Talk:Hand cannon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reformatting[edit]

I'm going to begin reformatting this article is accordance with the Military History Wikiproject's style guide. I'd welcome any help or advice. JWAbrams (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply an alternate spelling[edit]

GONNE, which can be used interchangably with GUNNE, is not a seperate class or type of firearm, both are simply middle english spelling variations of the word GUN. The article should be reduced to an etymological reference in the main article of the history of firearms.

If you have valid sources to back up your claim, then go ahead and recommend a merge or deletion, or if you think this article is salvageable, edit it appropriately (meaning: in the body of the article). Placing a sweeping statement of fact about the subject at the top of and separate from the article, especially one that purports to overrule the entire article, does not follow Wikipedia's standards. Mbarbier 01:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Fair point.

"As swifte as pelet out of gonne
When fire is in the poudre ronne." - Chaucer "House of Fame" c. 1380

I believe all would agree there should not be an entry for "poudre" as a unique form of combustable material used to fire shot in early firearms, the word "gonne" does not deserve it's own entry as a class of firearm. It is simply a middle english spelling of the word "gun". Following are three sources that cite the word "gonne" as an early spelling of the word "gun". I would say this is a fair article on early hand cannons and as such should be kept, however renamed "Hand Cannon" and all further instances of the word "gonne" removed or changed to reflect modern terminology, except a single etymological reference.

I would like to see the page numbers from Partington's book refrenced as well. I have this book and would like to see how the author of the article came to think that "gonne" was a distinct type of firearm rather than an alternate spelling of gun.

1. Greener, W.W. (1910). The Gun and it's Development. 9th ed. New york: Cassell and Company, Ltd. pp. 18-20
2. Kelly, Jack. (2004). Gunpowder Alchemy, Bombards & Pyrotechnics: The History of the Explosive that Changed the World. New York: Basic Books. pp. 31. ISBN 0-465-03718-6.
3. Hall, Bert S. (1997). Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 44. ISBN 0-8018-5531-4
DFortini 01:22, 3 Jul 07 (EDT)


Page editted, title of article needs to be changed to "Hand Cannon" How does one change the article title? DFortini 21:29, 3 Jul 07 (EDT)

Heh, good question. I'll look into it.Mbarbier 01:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page has been moved. There's a hell of a long list of pages that pointed to the old page that should probably be checked over time and any necessary corrections made on. Whether you're up to such a tedious task is your call. Thanks for cooperating, though.Mbarbier 01:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


More than happy to help out, if you send me a link as to how to go about changing the other pages pointers I'll get on fixing them. Thanks DFortini 21:11, 6 Jul 07 (EDT)

Figured it out, will work on making the changes DFortini 21:19, 6 Jul 07 (EDT)

Remove "in fiction"?[edit]

Terry Pratchett is great, and I happen to think his writing will stand the test of time. But now that this isn't an article on "gonne" ... . --151.203.45.53 00:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"Hand Cannon" as slang usage for small shotgun?[edit]

Anyone care to make an appropriate link or reference? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.200.183.10 (talk) 15:26, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Use in "Desperado" film[edit]

In an early part of the movie, the main character uses this. I'm not goot at editing Wiki, so if someone could write this in, that would be cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.42.248 (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

self-published web site[edit]

The source tagged is not reliable. Compare it to here; A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder Partington ISBN 0801859549 pg 190 (view it at google books).J8079s (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to find a self-published source listed, removing tag unless you can clarify? Thanks! Peter Camper (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was reffering to the self published web site of Hassan but the problem is larger ( see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85[1] he has 34 edits on this page. this paragraph

The earliest surviving documentary evidence for the use of hand cannons are from several Arabic manuscripts dated to the 14th century.<ref name=History-Channel>{{citation|title=[[Ancient Discoveries]], Episode 12: Machines of the East|publisher=[[History Channel]]|year=2007}} ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwGfw1YW9Js Part 4] and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R3ZbzhRp_k Part 5])</ref> [[Ahmad Y. al-Hassan]] argues that these are based on earlier originals and that they report hand cannons being used at the [[Battle of Ain Jalut]] in 1260 by the [[Mamluk]]s against the invading [[Mongols]]. He refers to it as "the first cannon in history" with gunpowder formulae which were almost identical with the ideal composition for [[explosive]] gunpowder.<ref name="ArabRockets">[[Ahmad Y Hassan]], [http://www.history-science-technology.com/Articles/articles%202.htm Gunpowder Composition for Rockets and Cannon in Arabic Military Treatises In Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries]</ref><ref>[[Ahmad Y Hassan]], [http://www.history-science-technology.com/Articles/articles%2072.htm Technology Transfer in the Chemical Industries]</ref> Iqtidar Alam Khan argues that it was invading Mongols who introduced gunpowder to the [[Muslim world|Islamic world]]<ref>{{Citation | last=Khan | first=Iqtidar Alam | title=Coming of Gunpowder to the Islamic World and North India: Spotlight on the Role of the Mongols | journal=Journal of Asian History | volume=30 | year=1996 | pages=41–5}}.</ref> and cites Mamluk antagonism towards early gun-armed men in their infantry as an example of how gunpowder weapons were not always met with open acceptance in the Middle East.<ref name="khan 6">{{Citation | last =Khan | first =Iqtidar Alam | year =2004 | title =Gunpowder and Firearms: Warfare in Medieval India | publisher =Oxford University Press}}.</ref>

is "fringe theory" (its really a "pissing match" over who was first). the article needs to be balanced, mostly by expansion. Partington is a good source and could be used to show a case for all the theories (mostly on the history of gunpowder but the history of the hand-cannon is in there too). A lot of history is not in the article. Its on my list of things to do but I'm frying other fish.J8079s (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-European Bias[edit]

There is bias apparent in comments like this:

"The Arabs, Chinese and Mongols all have a claim, as do the Europeans, albeit fraudulent.."

