Did the Ancient Hindus know Gunpowder?

[Guest guest]

Did the Ancient Hindus know Gunpowder?

By Ayyaswami Kalyanaraman (ARYA-TARANGINI)

 

M

ost western writers credit the discovery of gunpowder to the Chinese, from whom

Marco Polo is said to have learnt the art of making the explosive, and to have

carried it to Europe in the 13th century. As Carman (‘History of Fire Arms’)

points out, this theory is now discredited, as gunpowder was known to the

Arabs, the Hindus and Eastern Greeks, long before Marco Polo’s time. There are

strong indications that the ancient inhabitants of Aryavarta were aware of the

use of explosive powders, even earlier than the Chinese and that the art,

probably, traveled from India to China in the east, and to the Arab countries,

in the west. I have quoted elsewhere the views of Prof. Wilson and Dr. Oppert

on this subject; the following observations will go to reinforce the opinion

expressed by these western writers.

 

Henry Wilkinson in his book “Engines of War” (written in 1841) deals with the

origin & the nature of gunpowder. Considering the discovery of gunpowder to be

of unsurpassed significance to humanity, he holds that “it gave civilised

notions a decided superiority over the barbarous ones”. It is obvious, however,

that long before true gunpowder was known, there were fire implements and

fire-throwing engines in martial use. Vessels and pots containing inflammable

mixtures, and arrows with burning fire-heads, were familiar weapons in the Epic

wars in India, according to our great poets. The Ramayana mentions even

‘manosila’ (antimony sulphide), a powerful explosive, and now in requisition

for warfare and for fireworks Kautilya’s Arthasastra (4th century B. C.)[1]

Lists a number of recipes for making explosive and inflammable mixtures, as I

shall detail presently.

 

Oriental Greeks attributed the discovery of explosive powders to one Kalinus[2]

of Heliopolis of Syria, who served under Emperor Constantine of Byzantine, in

the 4th century A. D. the semi-liquid composition was known as sea fire and

could not be extinguished with water.[3] The Emperor kept the formula a dark

secret, which was, however, revealed by his daughter, Princess Anna, (in her

book called Alexiad). According to her, this ‘sea-fire’ was compounded of

powdered resinous gums, naphtha and sulphur. According to later writers

(Francis Grose and H. W. L. Hime), the composition was bitumen, sulphur and

naphtha, which were familiar to the Arabs, who exported them to the West. In

the Crusades, both sides used this ‘sea-fire’, which was also called

‘Greek-fire’ by the Christians, on the supposed Greek origin of the invention.

“The Saracens”, in the words of Joinville, an ancient writer of the 13th

century, “brought an engine called petrary in which they put this ‘Greek-fire’

in the slings. It came front-wise like a barrel of verjuice, (sour or sauce)

and the trail of fire issuing from it was as large as a long lance. Its noise

was like Heaven’s thunder and

it gave a light like that of sun”.[4] W. Y. Carman (A History of Fire-Arms,

P-8) said, fire could be of the principle of tension (large loons), torsion

(twisted rope), or counterpoise (weighted swiveled arms)”. He mentions that in

the time of King Edward III of England, one John Ardenne proposed, “that apart

from long bows and cross-bows throwing incendiary material, birds and animals

could carry the fiery composition in iron or brass containers. In a manuscript

of Vienna, a cat and a flying bird are shown as pressed into this dangerous and

noncomfortable service”. It is highly interesting to find that Ardenne had been

anticipated,

by nearly 18 centuries, by Kautilya, (whom I have cited elsewhere in this

chapter) who suggests that birds and animals could be made to carry inflammable

powder (agniyoga) into an enemy's fortress, from the invading monarchies camp.

 

To know some more lightly on this ‘Greek-fire’: it is clear that the Arabs knew

of it long before the Western Greeks. As Wilkinson says, (P-132 ‘Engines of

War’) it was considered by the ancients as an Arab invention and was known also

as ‘Medes-fil’; it was known to the Chinese long before the Europeans knew of

it, and was called “the oil of the cruel fire”, by the Celestials. As already

mentioned the ingredients were naphtha, resinous gums, sulphur and perhaps,

nitre. I suggest that the ancient Indians were the original discoverers of this

‘sea-fire’, for the following reasons. We have strong indications of the use of

fire weapons and inflammable powders and oils in our ancient literature like

the Great Epics, the Manu, and the Sukra, Nitis, and the Arthasastras, all of

which antedate the theories of the Arabs and the Asiatic Greeks by a long

interval. The famous sloka in Manu, (Ch. VII 90)

