Talk:Gunpowder artillery in the Middle Ages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleGunpowder artillery in the Middle Ages has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 21, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 20, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 24, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that medieval cannon (pictured) were first used by the English during the Hundred Years War at the Battle of Crécy?
Current status: Good article

GA Review[edit]

Firstly, congratulations on getting this article so far in such a short space of time. I think it is very nearly at GA status. The things which hold it back are:

  • Tense. Article mixes present and past tenses: 'Hand guns were probably in use' vs 'By 1340, light cannon are widespread' - please fix throughout.
  • A couple of apparently unfinished sentences: 'Early Cannon' para 1 has 'mortars with bronze tubes or bronze first appeared'; footnote 4 has 'Note the Long s'.
  • Early gunpowder is discussed twice and the differences between it and later gunpowder isn't really made clear.

If you can fix those then I'd happily make it a Good Article. Further comments which you should bear in mind include:

  • The article at present is very descriptive rather than analytic. It tells you about the recorded mentions of cannon in the middle ages. A complete article might talk more about the reasons why cannon spread, including their military use, economic cost, political factors and so on.
  • I am very pleased to see my photos of ancient bronze guns being used - however I am sure there is a better photo at least of the Dardanelles Gun! (The demi-cannon and culverin image isn't great quality but it does show the scale of the weapons very well...)
  • DK Childrens' Pocket Guide to Castles is not really a reliable source - given the amount of detailed sources you have for the rest of the article I am sure you can find a better one.

If you are able to take on board those comments, I would suggest putting the article up for peer review or possibly even A-class review at the Military History wikiproject. Pelase let me know if anything I've written isn't clear. Many thanks, The Land 20:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between early gunpowder and later cannon gunpowder is mentioned in the "Spread to Europe" section: "Chinese slow-burning powder… probably not function well as cannon gunpowder - the saltpeter content is too low." Aside from that, I will try to sort out the other immediate problems. --Grimhelm 21:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's it. --Grimhelm 21:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the status here? This article's on hold period has expired. IvoShandor 07:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article failed. IvoShandor 13:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is to be about medieval cannons, it shouldn't really be about anything outside of Europe. The Middle Ages is supposed to refer to European history, and certainly not China. I recommend merging most of the contents now present in the history section of cannon, leaving a brief summary there and renaming the article something like history of the cannon.
Peter Isotalo 19:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, "Middle Ages" is used merely as the timeframe (c. 500 - 1500), within which Chinese cannon fit; we are talking about Cannon during the Middle Ages (timeframe), rather than "medieval cannon" (style/region). However, it is still important to have the information on cannon in China, as it shows the origin and spread of cannon into Europe. The section, I feel, is short and in the context of the subject's development and antecedents: it does not give undue weight compared to the length of the rest of the article.
"History of cannon" is a good potential article, but there are some more areas to cover with other articles first. --Grimhelm 20:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try actually reading Middle Ages, Grim. I, too, thought the Middle Ages were applicable to the rest of the world too a while ago until I actually read up on the term. The Middle Ages is not just a the fixed time period from 500-1500, but a stage of development defined according to European historiography. Since it's defined as the period between Antiquity and the Renaissance (both Euroepan terms), there's no logic in applying it to the rest of the world. In fact, it's very Eurocentric to do so. The Middle Ages don't even have the same timespan within Europe. For example, northern Italy is generally considered to have come out of the Middle Ages almost a full century before more peripheral regions like Scandinavia. Historians don't really use this term for history outside of Europe anymore.
And why would you not go for a main article for the topic? Encyclopedias should always start with a main article and then branch out into more specific ones. Between this article and cannon there's more than enough for a good starter article on the general history of cannon.
Peter Isotalo 20:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, yes I have looked at that article - thank you for asking. :-) However, what alternative term do we have for that timeframe? Nonetheless, a brief overview of the antecedants of European cannon is appropriate. Even Francis Bacon (about a century after the Middle Ages) recognised the massive Chinese influence (Novum Organum, Liber I, CXXIX). Talking about the spread of cannon through Europe without discussing where they came from seems more Eurocentric to me
And yes, I am going to write a main article. I just have another article being drafted that I might like to sum up first. --Grimhelm 22:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

I'm passing this article. Good job. I see the comments about using the term "Middle Ages" to describe Asia, which I agree is incorrect, but I also don't think that should hold up this GA review. There may be a better title to use and I hope that you will build a consensus to find it. Otherwise, looks good to me. JRP 00:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date confusion?[edit]

... The first definite use of artillery in the region was against the Ottoman siege of Constantinople in 1396, as the attackers did not yet have any gunpowder of their own. These loud Byzantine weapons, possibly operated by the Genoese or "Franks" of Galata, forced the Turks to withdraw.[14]
The Turks started to use cannons against a Crusader army in Kosovo in 1389, but there are some records of Anatolian Seljuks used cannon against Mongols in the Battle of Kosedag.

