Pyrotechnics: The History and Art of Firework Making

by Alan St. H. Brock

Secondly, “Its composition was such as could be kept secret at Constantinople.” If, as Col. Hime says, saltpetre as such was unknown at the time, it was only as a separate kind of salt. It was undoubtedly known, but not distinguished from sea salt or nitrate of soda. Would not this fact render the concealment of the ingredients used more easy?

Thirdly, “It burned with much noise and smoke.” Allowing for some slight exaggeration the first condition is fulfilled, as undoubtedly is the latter.

Fourthly, “It was necessarily connected in some way with syphons.” As Col. Hime points out, there is ambiguity between the word syphon and tube, and if the latter word meets the facts it seems the more likely rendering.

The writer saw this effect produced during experiments with smoke-producing compositions, and it is probable that the mixture in question was not in the most effective proportions, but so striking was the result that there is little doubt that experiments on such lines would produce a terrible and effective weapon under the conditions of warfare then in existence.

The “Dictionnaire Mobilier Français” gives a diagram of a weapon of a somewhat similar nature stated to have been used by the Arabs in the fifteenth century. The illustration shows what is virtually a Roman candle, and appears plausible until one considers the facts. What is most probable is that the weapon, which was of an incendiary nature, was similar to that described above, which fulfils the requirements of the description without assuming a knowledge of compositions which at the time did not exist.

From the period of Greek fire onward military and recreative pyrotechny appear to have marched side by side.

As we have seen, the progress in the latter branch was extremely slow, so with the former, and it was not until the introduction of modern or comparatively modern methods that real progress commenced.

With the progress came divergence, the introduction of the rifled bore in artillery, and of nitro compounds and high explosives whose dynamic force exceeds many times that of gunpowder, which however useful they might be to the artillerist, were of little value to the recreative pyrotechnist. It was not until the great war that the resources of pyrotechny were fully realised and utilised by the military. It is curious to note that just as the tactics and methods of warfare eventually adopted—although on an unprecedentedly large scale—were in a great measure those of centuries before, so military pyrotechny returned to ideas just as antiquated. With the advantages of modern science, and by the assistance of knowledge gained in the development of recreative pyrotechny, the progress made in a month or so in military pyrotechny during the war may, without exaggerating, be said to have exceeded that of previous centuries.

Speaking generally, the use of pyrotechny in warfare, or indeed any science, has two objectives, the first to destroy or embarrass the troops of the enemy, and secondly, to assist one’s own.

Until the late war it was the first of these which received by far the greater attention, and it is but natural that the introduction of the modern methods mentioned above should have provided means which left pyrotechnics far behind. In the second division, however, pyrotechny triumphed.