Arguably the most important Western source on the early history of gunpowder technology is the late thirteenth century manuscript, Das Fuerwerkbuch. When it was translated into English in 2000, it contained a commentary on the chemistry of many of the formulations given. These were largely dismissed as useless alchemical nonsense which could not work. Although some mysteries remain, much of the formulation can be understood either as contemporary 'best practice' or by comparison with modern pyrotechnic and explosive knowledge. This paper re-examines the underlying chemistry and demonstrates some surprising innovations anticipating much later claims. Note An extended and peer reviewed copy of this paper was published in ICON Vol 21, 2015 available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/24721698?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Much has been written on where and when gunpowder was first introduced. This paper offers a credible hypothesis to explain why and how the unique mixture may have come about.

In 2001 The Arms and Armour Society sponsored a translation of Das Feuerwerkbuch. (FWB) This manuscript contains the earliest (Western) references to gunpowder. The editorial comment of the translation contained the unsubstantiated assertion that, since certain processes were not specifically mentioned in the text, they were not carried out and that consequently the nitrate of medieval gunpowder was calcium based. This has been shown to be incorrect but the concept seems to have taken root among some historians unable to understand the clear technical evidence in the manuscript.ii Although the processes described in the FWB were evidently capable of delivering substantially pure potassium nitrate, there remains a possibility that some calcium (or magnesium) nitrate could remain as a minor impurity sufficient to affect the quality of the gunpowder. This present paper gives evidence that such contamination was sometimes (but not always) present but was neutralised during the manufacturing process.

Saltpetre is often referred to as the heart or soul of gunpowder and indeed the nitrate ion is the sole source of the gasses that give gunpowder its explosive properties. It can be substituted, albeit with varying success, by other oxidisers but the unique burning properties of gunpowder derive almost entirely from the ability of charcoal to release those gasses. Naïve equations for the gunpowder reaction commonly depict charcoal as C, the chemical element carbon. The errors that this introduces into subsequent arguments are examined. The development of the charring process from ‘domestic’ to a well controlled industrial process is examined with evidence of the early use of ‘cylinder charcoal’.

This article offers a study and edition of a collection of Middle English recipes for gunpowder from the early fifteenth century in London, Society of Antiquaries, MS 101. These are entirely unknown outside of their descriptions in a few works listing the texts in the manuscript and studies of the manuscript itself. These four distinct recipes are the earliest in Middle English and also include the earliest mention of gunpowder corning in England (the earliest in Europe is from Germany in 1411), which made the resulting product more reliable (especially against spoilage) and more powerful.

Much has been written about the sources and properties of saltpetre and charcoal but the third component of gunpowder, sulphur, has received scant attention. Although the 'modern' spelling of saltpeter and sulfur 1 are becoming more widely used, saltpetre and sulphur are almost universal in contemporary literature. The sulphur spelling is still used by the city of Sulphur, Louisiana, US technical manuals, EU legislation, major producers and many place names. As this paper deals primarily with literature pre-twentyfirst century, the original spelling is used throughout. Although gunpowder can be made without sulphur, it has been considered an essential component from the earliest times. Of the theories propounded for the invention of gunpowder, none address the question of why the three ingredients were present in proportions that could result in a credible explosion. A previous paper 2 has posited the development of gunpowder as an evolutionary process following a logical progression involving no unique inventive step. This, incidentally, explains the difficulty in assigning a specific date to the invention of gunpowder. Briefly, the sequence of development could credibly have been ... Charcoal-A fire weapon (fire pot) Charcoal + Sulphur-A chemical weapon (stink pot) Charcoal + Sulphur + Saltpetre-An enhanced flame weapon (flame thrower) By increasing the saltpetre content as an obvious means of enhancing the flame effect, the explosive properties became evident and were exploited.

I don't normally upload reviews here, but this is an important book, and I think my review says some useful things

The paper takes up again, with additions and updatings, a work already presented in Italian at the XXXXIV Settimana di studi dell'Istituto internazionale di Storia economica "F. Datini" (Prato, Italy), April 15-19 2002).