The dates in these two parts are contradictory. If in 1396 the Ottomans did not yet have gunpowder, how did they use cannons before that, in 1389? Should that be 1398? 1399? 1489? -Bbik★ 01:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tzatzikification[edit]

I have nominated Cannon in the Middle Ages for Tzatzikification, to bring it up to the same standard as the similarly named section in the Cannon article. There was some talk of doing this earlier, but I think we have to admit that it will never get done unless we include it in the list. The way I see it, it isn't necessary to take it as far as FA status. I think aiming for A-class is enough to keep it as an interesting project, agreed? --Grimhelm (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might have provided a link so we could see what Tzatzikification actually was. It's not exactly a standard procedure :) The Land (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry about that: User:AndonicO/Tzatziki Squad — basically a collaborative effort to improve nominated articles. ;) --Grimhelm (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I know that, sounds like a great idea. With taramasalata. The Land (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in helping, it would be appreciated. I think I have done pretty much all that I can do myself with this article. I have brought in the relevant material from the sections on Middle East and Medieval Europe in cannon and standardised the list of references. Uncited statements have been tagged, and the lede rewritten to summarise the article. Of course, I also added some new sources and material: technological limitations, culverins, bombards, Russian cannon, etc. The areas that need to be worked on are in verifying tagged statements, finding page numbers for some of the references, and some general expansion of the article. The section on Early use in China and East Asia here could also be improved from Early history in cannon. --Grimhelm (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, don't have much Wiki-time at the moment, and what there is will be spent on battleships. Good luck though. The Land (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Cannon in the Middle Ages/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment. This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

  • Although I think the prose certainly could use more polishing and the references have to be properly formatted (see below), the real problem here is the outstanding [citation needed] tags. Some where already here and some I added, but all have to adequately addressed before the article is good enough to pass as a GA. Once this is dealt with, this article will pass.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

The internet inline citations used in this article are improperly formatted. Internet citations require at the very least information on the title, publisher and last access date of any webpages used. If the source is a news article then the date of publication and the author are also important. This information is useful because it allows a reader to a) rapidly identify a source's origin b) ascertain the reliability of that source and c) find other copies of the source should the website that hosts it become unavaliable for any reason. It may also in some circumstances aid in determining the existance or status of potential copyright infringments. Finally, it looks much tidier, making the article appear more professional. There are various ways in which this information can be represented in the citation, listed at length at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The simplest way of doing this is in the following format:

<ref>{{cite web|(insert URL)|title=|publisher=|work=|date=|author=|accessdate=}}</ref>

As an example:

  • <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/3859|title=Avoiding a Thirty Years War|publisher=www.discovery.org|work=[[The Washington Post]]|date=2006-12-21|author=Richard W. Rahn|accessdate=2008-05-25}}</ref>

which looks like:

  • Richard W. Rahn (2006-12-21). "Avoiding a Thirty Years War". The Washington Post. www.discovery.org. Retrieved 2008-05-25.

If any information is unknown then simply omit it, but title, publisher and last access dates are always required. I strongly recommend that all internet inline references in this article be formatted properly. If you have any further questions please contact me and as mentioned above, more information on this issue can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regards

Sentences Removed needing citations[edit]

  • "Fire lances", gunpowder-propelled arrows, were used in China from at least 1132[citation needed]. The first documented record of artillery with gunpowder propellent used on the battlefield was on January 28, 1132 when General Han Shizhong of the Song Dynasty used escalade and Huochong to capture a city in Fujian. In 1221, cast iron bombs thrown by hand, sling, and catapult were mentioned. The Chinese of the Song Dynasty began to load gunpowder inside thick bamboo to be used as a projection firearm, firing clay pellets like a shotgun in c. 1249.[citation needed]
  • Bacon also described firecrackers, "used in certain parts of the world".[citation needed] Bacon's mixture resembles the assumed composition of Chinese slow-burning powder as used in fire arrows and rockets, but would probably not function well as cannon gunpowder - the saltpeter content is too low.[citation needed]
  • Hand guns were probably in use at this time, with Italian scopettieri ("gun bearers") mentioned in conjunction with crossbowmen in 1281.[citation needed]
  • At the siege of Niebla, it was reported that Almohad defenders used machines which projected stones and fire accompanied by thundering noises.[citation needed]
  • Hand cannon or hand cannon-like devices were reported to be employed against the Mongols in 1260 and in 1304, and an unattributed manuscript also depicted fire arrows and long-handled handguns.[citation needed]
  • By 1340, light cannon were widespread enough in the Islamic world to end up in military inventories.[citation needed]

Difference --Grimhelm (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not enormously happy with the hiding of unsourced points, but I don't think anything that has been removed reduces the comprehensiveness of the article. There is however one [citation needed] tag you either missed or are looking for a citation for, so I won't pass until that is dealt with at least.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the culverin section with better, sourced material. --Grimhelm (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can the online sources please be properly formatted, as described above?--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Grimhelm (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

um.....its cool — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.129.130 (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gunpowder artillery in the Middle Ages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gunpowder_artillery_in_the_Middle_Ages&oldid=1214063909"