Talk:Greek fire

acheologicla findings?

I just read the article, and would like to know if there are any parts of the weapons system that has survived to this day? If there are no archeologicla findings other than scrolls and books then the article should be clearer on that point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.185.28.122 (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian Wars

I believe a similar thing is used in attacking the fortifcations in Euboetia at some point later in the war? Would this count as a point before the crusades when greek fire was used? or is there a technical point I missed? Or am I completely getting my facts muddled again?Shuggyg (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

'Wilfire' might actually be a metaphor for the gun fire used against the city or the actual fire purposely started to burn the city. --209.80.246.3 (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

How would the ancient greeks have made sodium? Sodium was first produced commercially in 1855, and I doubt it had ever been isolated at all until at least the beginning of the 19th century. It requires very high temperatures (or slightly lower temperatures and a lot of electricity) and needs to be done under an inert atmosphere. Are we also to assume that the ancient greeks had access to cylinders of argon, a gas first isolated in 1894? Alecjw (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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.

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)

later on arabs and others, inspired by Greek fire, tried and did make something equivalent to it, yet not so effective, as sources say. CuteHappyBrute (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

I've seen the movie a few times, and don't recall anything even resembling greek fire. Sorry, but it probably isn't in it. MarkoPolo56 (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

An interesting early use, by the Byzantines, of an incendiary compound during the reign of Emperor Justinian is mentioned in the book Justinian: The Last Roman Emperor by G. P. Baker. The city of Edessa was under seige by the Persians, who were building a large siege ramp. According to Baker, "Squared trunks of trees were laid out in a great rectangle; then a mound was built of earth within the trunks, and a fresh layer of great baulks laid on this; after which a layer of rough stones followed, and the whole unit was repeated. As the mound rose, it was extended and pushed forward..." The Byzantines attempted to mine under the ramp, but the Persians detected this as the Byzantine miners drew near, and the miners stopped. Then, according to Baker, an unknown engineer "designed a chamber at the end of the tunnel, just under the edge of the mound, and packed it with highly inflammable material treated with bitumen, sulphur, and oil of cedar." The Byzantines proceed to fire flaming arrows and hurl fire-pots at the Persians from the city walls, to disguise the fact that the mound was burning from within once the chamber was set alight. Since the dirt mound had a wooden frame...it burned well and eventually the Persians realized what was happening and attempted to put out the fire using water. To the amusement of the Byzantines watching from the city, the fire-worshipping Persians were unable to control their own divinity and attempts to use water on the fire only spread it across the mound and it collapsed, sending a cloud of probably toxic fumes up. It was supposedly visible from a town thirty miles away. The Persians rested for six days and then renewed the assault, but ultimately were unable to breach the walls or gain entry and retreated...had they taken Edessa, the eastern front would likely have collapsed, leaving valuable and extensive Roman territories vulnerable and the cities of Antioch and Jerusalem could have been taken.

Pardon the lengthy description, but it was an interesting episode that has stuck in my mind. This siege happened during the 6th century, while "Greek Fire" was discovered during the 7th. Perhaps knowledge of such compounds lingered in the area... the_paccagnellan (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Logically speaking, specific examples of enemies not successfully intimidated by the siphons does not refute the claim that the sight of siphons would often successfully repel enemies.

It is not hard to imagine both cases. On the one hand, Ottomans were powerful, ambitious, numerous, heavily armed religious fanatics. On the other hand, a small pirate fleet could be repelled when shown weapons capable of inflicting painful deaths and heavy material losses... Elias (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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 Athens^Talk 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)

The "Greek fire" used by others - Greek fire or another weapon?

