Talk:Greek fire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greek fire article.
Article policies
Greece Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve Greek fire, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
High This article has been rated as a High priority article
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Middle Ages Icon
Middle Ages Portal
Greek fire is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

Contents

[edit] Turpentine

When you properly heat up pine wood, you get pine tar and turpentine, both highly flammable. Maybe that's what was alluded in the reference to resin from the pine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.46.236 (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Reference to Chinese, Arabs, and Mongols

The reference to those empires should be removed. The chemical solution they used seemed to be petroleum based, and not "Greek fire" used by Byzantines. Intranetusa (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Possible use in England

In "The Wars of the Roses" by Desmond Seward, ISBN 1-84119-424-7, p.66, it mentions the use of what appears to be Greek Fire (in this case, referred to as 'Wildfire') during the Yorkist siege of the Tower of London in 1460. The passage is as follows:

"For the first time in history, the Tower turned its guns on London. 'They that were in the Tower cast wildfire into the City, and shot in small guns, and burned and hurt men and women and children in the streets,' a chronicler records. 'Wildfire' was the period's napalm, clinging to its target and burning more fiercely if water was thrown on it. Understandably, most Londoners were only too eager to help Lord Salisbury with the siege."

Can anyone confirm if, for instance, the use of Greek Fire spread after the fall of Constantinople, or if this is a similar substance of a different composition, or if Seward is merely misinterpreting the reference to 'Wildfire'?

91.109.191.79 17:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Attribution

Moving attribution from article to talk:

One other incendiary substance, perhaps that "secret ingredient," may have been magnesium, which will burn under water, and is a principle constituent in incendiary bombs of modern warfare. [courtesy Suzanne Turgeon, Clark County Museum, Henderson, NV]
I always thought there was phosphorus in it. Chameleon 00:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Greek Fire

The speculation of whether Greek Fire contained a "secret ingredient" of either sodium, phosphorus or magnesium leaves one wondering. Scientifically, the base chemical compound (liquid) would have to be homogenous to flow smoothly through the delivery system to the nozzle.

Magnesium has a melting point of 992°K = 648.85°F or 1199°C. This would require a closed vessel at high temperatures and equally high pressures. Since Bitumen boils at approximately 350°F the likelihood of an explosion in a closed vessel due to a high-pressure increase would preclude this. Sodium has a melting point of 371°K = 208.13°F or 97.85°C and Phosphorus a melting point of 317°K = 110.93°F or 43.85°C. The likelihood of either of these elements being the one that would not go out when subjected to water is more likely. Sodium/water chemical reaction: 2 Na + 2 H2O > 2 NaOH + H2 producing a bright red flame

Phosphorus/Damp Air at room temperature reaction: P4(s) + 5O2(g) P4O10(s) Reaction of Phosphorus Pentoxide in water leaves an acidic residue following a highly exothermic reaction and water vapor. P4O10 --+2H2O--->H4P4O12---+2H2O--->2 H4P2O7---+2H20--->4 H3PO4

Phosphorus Pentoxide is used as a dehydrator due to the water evaporating property.

Given that the low boiling point of the Sodium and the red flame, it is more highly probable that sodium was the additive.

Red Flame? I am sure you know Sodium produces an orange flame, with strong yellow coloration. Calcium though, makes a red flame. Jokem 02:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magnesium

This was removed from the article because magnesium was supposedly unknown to the Byzantines:

"One other incendiary substance, perhaps that secret ingredient may have been magnesium, which will burn under water, and is a principal constituent in incendiary bombs of modern warfare."

Our magnesium article says pure magnesium is produced using electrolysis, but surely some form of magnesium was known in the middle ages. Does it not come from Magnesia, which is an extremely ancient site? Adam Bishop 18:19, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is a big difference between pure magnesium and some form of magneisum. From the magnesium article: "It is an alkaline earth metal and therefore does not occur uncombined with other elements." The more reactive an element is, the less likely you are to find it pure in nature. Conversely, the natural compounds that such an element can be found in are often the most stable, because the reaction energy released when the element bonds has to basically be reversed in order to break that stable bond (sodium and chlorine, for example). So, magneisum oxide, magnesium chloride, or other natural magnesium bearing minerals and compounds, are not very reactive. Anywho, it is highly unlikely that there was a known process for isolating pure magneisum at that time. Even now, it is not easy to process, and yet it is so common we get most of it from sea water via electrolysis.... Of course, we used to think that the secret to melting and working platinum was unknown to man prior to the oxygen fed flame, except certain South American Indian tribes had been doing it for possibly thousands of years. So, anything is possible. Splarka 03:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Chinese

A recent addition says that Song China got the recipe from the Greeks. How? I thought that the recipe was a close secret. And if it went from Byzantium to China, it should have been known by the Arabs. And there would be some recipe in the Chinese archives. --Error 02:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems dubious...I've removed it for now.