So, all historians who have thought that the hand cannon was invented in Europe were fraudulent?

While the introduction grudgingly admits that there is a European claim for the invention of the hand cannon, only the Arab and Chinese claims are given any credence. The basis for a European claim is not even discussed. Hadding (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right about bias, but it is not very likely that medieval europe could produce something as somplex as a handgun especially, while gunpower was still a mythical substance. But if arabs are mentioned in the article(while they had no armies safe for small bedouin gangs), european clain would also add some humor. It is more likely that invention has chinese origins, and assuming mongol interactions with china, most logical vector of the knowledge would become mongols. This also explains simultanious western and eastern usage of the gun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.99.254 (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Why are references 1 and 2 unreliable? Faro0485 (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


What a joke...[edit]

The reference in the box (Chase 2003) effectively states that the Indians acquired knowledge of hand cannons directly or indirectly from the Europeans. Is this guy delusionary? Has he ever looked on a map? This was centuries before Portuguese seafarers and the Suez canal and centuries after Buddhism came to China on well frequented trade routes. Please delete this nonsense. 89.247.67.98 (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on Indian firearms use prior to Europeans?

What a fascinating subject! the first google I found ([2]) shows that this is a subject worth pursuing. But not by me, I fear... Nick Michael (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This needs some Cleaning up[edit]

The article seems to need reformatting, particularly the origins section; too many people with their own agendas and biases have written in here while attempting to sound as unbiased as they can. As an example:

" Ahmad Y. al-Hassan argues that these are based on earlier originals and that they report hand cannons being used at the Battle of Ain Jalut in 1260 by the Mamluks against the invading Mongols. Although predated by archaeological findings in Manchuria,[2] Hassan refers to it as "the first cannon in history"" I'm not certain why we are quoting these statements from al-Hassan while in the same sentence as indicating that these statements are false?

Perhaps it would be better to leave this out of the section? The idea of an encyclopedia is to summarize everything that is known about a subject, not to insert an agenda. IF the statements are untrue, then are they significant enough to be included in an article? I don't think that they merit inclusion myself.

One can leave detailed discussion of the origin of firearms for that article.

Therefore- Since the earliest extant and verified references to the HAND CANNON originate in China, that is more or less exactly what ought to be said, rather than "So this is the hand cannon, most people say it came from China, but there's also this Arab guy who thinks he invented it but incidentally he's wrong." Ironlion45 (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and on the subject of references, this section also seems to cite the History Channel!? For those unfamiliar, this channel is probably not regarded as a reliable source; though sometimes reliable sources are used in the making of their documentaries, they are generally produced to entertain at least as much as inform, and tend to play to a viewer bias. To wit, they have numerous documentaries connecting ancient cultures' accomplishments with alien intervention.Ironlion45 (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


http://imgbuddy.com/chinese-gunpowder-weapons.asp

http://www.seathestars.com/en/truestory/motherandhershootingstars/chapter/chapter_2_oriental_dream

http://imgarcade.com/1/chinese-gunpowder-weapons/

http://wargamesfactory.lefora.com/topic/868485/Ming-Chinese

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=298078

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?288241-Archives/page41

Rajmaan (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hand cannon. 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) 09:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD: Should lede image contemporary or informative?[edit]

File:Hand cannon dazu rock carvings.png
Current lede image, from Dazu Rock Carvings c. 1128.
Proposed lede image, from an 1874 military history book

I recently changed the lede image to one that is high quality and informative of what the weapon is, though the image created in 1874. Qiushufang has reverted this, preferring one that is contemporary with the weapon, though of low resolution, not focused on the subject, inaccurate in its depiction, damaged (projectile is missing), and duplicates an image already in the Gallery.

I'm all for contemporary images where possible, but not at the cost of failing to inform the reader. The lede image of an article has the purpose of clearly and immediately identifying the subject; the current image is so poor as to not only fails to help identify the subject in any way, but for any reader new to the subject, will like mislead them on what the subject is -- a gross failure for any encyclopedia.

Comments? --A D Monroe III(talk) 18:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After two weeks with no other proposal or objection, I've replaced the lede image with the proposed informative but non-contemporary image, and moved the old non-informative but contemporary image to the Gallery. --A D Monroe III(talk) 14:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting an object[edit]

Hello, I have removed the photograph of the object "HandBombardWesternEurope1390-1400" from the "Europe" section. The object is dated to the early 15th century, but is now considered a fake, probably made in the 19th century. The source of this information is the person in charge of the Musée de l'Armée's ancient artillery collections. It would be interesting to replace this object. MarineMuséeArmée (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hand_cannon&oldid=1212524409"