Do we really know that the "Greek fire" that was used by Arabs, Mongols and Chinese truly was Greek fire, and not some other incendiary weapon? Given that Greek fire's formula was a big secret, and not even the Latin Empire or the Ottoman Empire discovered it; is it wise to assume that these weapons were indeed "Greek fire" if we really cannot confirm this? To quote IP 91.109.191.79's earlier message: "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" --89.27.16.166 (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Timeline (the movie)

Sorry this is my first try at editing something but I just thought it might be worth mentioning the movie Timeline where Greek fire has a big role in the movie. I'm no expert but the movie talks about historically how greek fire was invented (obviously fictious). I don't know if this is important or not, or worthy of inclusion. The movie is based on the book by the same name written by Michael Crichton. 203.219.226.105 (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in editing WP. Since WP is an encyclopaedia, we do tend to avoid mentioning such "trivia" in general articles (for one thing, greek fire is used in many medieval-type films, and we can't discuss them all here). However, such an important plot device could be discussed in the film's page or the book's page, if discussed from a real-world perspective. Gwinva (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible Thermite Reaction

Hi, has the thermite reaction been considered as a possible component of greek fire... the "thunder, and a lot of smoke" and inability to be extinguished by water. Could the reaction take place in a flammable liquid or even intitially dispersed as a solid which degrades to a liquid? Safez (talk) 06:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thermite was invented in the 1860's. So very unlikely...--209.80.246.3 (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that information anon. Safez (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just curious, have any of the siphons or related paraphernalia survived to this day? Is there any archaeological findings at all concerning this that is not a book or scroll? If not then the article should be clearer on that point because that is what I came to wonder after reading the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.185.28.122 (talk) 08:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"1453", by Roger Crowley

In this 2005 popular history of the fall of Constantinople, Crowley says at pp. 12-13, "The core ingredient of the mixture was almost certainly crude oil from natural surface wells on the Black Sea, mixed with powdered wood resin that gave it adhesive properties....The Byzantines....seem to have developed a technique for heating the mixture in sealed bronze containers, pressurizing it by means of a hand pump, then emitting it through a nozzle, where the liquid could be ignited by a flame." Which seems consistent in all respects with the article. He cites only Anna Comnena and Tsangadas in the footnotes to these sections. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The article reflects the current thinking on the subject; although details are unclear and opinions vary on some issues, the above description is essentially correct. However the use of "Greek fire" proper, and not some generic inflammable substance, in the last siege of Constantinople, is very unlikely. The substance used against the Ottomans could have been any sort of incendiary mixture, not necessarily petroleum-based. Constantine ✍ 16:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. The reference from Crowley, above, describes Greek fire as originally developed and does not refer to the year 1453. However, Crowley later says, in describing Mehmet's master coup of transporting his ships overland within the protective chain, that the Byzantine forces mounted a counter-attack which included two light, fast ships "filled with Greek fire" (p. 151). Are you saying the formula had been lost or was no longer in use in 1453? Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The article makes clear that the "original" Greek fire, i.e. the formula designed to be launched pressurized via siphons, was no longer in use already by 1200. Its secrets would most likely have been lost either way after the sack of 1204. The stuff used in the fire-ships in 1453, as well as the (IIRC) "Greek fire" used in combating Ottoman sappers, were probably some other incendiary mixture, perhaps even saltpetre-based. It is impossible to know, but odds are against it being the same substance as used in the Arab sieges. Of course, this assumes that there was only one "original" Greek fire, and not a variety of petroleum-based formulas already in use at that time (V. Christides for instance certainly thinks so), but most scholars differentiate between the siphon-launched substance and any other. Constantine ✍ 12:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Popular Culture

Just a vagrant thought, but why not add a "Popular Culture" section to this article? This Talk page lists several movies and novels which portray the use of Greek fire, none of which are referenced in the main article. If a topic as serious as Schrodinger's Cat can include or link to a list of pop culture references, why not this one? Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to the idea, the problem is that as "Greek fire" is used generically for any sort of incendiary, it would be misleading to include them as "examples". In popular culture, flame+medieval=Greek fire, and this is one of the myths, or better inaccuracies, that this article is trying to dispel. In rewriting the article, I've tried to minimize references to "other" generic "Greek fire" substances, e.g. from the Crusades. The same would apply to most of the sources you mention. AFAIK the only serious depictions of Byzantine "Greek fire" are in a few historical novels and in Haldon's televised reconstruction and some other similar attempts shown in TV recently. Constantine ✍ 17:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"No tactics can be build around it"

I have a problem with this sentence: first, it underestimates the capability of creative strategists for designing effective tactics out of almost anything. And second, it is a contradiction in terms. The very fact that it was used as a weapon means that it was indeed possible to utilize Greek fire effectively in a system of tactics. I don't have access to the original source, so maybe someone could paste the relevant section here so we could find a way to rewrite this paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.125.19 (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

They could conceivably serve primarily as visually intimidating "paper tigers" to crush enemy morale. Not what I would usually refer to as "tactics", but that is debatable. The intimidation power could also be used tactically to distract or deceive the enemy into facilitating flanking/pinching maneuvres etc.. Elias (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Use in Fiction

I'm reading Dark Fire by C.J. Sansom at the moment. The story is set in 1540 London during the reign of Henry VIII and tells of the rediscovery of Greek Fire in a vault of an old monastery and the fight to find the formula before it falls into enemy hands.