I've also de-linked Kallinikos, and that article now redirects here. I don't think there is anything more to say about him that is not already in this article. Adam Bishop 08:45, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] breakdown parts

can we break these down to categories such as History, Uses, Secrecy, Modern Day Comparisons, etc.? And can the final paragraph be separated into a "see also" section? also, shouldn't the F of fire be capitalized, as it is a proper noun? or is this a naming convention of wikipedia that i have to learn about?--mysekurity 04:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Russians

In order to avoid misunderstandings, I corrected Russian into Varangian. Luckily the Byzantine Emperor described the language of these Rus so we know that they were Scandinavians.--Wiglaf 28 June 2005 21:20 (UTC)

[edit] Modern?

The article lists "Υγρό Πυρ" as the _Modern_ Greek name for this weapon. While this name may persist in the modern language, as a frozen term, it is quite obviously _ancient_, in both vocabulary and declension. Perhaps we can avoid drawing attention to the modern/ancient desitinction for this term, and just call it "Greek"? Jamie 06:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

This name is not a frozen term in the modern Greek language, it is the name used in Greek, both ancient and modern. You are right that it should not be divided. Besides the modern Greek language is the evolution of the ancient Greek --> Hellenistic Greek --> Byzantine Greek --> modern Greek! Petros The Hellene 17:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible to create greek fire nowadays?

Although it seems to me that the article hints at it, I'm not entirely sure on this. Is it possible to create a substance that is more or less the same as the ancient greek fire (that can't be put out by water)? Flea110 05:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so. I believe napalm is similar, and that they can reproduce very similar materials, they just don't know of what exactly Greek Fire was made, but I really don't know. Might be interesting to mention in the article. --Mathwizard1232 03:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Napalm bombs

What is the possible difference ? are they alike? is greek fire an early form of naplam ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.130.67.106 (talk • contribs) .

According to the article, no one knows what exactly it was made of. So if you want to say it's like napalm, you probably could, as speculation. But there is no factual evidence for it. -- Stbalbach 02:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The issue isn't just finding something that acts like Greek Fire, but something that acts like it and could have been made in 650AD. Ultimately, it must have been a master feat of chemistry. - Kuzain 01:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
We will never know for sure but most people believe it was simply very crude oil, possibly mixed with something, when it burns even water can't put it out, instead water can make it flow more and give the appearance that it is spreading the fire. It is almost 100% certain that whatever it was we do know of it today, we just don't know it by that name anymore.--58.108.250.153 12:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I theorize it was a form of petroleum, with Calcium Phosphide and breakable container of water in it. Once the water and Ca3P2 mix it catches fire. Plausible? Jokem 02:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Can one make Ca3P2 in 650? One could, with chark, a kiln, and some bones; they (somewhere) had CaO back in -2500, but that's because chalk/limestone was plentiful and the product slurries, dries, and melts up well. The phosphide, however, has few uses, is very tòxic, and is pretty intractabil from the rock or bone route. -lysdexia 09:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greek Fire Today

