# Talk:Early thermal weapons

Eight references refer to "Bennett et al." but the reference isn't in the list and it appears to me that it never has been. I have no idea what it is, or I would try to insert it.GOR42 (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I worked with Gwinva on some other articles, if it doesn't pop up in a history review of her edits here, I'll try to find it elsewhere.  Montanabw(talk) 18:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Follow up: It's there in the list at the bottom:  * Bennet, Matthew; Bradbury, Jim; DeVries, Kelly; Dickie, Iain; Jestice, Phyllis G. Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World: AD 500-AD 1500, London: Amber Books, 2005, ISBN 1-86227-299-9 Montanabw(talk) 18:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I've moved this page from boiling oil for two reasons; firstly "boiling oil" is an inaccurate term since it was heated, not boiled (oil burns before it boils), and since the article naturally covers the more common forms of thermal devices. Gwinva (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Further to that, it's worth mentioning that I chose the name Early thermal weapons simply because I couldn't think of a better one at the time; I am aware it is clumsy, and it is worth considering alternatives.  "Incendiary weapons" is a commonly-used term elsewhere, yet not quite appropriate for this, since that refers to substances which burn with flame: and thus wouldn't cover heated sand, quicklime, hot oil, boiling water, smoking sulphur etc etc, all of which naturally fall in this article rather than any other.  Hence "thermal" for heat (which is the common link).  "Early" was to cover Ancient and Medieval, but perhaps that should be spelt out? Or a better umbrella term used? Gwinva (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I left the #2 alone becuase I am not familar enough with the subject to determine whether there are any major ommissions. Otherwise, it looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've spent more time than I should browsing commons for a decent picture; the engraving currently on the page is a little anachronistic; there's a good one at Greek fire but it would be nice to have something different.  Fiery arrows, burning villages, barrels of oil... anything would be good!  Gwinva (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

possibilities below; including later development:
 
 

The weapons listed are not in chronological order, jumping back and forth from Byzantines, to Josephus of the Romans, to the hundred Years wars, then to the Franks of the 9th century - whats up with that?!Tourskin (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Because I was trying to order them thematically: discussing arrows then  greek fire then oil, then pitch etc.  There's no logical chronological progression of one thing being invented then another, as most coexisted throughout the period; most are simple common sense rather than technological innovations, anyway.  I tried to mix the examples up so they weren't all from one period.  Perhaps it could be ordered more clearly; subheadings perhaps? Which could be of type, or general timespan/region. But then it could get repetitive, saying, "oh yes, these guys had quicklime too".  "We see pitch used again".   I'm open to ideas! The eyes of a third party can often see things more clearly.  Gwinva (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I've added sub-headings under type;hope this makes it clearer. Gwinva (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The arrangement according to themes is OK. The problem is that there are many examples making things very stubby and there is little on Chinese siege technology for example. In modern times thermobaric weapons are a must to discuss(possibly the Muslim greandes during the crusades had a similar effect, but on a limited scale, although containing salpetre) Wandalstouring (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips.  I'm still working on the page, adding information and (hopefully) improving the prose.  Feel free to add in anything you have. (FYI, it was not me who nominated this for GA.)  Gwinva (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

GA pre-review (I really need to come up with a checklist for these things, I'm doing enough of them...)
Details I noticed:

Might be a bit of overlinking going on here. Do we really need to link smoke, heat, burning, warfare, projectiles, animal fat, spears, arrows, vinegar, wax, fish, urine, charcoal, seaweed, straw, flax,
Y -fixed
Being the historian I am, I'd prefer to see a bit more context on the Gesta Stephani, but that's just the Anglo-Norman historian in me.
Y No, that's not Anglo-Norman of you; I knew it was an awkwardly placed sentence; moved to discussion about harrying later.
A number of short one or two sentence paragraphs. Consider combining or expanding them so they don't give the prose a choppy feel.
Y merged "use if defence" into "other methods"; can always be broken out later if further material is added.
Current opinion seems to be leaning towards NOT linking years alone (like 1327) unless there is some important reason it is significant.
Y -ok. I've left centuries linked, though
I know you wikilinked King Edward in the Fire and Sword section, but consider always listing regnal numbers (so it'd be Edward II) to make things more clear.
Y ah yes, a clumsy oversight
Same section, third paragraph, the last sentence... might consider giving the time frame for that destruction. I think in the source, Prestwich is saying that that swath of destruction occurred in 1339? The way it is written now, it implies that 2000 villages were destroyed in the whole war, not just the one chevauchee.
Y another oversight; you're right, that's the 1339 raid.
I'd tell you to Spell out the "13th century" phrase when it starts a sentence, but the MOS is currently being warred over for that, so don't be surprised if you get conflicting advice on that tidbit of the MOS.
I'll wait to see how that resolves, then.
Any reason you've italicised the Orderic Vitalis quote in the last paragraph of Fire and Sword? Also the Gamez quote in Fire arrows, bolts spears...? And the Josephus quote in Hot oil? and the quote in The Principle of fire and sword down at the end?
Y no real reason; just to make it stand out, I think.  Anyway, tidied up; all in Roman.
Simple fire-raising section, I'm unclear if the two boys were sent in by William or were just boys from the castle? Perhaps clarify.
Y clarified as much as I can; my source doesn't actually say William sent the boys in, but implies it.
Ask User:Brighterorange to run his endash script over the article to replace all the -'s with the correct n dashes. A lot easier than doing it by hand.
Y Requested at talk page.  Thanks for the tip.
In Throwing machines, you say "A number of throwing machines were in use throughout the period..." what exactly is the period you're referring to? We've talked about a large number of different periods so far.
Y
Consider staggering the pictures, right, left, right, etc. to break up the monotony of them marching down the right side.
Y I had them on the right since I have a vague recollection of someone once explaining that pictures on the left muck up headings (or something) in some browsers.  But I might have misremembered.  I've left the ones next to secondary headings on the right, and mixed a few of the others up.
The right-left thing was explained to me as being mostly a problem for a left-oriented photo near a subheading, apparently they don't trouble main (==) headings, but they can mess things up lower down (=== headings) .  Somewhere buried in my talk page archives is the explanation, look for User:ArielGold's answer to me.  Montanabw(talk) 19:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Throwing machines section, shouldn't the Syria in the first paragraph be the Turks or some such? Technically, Syria didn't exist then.
Y fair point, yet Nicolle uses "Syria" throughout his book; I've clarified as "Muslims in Syria" to imply region rather than state.

Okay, in the incredibly picky department, but... in the thermal weapons in mining section, the second paragraph says "the internal space was filled with combustibles, such as brushwood, firewood, resin, and other incendiary substances; these would set alight the supporting props" technically the combustibles wouldn't set the props alight without themselves being alight. It's just jarring. Perhaps "...substances; when set alight, these would cause the props to burn..."
Y clarified (I hope!)
Fire ships, technically Tyre at the time of the seige was part of the Persian empire, if I'm remembering correctly.
Y I've gone back to my source, and he repeatedly refers to them as Phoenicians; Siege of Tyre also acknowledges Tyre as being the "largest and most important city-state of Phoenicia"; although the war, of course, was against the Persians.  I'll leave as is.  

Same section, the "every sort of material apt to kindle" needs a citation on the quotation, and should probably be in double quotation marks.
Y fixed

Same section, any reason for the "-failed-" instead of "failed"�?
Y No!  Fixed.