It's a very absorbing read and describes Greek Fire through the eyes of a Tudor lawyer so enables the readerto imagine how terrifying and wonderous it must have seemed to people without modern knowledge of chemistry and warfare.

I'd recommend this book to anyone with an interest in this subject

L Balzan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkzinc (talk • contribs) 16:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

For your information, the BBC America series Copper (airs Sunday at 10P eastern time) is set in 1864 Manhattan, covering topics like the Civil War, the Draft Riots, lynchings, the profound poverty of the Five Points area, and early NYC police methods (wild and wooly). The episode that first aired last Sunday (and will probably re-air a few more times this week), "The Hudson River School", introduces "Greek fire" as an incendiary substance that Confederate infiltrators plan to use. It's use will be carried forward into at least the next episode. It's portrayed as a yellow-ish/amber-ish liquid that's stored in a stoppered glass bottle. When poured out, and presumably exposed to oxygen, it will spontaneously combust without an ignition source. The Confederate characters plan to use it to start a conflagration in the financial center of Manhattan in an attempt to cripple the Union economy. The show is supposedly well-researched, but I don't know if that research extends to accuracy about this substance. Viewers may be coming to this article for information, like I just did. Goodnight, all, Wordreader (talk) 06:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Revert of my edit

Um, I don't know why you say that that passage is not supported in the reference I provided. I checked the page number and that's where it's given. Dunno what's vague about it either: an Armenian said he discovered a more potent type of Greek fire during the Ottoman period (the source does not specify century but probably during the first half of Ottoman history), but didn't reveal the new mixture and was probably killed for that reason. Pretty straightforward, me thinks.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Great article

Wow! This is quite an article. My only problem is that I simply wanted to know what it is which is probably the only fact that is omitted here (because no one knows!). This is so detailed and obviously a lot of work went into putting it together. I just want to acknowledge that your collective efforts are appreciated! Newjerseyliz (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

What did you want to know exactly? Misty MH (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure they simply have wanted to know what it was composed of, which as they say, nobody knows. Since no one does I don't think they're asking for it to be added to the article or anything, although if someone were to take it upon themselves to find out, I'm sure no one would objectMeerta (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

English siphon vs Greek Siphōn

I've gone through the article and replaced every use of the English 'siphon' as it doesn't really mean the same thing as the ancient greek word siphōn which just means tube or pipe. The modern english siphon means 'pump' and that is highly misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmackaerospace (talk • contribs) 03:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Over Complicated?

It would count as WP:OR so I can't add to the article, but the siphon mechanism postulated is greatly over-complicated. If the siphon tube had it's entry near the bottom of the 'boiler' as soon as the fluid began to boil a huge pressure would be available to force the liquid from the nozzle. All that's needed is a mechanism to keep the nozzle closed and regulate the heat (the 'shields' that are mentioned?). Lack of a safety valve leads to risks, but then what would be the consequence of the valve spraying hot naptha about? I imagine this was a very risky weapon to use. Stub Mandrel (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Cplakidas

You know what, whatever. I'm saving my version btw to find some "reliable" sources which I can add in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.229.189 (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

This comment makes no sense in any way, shape or form. What are you babbling on about?