asking Kshattriya warriors not to make war on adversaries resorting to

fire-weapons etc., had been interpreted by Halhed (“Laws of the Gentoo’s), as

referring to the use of poisoned arrows and of inflammable missiles, through

subsequent Western writers have disagreed with this interpretation.[5] Resins

and incense (along with sulphur and/or niter) were the basis for all

incandescent projectiles; and India was the home, par excellence, of resins and

incense powders. We have seen elsewhere in this book, that the Egyptians

imported these commodities from Sapta Sindhu and King Solomon had sent ships to

the West Coast of India (the land

of Ophir) for these very articles. Bdellium, (guggulu in Sanskrit) is a highly

inflammable tree-gum and commanded an extensive market in the ancient world,

not only for use as incense, but also for spectacular pyro-technic

demonstrations. Guggulu when reinforced with turpentine and lac (Sanskrit:

laksham) would not be easily extinguishable by application of water. The

Mahabharata, as I had mentioned elsewhere, refers to the use of resins, waxes

and combustible materials, in the Great War. Kautilya gives more specific

details of the use of explosives while dealing with assaults on forts[6] (which

could also be taken by sapping and mining

and by “the use of machines”). He gives several recipes for making inflammable

powder; in these formulae, guggulu, lac and turpentine figure prominently, vide

the extracts, which I have given elsewhere in this chapter. It is common

knowledge that many sciences and arts traveled from India to Europe through the

Arabs and the Asiatic Greeks[7]. To quote only a few, Mathematics, Astronomy,

Medicines, Alchemy and Magic (not to mention various Transcendental

Philosophies) flowed west from Sapta Sindhu to Persia and to Arabia, and thence

to Europe. In the same way, the knowledge of fire-weapons probably progressed

from India to the

Mediterranean region.

 

To turn to the technique of making real explosives like gunpowder: it has been

often concluded by Western writers, that the Indians of old did not know the

use of the two main ingredients of explosive powder, viz., sulphur and

saltpetre. This allegation is somewhat strange since the Sanskrit vocabulary

has had, from the earliest times, expressions descriptive of both these

chemicals. Sulphur was known as “gandha” and Saltpetre (or nitre) as yavaja and

yavakshara[8] and both these are mentioned by Panini and Kautilya. Further,

petroleum and naphtha,

(other ingredients used in gunpowder), have been known in South Asia from even

pre-historic times.[9] Flaming-naphtha was used heavily in Arab warfare of the

Prophet’s time (in one of the wars, the Kaaba is said to have been burnt down by

naphtha, supplied by Syrians).[10] There is

reference to the substance in the Bible and in the Egyptian hieroglyphics.

Bitumen and naphtha were well known to Kautilya (vide Book II, Chapter XII of

the Arthasastra).

 

In this context, the observations of H. Wilkinsobn are of great importance.

Suggesting that “the origin of gunpowder could be traced to the practice in

China and India of cooking fire with wood-fires, on a soil strongly impregnated

with nitre”, he adds, “the very obscurity of the origin of gunpowder is evidence

of its antiquity” (Engines of War, P.132). It will be worthwhile to ascertain

what actually the composition of this elementary explosive was. Marcus Graceus

(8th century A. D.) in his ‘Liber Ignium ‘ gives the formula as 6 lbs. of

saltpetre, 2 lbs. of charcoal and 1 lb. of sulphur. Earlier writers are not so

precious; for example, Virgil mentions a contrivance “which imitates

thunder”.[11] Says Wilkinson: “The Brahmins had a similar thing according to

Themistins and also the Indians generally, where practice is recorded by

Philostratas of 300 A. D. The latter referring to the Oxydrachae[12] says,

‘These truly wise tribes lived between the Hyphasis and the Ganges; their

country

Alexander never visited, deterred not by the fear of its inhabitants, but from

religious motives; their holy men overthrow their enemies with fiery tempests

and thunderbolts, shot from the city walls’. In Wilkinson’s words, “This is the

most striking illustration of the antiquity of gunpowder with which I am

acquainted. It is also known that iron-rockets have been used in India as

military weapons from times out of mind.” I may also cite here the opinion of

Sir George Stannton, who observed about a hundred years ago, “gunpowder in

India and China was coeval with the most distant historical events and it will

no doubt strike the reader with wonder to find a prohibition of firearms in

records of unfathomable antiquity.[13] Alexander did undoubtedly meet with some

such weapon in India, as a passage in Quintus Curtius seems to indicate.”

 

In the words of Halhed (who has been much criticised by later writers),

“Cannon[14] in Sanskrit idiom is called Satagni (or a hundred fires) and the

Purana sastras ascribed this invention to Bhisvakarma”. According to Wilkinson,

the use of Satagni (which may be the incipient cannon) fell later into disuse

both because of moral injunctions and because of the awkwardness and

imperfection of this kind of artillery itself. “There was an aversion to use

newly invented arms as contrary to humanity and opposed to bravery,” says

Wilkinson.

