm sorry, but in my estimation, the only way to fix that section would be to rewrite it from scratch. Even explaining what's wrong with each sentence would take far more words than were in the section itself. It's my judgement that although the idea of a section like that is a good one, in practice the article is better off without it. KarlBunker 19:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


I agree. Who cares what the range of a Korean canon was in the 16th century. It's not a pissing contest. Comparing European and Eastern canons in an era where there was no confrontation or power struggle between the two is irrelevant. Comparing the range based on testing old weapons (which is what I gather from the reference you cited) is suspect and also irrelevant. I also think there's a limit to how many times the word Korean should appear in a history of gunpowder. Cwiki 07:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In regards to eastern vs. western cannons, I think west surpassed china/korea/japan by 16th century. the korean cannons that wikimachine refers to were used by koreans during the japanese invasion of korea in late 16th century, and was quite good at the time and used effectively against mostly cannonless japanese troops. But, korean records show that the cannon's that chinese allies deployed were superior to korean's. And these chinese cannon's were chinese copies of dutch and portugese breech-loading cannons as its names were "red foreigner's cannon" and "portugese cannon" referring to Dutch and Portugese. After the war, koreans also copied the dutch and portugese cannons and equipped its military. Anyway, who care who invented exact formula for black powder, the biggest contribution of gunpowder discovery is clearly the chinese, so they deserve the credit. Clearly the development of gunpowder was evolutionary process, but the origin along with bulk of evolutionary steps belong to the Chinese. -DK