@HammerFilmFan: It apparently refers to a well-intentioned, but poorly executed attempt to add some information back in November. The info was drawn from various websites of mostly dubious quality, but most importantly, the "new" information was already in the article, and with much better referencing and integrated into a coherent narrative. So I reverted these edits, and explained why on my talk page. I had not seen this message here either until now. Constantine ✍ 09:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Possibility of Greek Fire being Biodiesel

In ancient times olive and palm oil, alcohol (distilled ethanol), and lye (derived from ash or potash) were very common substances meaning that there is a high probability that ancient alchemist would mix them together and add heat producing biodiesel. Biodiesel has all the qualities typically attributed to Greek Fire, (being liquid, highly flammable, floats on water, burns on water, can be pumped and sprayed, it is explosive, and by adding quicklime it becomes flammable when put in contact with water). It is likely that this possibility was largely overlooked by scholars even now and still is nowhere to be found on this page as a candidate. The reason no one has though about the possibility have not every considered it a candidate for Greek Fire is because we only recently rediscovered the technology out of necessity ourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.26.82 (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Modern (19th c.) use of the term

I see that the "Frank Leslie's Illustr. Newspaper" uses the term "Greek fire" in Jan. 30, 1864, in relation to the American Civil War (page 2, 1st column, "Summary of the Week"). Obviously it means some kind of incendiary bomb.[2]--Skylax30 (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

"Most scholars"

I get tired of the claim that "most scholars" say/believe this or that. Did someone actually send most scholars a POLL to ask them? Without such substantiation, this claim to fact needs to be eradicated from every article and book ever written. Misty MH (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Similarly with certain uses of the term "modern scholars" and all similar designations. Misty MH (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

a comment

"....but such illustrations were narrative in intent, so that showing the device throwing the ignited substance may have seemed preferable to trying to clearly illustrate throwing the unignited substance and then igniting it." they were not "narrative" in intent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.101.175 (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

16th Century Italian Recipe Undetermined Component

One of the two undetermined components for the Italian Recipe at the bottom of the Theories of Composition, "Pegola" is most likely pitch. The word "pegola" doesn't seem to have any modern uses, but it appears in a 1650 English to Italian Dictionary as the word for pitch. And given that pitch makes sense as a potential ingredient in greek fire and was available at the time, I'm confident that's the right translation.

The Lexicon Tetraglotton https://books.google.ca/books?id=-ON_W1ubAmoC&pg=PT296&dq=pegola&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2oNn2zYzoAhXohXIEHWTYAPgQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q=pegola&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:520:980:7C11:A144:C89F:BF34 (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

And "burning salt" could be saltpeter? The mix was said to burn underwater, i.e. without supply of air. Elias (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Charcoal rather than coal?

"it includes coal from a willow tree, alcohol, incense, sulfur, wool and camphor as well as two undetermined components (burning salt and pegola); the concoction was guaranteed to "burn under water" and to be "beautiful."

This sentence should be charcoal rather than coal surely? You can only get willow coal from rocks off coal that for generated from JUST willow trees, which is almost impossible.

But I did not want to make a change without discussing it first. Eco-climber (talk) 07:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for pointing that out. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Julius Africanus

The reference to Julius Africanus is erroneous, linking to the orator of that name who was long dead by the time of the quote attributed to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.13.64 (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Chronology, Invention, and Early Usage?

Is it really irrefutably verified that Greek fire was around (at least in the form that would later be used) by 672? I'm aware that there are doubts about this, or that that first Arab siege of Constantinople even really happened in the way that is popularly imagined. Is it possible that it was more likely just fire ships used in that one, and that actual Greek fire didn't surface in usage against enemies until the larger 717 episode? Word dewd544 (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Calcium phosphide and mention of "boiling bones in urine" - citation does not support the claim

The description of Greek Fire and calcium phosphide is cited for The New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History by McEvedy. I went through the work of borrowing this book (1992) from the Internet Archive precisely because I wanted to read more about this (and the claim that calcium phosphide can be made by boiling bones in urine in a closed vessel). However, "Greek Fire" appears only once in the entire book, and the words "urine" and "calcium" don't appear at all. CSJordan (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Another Literary Reference

Another literary reference: Greek Fire is described in Guy Gavriel Kay's work The Sarantine Mosaic. 45.44.15.33 (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

BC/AD or BCE/CE here

I changed BC/AD to BCE/CE, giving the reason that BCE/CE is more appropriate in this context. When User:Denisarona reverted this, I re-reverted, asking Denisarona to say why a Christian notation is more appropriate here. Denisarona has now reverted back to the original, stating only "Because the original is more common in Europe". That seems to me to be quite insufficient. But over now to others. Errantios (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)