 

The ingredients commonly used in gunpowder in recent times, are nitre, charcoal

and sulphur in the ratio 50:25:25[15]; “and this formula appears to be very

ancient”, says Wilkinson, who adds that although sulphur was very desirable as

an ingredient, it was not indispensable. “Sulphur was not an essential article

even in good gunpowder, especially in large charges. Mr. Napier found that

powder made from nitre and charcoal only, projected a thirteen inch shell as

far as the best powder composed in the usual manner could”. The strongest

powder

consisted of 16 ports nitre and 4 of charcoal. As W. Y. Carman points out,[16]

the use of sulphur gives rise to heavy smoke, which could be avoided by

eliminating sulphur and using only salt-petre and charcoal, as was done by the

French, till the 18th century.

 

We have seen that gandha or the Hindus knew sulphur of old, but unfortunately,

there is no specific literary mention of its use in the making of explosives in

ancient times. (That powerful explosive, manosila[17] or sulphide of antimony

was however well known even in the puranic age, as the Epics bear out). The

case was otherwise with nitre or salt-pitre, which was often found in a natural

stone in India, as admitted even by Carman. In historical times, Europe obtained

its nitre from India & China by surface mining, and the various East India

Companies carried on a flourishing trade in this commodity.[18] Subsequently,

the Europeans learnt the art of making salt-petre from artificial beds, in

which vegetable and animal refuse, was collected and allowed fermenting, and

thus forming crude nitre. This process is very significant to students

investigating the art of warfare in ancient India, as explained below:

 

Kautilya, who professedly summarised and transmitted for posterity the

injunctions contained in the many Arthasastras written by ancient writers,

terms all explosives as ‘agnisamyogas’ and he enumerates various

ingredients,[19] constituting these explosives. Briefly, their list would be as

follows:

 

1. Charcoal i.e., powder of the pine (sarala) and deodar (devadaru);

2. Putrid vegetable matter (putirna, i.e., stinking grass);

3. Bdellium (guggulu);

4. Turpentine (sriveshtaka);

5. Lac (laksha);

6. The fermenting dung of non-carnivores, like the ass, the camel, sheep,

and goats;

7. Wax (maduchchishta);

8. “The powder of all metals (sarvatoha) red as fire” (probably, aluminium

oxide, antimony sulphide etc.);

9. Powder of lead (sila) and trapu (zinc);

10. Bitumen (silajathu or giripushpakam);

11. Fatty vegetable oils or tallow.

 

It will be seen from the above list that practically all the ingredients

necessary for making an explosive charge are found in the Arthasastras except

that sulphur, as such, is not explicitly mentioned.[20] Even assuming that

sulphur was not in vogue as a constituted of gunpowder in Kautilya’s time or

earlier, it is evident that it was within the competence of contemporary

scientists to make an efficient explosive mixture, using the other serviceable

ingredient, namely nitre. We have seen that nitre or salt-petre was found

widely in India in its

natural state and on the surface. Even if the natural products were not

available, nitre could be synthesized from the raw products indicated by

Kautilya, viz., decaying vegetable and animal refuse. As Wilkinson has pointed

out, these were the source from which artificial salt-petre was extracted, by

fragmentation in beds, in countries like England, and France, (where the

natural product was scarce.)

 

To sum up, there is a strong indication that the flame throwing contrivance,

known in ancient times as ‘sea-fire’ or ‘Greek-fire’, was none else than the

Sarvathobhadra, mentioned in our ancient writings. There is also almost

conclusive evidence that the Indians of old were acquainted with many varieties

of explosives used in warfare, and that some of these contained ingredients,

practically identical with those some used in making gunpowder in early

historical and medieval times. It is only in the late 19th century, that the

discovery of ‘high explosives’, or propellants using nitric acid and sulphuric

acid, like gun-cotton, nitro-cellulose etc., changed the type of explosive

charges used in war and in the blasting industry.[21]

 

 

 

[1] The Arthasastra of Kautilya (or Vishnu Gupta) is now generally conceded to

be the genuine work of Chanakya, the Mauryan statesman and not the ‘effort of a

medieval pundit’ as suggested by a German author. Among others F. V. Thomas, V.

A. Smith, Jolly and L. D. Barnett accepted the authenticity of the treatise,

which was itself a late summary of many earlier Arthasastras, as mentioned by

Kautilya himself in his learned treatise: “This Arthasastras, or Science of

Polity, has been made as a compendium of all those Arthasastras which, as a

guidance to Kings in acquiring and maintaining their

realms, have been written by ancient writers”, (chapter I Book I). Kamandaka,

writing in the II century B. C., hails Kautilya as his great exemplar.

[2] C/f. kallinos (or Kalyana), for famous Sophist who met Alexander and later

burnt himself, before the Greek ruler.