You ask, "Who care (sic) who invented the exact formula for black powder?" Well, I would think anyone looking up an article on the history of gunpowder would care. The discovery of the black powder formula was a crucial step, perhaps as crucial as the discovery of saltpetre aided combustion itself, and unfortunately, the sources we've mentioned so far do not cover this crucial period. More primary sources on Islamic saltpetre explosives would be helpful. Ocanter 12:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It is clear that the modern formula for black powder arrived at the current state through evolutionary process. The formula originally quoted by Bacon is no longer the optimal formula, and exact composition has been changing throughout history even after discovery of smokeless gunpowder. If that is the case, Bacon's formula should be looked at as a chain in an evolution of gunpowder formula. It is an important link in the chain, and an important evidence, but it shouldn't be used to discredit chinese's dominance in the origin of gunpowder. We will never know who discovered black powder, but we know which civilization had the most profound influence on original development of gunpowder. Europeans dominant contribution to the gunpowder technology in the latter half of the millenium is unquestioned, but it is origin of the technology that shows overwhelming evidence in favor of chinese not to mention commonly held belief.
I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. I think you just agreed with everything I said, but I can't tell. The precise meaning of your conclusion isn't clear to me, becauase the English grammar is confused. You said, "It is origin of the technology that shows overwhelming evidence in favor of chinese not to mention commonly held belief." I assume you mean, "There is overwhelming evidence in favor of the view that Chinese originally invented the technology, and this is the commonly held belief." I agree with that statement, except I think we need to be clear what we mean by "the technology." I think it is clear from my recent edits exactly what role those early Chinese engineers played and what the state of the technology was at the time of Bacon's reference (the earliest extant reference) to black powder. Ocanter 19:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what YOU're saying. Because I wasn't agreeing with you. You're saying "discovery of the black powder formula was a crucial step, perhaps as crucial as the discovery of saltpetre aided combustion itself", and I'm saying "no, it isn't, it's just a link in a long chain of the gun powder evolutionary step". Anyway, thank you for taking time to repeat what I wrote in correct grammar. I wish I had the time you have to correct everyone else's grammar. Most people who are proficient in English will not have a problem understanding, however, I understand some people are sticklers for grammar. Anyway, I was stating relative unimportance of Bacon's formula, and that Chinese influence on the gunpowder technology shouldn't be understated just because no one knows who wrote down the first black powder formula. Your writing feels more like, "Yes, chinese invented early gunpowder technology, but oldest black powder formula in written form was produced in west, and no one knows who first found the formula, so every one should be credited." Yes, my statement exaggerates and simplifies your view, but it is your article's underlying thesis, which I don't agree with. I see where you're coming from, but I just have different opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.148.10.43 (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
That is very close to my "thesis," if you wish to call it that, but it is different in one critical way. I am not saying:
"Yes, Chinese invented early gunpowder technology, but oldest black powder formula in written form was produced in West, and no one knows who first found the formula, so every one should be credited."
I am saying:
"Yes, Chinese invented early saltpetre explosives, but the oldest black powder formula in written form was produced in the West, and the fact is that no one knows who first invented black powder."
I am not saying who "should be credited." I'm leaving that to the reader. The question of who invented gunpowder is essentially a semantic question: "What does the word 'gunpowder' mean?" The semantic issue has caused tremendous confusion. This is a very common problem in the historicity of technology. As long as we keep the terminology clear, I think the reader can decide for himself.
Joseph Needham takes essentially your approach. He views all Chinese saltpetre technology as steps toward refining black powder. He further conjectures (without offering any evidence) that Chinese firecrackers containing black powder were imported into Europe at that time, and that Bacon somehow learned or figured out their composition and wrote it down. However, this approach is based on Needham's quite openly stated aim of showing that Chinese people are not intellectually inferior to Europeans. Perhaps when Needham began his work, in that time and place, that was a necessary thing for a historian of China to show. Anyway, you have to take that into account when you look at his analysis of Chinese "gunpowder." He lists centuries of accumulated recipes, the lists the percentages in three columns, "KNO3 %, S %, C %," lumping all the honey, animal parts, and all that other crap together as "carbonaceous material." This implies (quite falsely) that those alchemists knew what the element carbon was (they didn't), that they were trying to isolate carbon from those various ingredients (they weren't), and that they somehow didn't figure out that more saltpetre makes a bigger boom (I have a hard time believing they were that stupid). So Needham's view (which seems to also be your view) of the "evolution of gunpowder" has a chauvinistic objective, about which Needham is quite honest, and it relies on concepts that as far as the sources show, were not present in Chinese science at that time.
I think your criticism is valid, and if you have any actual information on the development of black powder (especially some Islamic sources) or on the early Chinese propellants (which might properly be called "gunpowder" simply because of their application), it would be very helpful to the article if you would add them. I didn't write the article; I just made a few recent edits to make the terminology more clear. I also added the caveat that Bacon himself didn't invent black powder based on your criticism (I assume it was yours). But regarding the early Chinese propellants, we really need primary sources or really good archaeology if we're going to try to say what they were composed of or how powerful they were. And I think we should keep the terminology as clear as possible. I don't really mind if another editor wants to call the early Chinese propellants "early gunpowder," but we should be clear about the composition of these mixtures, their application, and their potency.
By the way, I think that the old Chinese military technology (the treatises, at least, and presumably the actual weapons) were cool as all hell. I am not trying to downplay their accomplishments at all. Rather, I'm trying to present all the information in an unbiased way. Ocanter 18:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


Yes, Needham's view is how I feel about the topic mostly. I really can't comment on whether Needham had bias in favor of chinese, but I can see how that is possible. Thanks for the useful background information on schools of thought on this issue. I wasn't the person who raised the issue regarding Bacon's formula originally, but he/she probably had similar feelings towards the article. I think "early gunpowder" is easier to understand than saltpetre powder for most readers out there and would appease people who feel that somehow the article has a disconnect between gunpowder and saltpetre mixture. I feel more comfortable with the article after reading where you're coming from though. Appreciate your comments. Also, there is another article for "black powder" which takes more sino-centric view of this. I think it'd be better if the two articles merge or at least sing the same tune, or we can define gunpowder loosely in this article and include history of smokeless powder and other similar mixtures. That way gunpowder is more generic and black powder is more specific. -DK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.148.92.42 (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
I agree they should be merged. Most of the stuff in the black powder article belongs here, since it mostly deals with pre-black powder Chinese explosives. The black powder article should just talk about black powder, IMO. I see what you're saying about the disconnect. Perhaps it should be smoother. Ocanter 23:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ Brown 1998
  2. ^ Ebrey 1999
  3. ^ Gernet 1996
  4. ^ Kelly 2004
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gunpowder/Archive_2&oldid=140303647"