Watching the movie Timeline was the first time I've heard of Greek Fire up until now. Based on what is written here about the creation, means of communication, and effects, I think the movie did a very good job depicting what Greek Fire might actually have looked like. The movie's pretty brainy for trying to be a Richard Donner film, which is why it flopped, but on the whole, it does a great job of explaining the nature of Greek Fire without a whole lot of expo. I'm going to read the book by Michael Crichton soon, and I'll update my entry with the details it gives me. Please don't edit out my entry again, Mr. Knowsbest. The nature of this encyclopedia is not to weed out what is and is not relevant, but to compile knowledge about things, both important and trivial. Perhaps some student might use the clips from the movie for a report on Greek Fire in school. P.S. I also added to the Timeline(movie) page about Greek Fire, to complete the circle. Adioonesix 16:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I never managed to watch more than 15 minutes of the film due to being awful but in the book they never made Greek Fire. It was promised but the professor ended up giving them Automatic Fire, which was catapulted as a fiery ball which exploded when doused with water. I understand that the film takes liberties with the reasonably complete science in the book, so I'm not sure how to tweak this.--Shadebug 17:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Adioonesix; it seemed quite a realistic portrayal of Greek fire, as well as Medieval combat. I might have to re-watch (good lord *shudder* ) the movie to make sure, but what the Wiki page says on it notwithstanding, the Greek fire depicted in the movie does not have explosive properties. What is explosive in the movie are trebuchet-launched containers of oil, tar, resin, tallow etc. (typical Medieval incendiary mixture). This is completely inaccurate, of course, but it's not supposed to be Greek fire. McFarty (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)McFarty

[edit] Payload

From the article: "six to eight pounds— up to eighteen kg". 6-8 lb is only about 2.7-3.6 kg. Someone appears to have multiplied by 2.2 to get to kg, rather than divided by it. Perhaps someone who knows what the capability of the onager was can make the correction. BillC 00:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kallinikos

“ Greek fire is said to have been invented by a Syrian Christian refugee named Kallinikos (Callinicus) of Heliopolis (Syria), probably about 673. ”

Partington (1999:12-13) contains a discussion of how Theophanes' date of AM (annus mundi) 6165 for the beginning of the siege of Constantinople has been converted by various interpreters to dates ranging from 665 to 674. Also, according to Partington (1999:13), "it is more than likely that [Kallinikos] was a Jew," which Jack Kelly concurs with in Gunpowder (2004:22), so unless we can get a another cite that Kallinikos was Christian, I'm going to remove the reference to his religious identity.--JFD 18:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


  • He was an Assyrian and all Assyrian are christions.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.166.133.88 (talk • contribs) .

He was??!!! Yeah!! Tourskin 03:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC) But prove it.

[edit] Used by Mamelukes?

De Joinville's chronicle (sourced in the article as well as Seventh Crusade) implies that the Crusaders came under attack by Greek fire while fighting Turks (presumably Mamelukes) in Egypt. Does this mean that Turks/Arabs as well as Greeks had access to Greek fire at this time, or that De Joinville is mistaken when he describes the attack as Greek fire? I can imagine a chronicler using the words "Turks" and "Arabs" interchangeably, but I doubt he was fighting Greeks. Willhsmit 16:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robin Hood

Another mention of Greek Fire on the TV occured in the Dec 2nd 2006 screening of BBC's Robin Hood remake series. Very confusing as the plotline involved making gunpowder or 'Black Powder' and yet they refer to Greek Fire - without actually explaining anything let alone showing some in action. This programme just keeps getting worse, the dialog is bad enough (this one included the cliche "It's showtime!") but this chrononlogical and technological inexactitude is inexcusable.

BTW does this page mention use of GF in Ridley Scott's movie about the Crusades 'Kingdom of Heaven' which I think has GF in it or something like it?

Royzee 23:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phosphorus?

How could Greek fire possibly have been made of phosphorus and saltpeter, when phosphorus was not discovered and isolated until the 17th century? I think that we should strike that from the list. Andrew Levine 09:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, since the ingredients of greek fire remain a mystery, no one knows what they had discovered. Maybe they discovered phosphorus (unlikely). It qualifies by saying "speculations". The problem is the speculations are un-sourced, so the reader can't get more details on these speculations. -- Stbalbach 15:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The article on phosphorus says it was discovered by distilling urine with phosphate salts in it. That doesn't sound unattainable to the Greeks. 71.60.122.158 02:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
But had they acids to purify the dross? The Arabs/Persians inventd those in 780–850. Without those, the phosphorus if free of the calcia would merely link up with other mineral species and make phosphorus salts that wouldn't blow up when wet. And why would they think of a burning-power from pee? Phosphorus from pee is a lovechild of goldrush alkemy. -lysdexia 10:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it should probably be removed, even though it is sourced as coming from the Encyclopædia Britannica online. Think about it, a substance that glows in the dark and bursts into flame upon contact with air (when it's dry), and there's no historical record of it. I think such a thing would've caused a huge stir in the ancient world, and someone would have recorded it.