[3] In this respect, it resembled, a well-known diabolical weapon, first used by

the Germans in World War I, viz. the flame-thrower. The British and the

Americans perfected this instrument of attack which has since been widely used,

especially, in flushing out troops hidden in caves and trenches, and in

overcoming bunkers and strong points. The famous Churchill Crocodile was a

tank-cum-flame-thrower.

[4] The word petrary (stone thrower) comes from Sanskrit patra or stone. It is

significant that the Saracens should have used such an engine, which is

nothing, but a refinement of the ‘Sarvatobhadra’ mentioned by both Panini and

Kautilya, and defined (by the Commentator of the latter), as “a cart with

wheels capable of rapid rotation for throwing stones in all directions”.

[5] Hopkins for instance, was fully persuaded that Halhed had misconstrued Manu

and that the ancient Aryans had no knowledge of any fire weapons. It need

scarcely be emphasised that Hopkins was consistently chary of crediting the

early Hindus with scientific refinements in war. For instance: he seriously

maintained that prior to the date of Alexander, Indians had no knowledge of

stone architecture and of masonry fortifications. Recent excavations at

Rajagriha, Kausambi etc. have completely refuted Hopkins. In Orissa and in

Bihar, city- fortifications in stone masonry running into tens of square

miles, and going back to the 7th and 8th centuries B. C., have been uncovered.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the excavations at Kausambi take this type

of masonry culture back to 1000 B. C. and more. The Rig-Veda knew of

stone-fortresses. “We find indeed mentions of Purs, which were occasionally of

considerable size and were some times made of stone (asmanaya) or of iron

(ayasi). Some were furnished with a hundred walls (satabhuji). These Purs were

probably, rather ramparts or forts, than cities” (“An Advanced History of

India”, P. 34, by Mazumder, Roy Chowdhuri and Datta). Panini and the

Mahabharata, frequently refer to cities, in post-Vedic times. The Epic mentions

the following as indispensable for city defences: durga, gulma, nagarapura,

bala-mukhyas, sasyabhihara, samkrama, prakanthi, akasa-janani, kadangadwaraka,

dwaras, satagni, bhanda-gara, dhanya-gara, asva-gara, gaja-gara and

baladhi-karana (Santiparva 69-1-71).

[6] Chapter IV, Book XIII, Arthasastra

[7] The name “Greek-fire” given to the incendiary weapon mentioned earlier,

originated only in the sixth century A. D. Neither the Arabs nor the Greeks

used this description themselves.

[8] Other Sanskrit names: Pakyah: Yavagrajah

[9] The Greeks came to know of this rock oil from the Persians only after

Alexander’s invasion, says W. Y. Carman (‘A History of Fire-Arms’ P.11/12).

“Petroleum was known in ancient times and its name shows its origin-rock oil.

Naphtha is another ancient term, having reference to the earth origin of the

oil. Balls of naphtha were used in India, and thrown by catapults.” In medieval

India, polo was played at night with balls of naphtha set alight.

[10] Citizen Langles announced before the French National Institute (in the 18th

century), that the Arabs knew of gunpowder in the 7th century and used it in the

siege of Mecca.

[11] This must obviously be the ‘big bang’, or the saluting gun, used to produce

thunderous sounds on important occasions like Royal or Temple processions,

marriages, etc., in ancient India.

[12] The Kshudrakas of Panini

[13] I.e., in the Code of Manu, already cited.

[14] Westerners derive the word cannon from canna = reed. The canna or reed

(probably the bamboo of India) was originally in use for throwing the

‘Greek-fire’, which was the precursor of artillery.

[15] In the British Army the best gunpowder was made of 25 parts petre, 15 parts

of sulphur, and 10 parts charcoal.

[16] History of Fire-Arms, P. 162

[17] Curiously manosila was used in ancient India as a beauty aid, (Collyrium).

Sulphur is however, mentioned in the Sukra-niti.

[18] The nitre, imported from India by the English East India Coy, was known as

the “Company’s petre” and commanded a good premium in the English market.

Sulphur was usually got from Indonesia and Sicily. The East India Coy, made

huge profits from the export of salt-petre, especially after the death of

Aurangzeb, who had placed a ban on its export.

[19] Chapter IV, Book XIII

[20] It is extremely significant that in the 17th century A. D., the Prince

Bishop of Munster invented an incendiary shell (known as a carcass), containing

practically the same ingredients as mentioned by Kautilya. To quote Carman, (P.

170 ibid.),

“Carcass have thick iron shells and are frequently made oblong with several

holes, to allow the inflammable composition to come out. This mixture consisted

of salt-petre, sulphur, resin, turpentine, and sulphide of antimony and tallow.

It burnt with extreme violence, for three to twelve minutes, even under water.”

It may be added that the Sukra-Niti mentions sulphur, as used in the

Brihan-nalika (a cannon?)

[21] Alfred Noble was a 19th century product!

 

Read only the mail you want - Mail SpamGuard.