Some of the References are formatted with the date after the publisher, some are formatted with it after the author. Stick with one format style.
Y the rationale for bringing some dates next to the author was so it was easy to distinguish between different books by the same author.  I've returned to standard format.
I"m fine with the dates being next to the authors (that's the format I've gone with with things I'm working on) I was just pointing out that the formats were mixed, which is sure to bring down a reviewers wrath for an MOS-breech (grins) Ealdgyth | Talk 21:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Reply
Usually the see also section only lists things that aren't wikilinked in the main article. Some folks do list things like you have, but some reviewers will make you take them out.
Y -reduced
All in all, it looks pretty good. I didn't really dig deep into the prose, but it's easily GA with some of the fixes above, and close to FA, I'd think. Ealdgyth | Talk 17:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of March 14, 2008, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: pass
2. Factually accurate?: pass
3. Broad in coverage?: pass
4. Neutral point of view?: pass
5. Article stability? pass
6. Images?: pass
A well referenced and prepared article.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The article has a rather lengthy section on guns, however guns aren't thermal weapons by the definition given at the beginning of the article. They don't cause damage by heating or burning the target. There are already plenty of articles on guns, they don't need to be covered here. Also, there is discussion of thermal weapons all the way up into the 20th century. That hardly qualifies as "early". --Dwane E Anderson (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

While the main focus of the article is indeed early thermal weapons, as defined in the lead, it is appropriate to briefly cover a "where to next"-type discussion, which draws connections between these early weapons and later ones: something not easily seen by going directly to an article on modern weapons.  It provides a context.  As for cannon and guns, or "firearms": they do require the use of thermal techniques, and gunpowder itself qualifies as an explosive or flammable material.  (Early firearms did heat and burn the target, although this was not their primary aim).  Rather than removing the content, the lead phrasing could be altered to make clear gunpowder is included.  Yes, there are plenty of articles specifically on guns, but it would be inconceivable to consider thermal weapons without going into gunpowder and the development of weapons following.  This  article effectively provides historical context for the gun articles.  If the article name upsets you, then perhaps you have got a better suggestion?  Gwinva (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The article name doesn't "upset" me. Actually, I'm not upset at all; I'm just trying to provide constructive criticism. If you were going to alter the name, I would suggest "History of Thermal Weapons" if you want to include later developments. However, I think the title is okay as is. The first four paragraphs of the gunpowder and cannon section do a good job of tying in thermal weapons to the history of guns. The other four paragraphs I think are off topic, as guns aren't actually thermal weapons. But, if you want to leave them in, it's no big deal. Just my 2 cents.--Dwane E Anderson (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Burning Pitch	#redirect [[Early thermal weapons#Pitch.2C tar and resin]]--68.225.194.245 (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

bumping this.  I'm just a BoN and I can't create new articles, and I think it's quite relevant.  This is what I typed into the search bar, and surely what others type into the search bar.  No similar results crop up under suggestions.  Someone please take the five seconds necessary to copy the above text and make the damned redirect!--68.225.194.245 (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, can not a single Wikipedian take it upon themselves to spend three seconds making this necessary and relevant redirect?  Burning pitch.  Make it.  Thank you.--68.225.194.245 (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Twice in the article there are headings relating to "With Fire and Sword". To my knowledge this is strictly in reference to the Polish novel of the same title and its recent revival in film and video game. Neither entry attributes any origin or meaning to the phrase nor actually adds any understanding to the sections it has been applied to. If this is a prevailing recognized title for the doctrine I could understand its inclusion, but as it reads it seems highly out of place as cultural self promotion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.94.72 (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC) 

If you had bothered to read the actual article, you wound note that use of the phrase was cited twice in the text, once to Livy and once to a scholarly source and its context is explained in the article.  I also know the article's primary creator, who is not a teenaged video game player. Montanabw(talk) 19:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Early thermal weapons. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080221060552/http://www.normanconquest.co.uk/orderics_reaction.htm to http://www.normanconquest.co.uk/orderics_reaction.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060515145029/http://www.remuseum.org.uk/corpshistory/rem_corps_part14.htm to http://www.remuseum.org.uk/corpshistory/rem_corps_part14.htm
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 00:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Yaksha lance.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

What, how can this be a good article when it says nothing about "the Indians" attacking pioneer wagon trains? Surely this deserves a mention even if it only occurred in the movies. That's the way I see it, pilgrim. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)