The formula for Greek fire was kept a secret, but whatever it was made from would almost certainly have been common knowledge among the chemists, alchemists and apothecaries of the day. Sulfur, niter and charcoal were substances known for centuries, but it took a while before it was discovered that if you mix them in the right amounts, the mixture will burn rapidly.

Also, I think it would have been very hard, or even impossible, for them to have created enough phosphorus for how much Greek fire was used. They didn't have electrical furnaces to refine it from phosphorus-bearing rocks--they'd have had to boil old urine. Again, no one took note of this? There would've had to have been large-scale urine-collection and hectares all over the Byzantine Empire devoted to open pots of aging urine. Do you have any idea how much that would reek? And no one wrote about it? TheDragoon (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese Fire

I found some chinese records of Greek Fire-like Chinese Fire mentioned as far as 6th Century.But I cann't found the corresponding English names.See the Chinese Wiki [1]--Ksyrie 06:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

SeeMeng Huo You--Ksyrie 10:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese greek fire

Is this for real, or original research, or "analogy"? Since we don't know to this day what greek fire was made of, and it was so secret that no one else ever knew how to make it, isn't it somewhat fantastical that the Chinese had Greek Fire? -- Stbalbach 16:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Arabs apparently learned how to use it, so it's not that fantastical. Of course, it's possible that the Arabs created something else, not exactly what the Byzantines used. Adam Bishop 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
If it was different, it was only slightly so. By all accounts of the Chinese, its attributes were the same as Greek Fire, and could not be doused with water. Even the 11th century Chinese scientist Shen Kuo said this.--PericlesofAthens 20:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earlier than Greek fire

Flammable and incendiary preparations existed long before 670 AD. Greek fire may have been an outstanding improvement or a "breakthrough" sort of improvement. Books have been written explaining the history of such preparations. The US Navy teaches its recruits that white phosphorous will not burn until it comes into contact with water. Chemists know that well=known fact. Greek fire is less of a secret than the article suggests. Velocicaptor 17:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A list of publications with materials in them that relate facts about Greek fire is available on the 24 April, 2007 revision.Velocicaptor 13:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Some of these earlier (and parallel) preparations are outlined at Early thermal weapons, a new(ish) article. Gwinva (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Over-rated

The mere sight of any sort of siphon, whether it was used for Greek fire or not, was often enough to defeat an enemy.

If this were the case, the Ottomans would never have taken a single fort. I mean, come on people. The Siege of Cons. 1453 and the 4th crusade are examples were soldiers were not defeated by looking at a siphon. Its a weapon, not Medussa or one of the Gorgons. I am going to delete this unless a citation be provided. I'll leave 24 hrs.Tourskin 03:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I waited in front of my Monitor for 24 hrs and so I changed it to demoralize rather than defeat. No army is defeated by looking at a siphon. Tourskin 06:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Very true. Good work on deleting that bit. They'd even have an advantage by seeing it, since they knew they had to dodge or protect themselves from a torrent of fire (as futile as it may seem, there's always some chance). Slartibartfast1992 01:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Photo Capttion: Someone captioned the "possibly anachronistic" picture as an engine designed to throw Greek Fire. It certainly appears to show a sapping type of seige engine being attacked by a flaming barrel. Am I wrong? 199.8.26.10 13:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Randy 7-24-07

[edit] Before 673?

I just wanted to comment the first time I heard about Greek fire, which was in one of Valerio Massimo Manfredi's novels about Alexander the Great. Manfredi is a pretty well known Italian historian, writer and journalist, and specializes in ancient history. I apologize for not having with me the exact book and page of the trilogy about Alexander, although I'm possitively sure he mentions the use of Greek fire by Alexander's army more than 300 years B.C. Is this a mistake from someone who got carried on with his novel-writing or are there actual theories to date Greek fire further back, say to ancient Greece's times? Seleuco88 15:18 (NZ time), 17 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.38.46 (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rhodes battle

I just added the blockquote describing a battle between Pisa and Byzantium near the island of Rhodes; does anyone know the name of this battle? I checked the year article for 1103 but it did not mention it.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it has a name...there was a Pisan fleet wandering around after the First Crusade and they just started randomly attacking things. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)