COMING OF GUNPOWDER TO THE ISLAMIC WORLD AND NORTH INDIA: SPOTLIGHT ON

THE ROLE OF THE MONGOLS

Author(s): IQTIDAR ALAM KHAN
Source: Journal of Asian History, Vol. 30, No. 1 (1996), pp. 27-45
Published by: Harrassowitz Verlag
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41931009
Accessed: 29-09-2017 08:00 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Harrassowitz Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Asian History

This content downloaded from 115.97.128.100 on Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:00:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 IQTIDAR ALAM KHAN
(Aligarh Muslim University)

COMING OF GUNPOWDER TO THE ISLAMIC

WORLD AND NORTH INDIA:
SPOTLIGHT ON THE ROLE OF THE MONGOLS*

Whether gunpowder and firearms first appeared in Ch

Europe and whether they spread from China to Europe o
versa, are questions on which there have been spirited d
among historians during the last hundred and fifty years. Th
ments, mainly involving European historians (beginning w
in 1845), 1 originated in attempts to study critically thirteent
European texts, such as the Liber Ignium and the writings
Bacon, containing gunpowder recipes.
Reinaud and Fav were, perhaps, the first to notice the u
able textual linkages between the Liber Ignium, the Kitab
slya wa al-munsab al-harbya by AI-Hassan al-Rammh [
and the Chinese writings on gunpowder and firearms. Th
the Mongol "irruption" of the thirteenth century as a reinfo
of the gunpowder-related skills among Arabs who travel
China to the Arab lands prior to the Mongol expansion i
Asia (1227-60). Other very early notices of the Mongols' r
transmission of gunpowder technology to Europe are by
Romocki (1896), and W. E. Geil (1909). They appear to hav
the view that gunpowder had come to Europe with the a
the Mongols across the Volga in 1227.2 This view impl
derplays the role of the Arabs and suggests the coming of
der to Europe directly from China through the Mongols.

* The author wishes to thank The University of Chicago Press for t

permission to reproduce the illustrations originally published in Isi
1 I. Fav, Histoire de V Artillerie. 1re Partie, Du Feu Grgois , (Pari
quoted by Elliot in History of India , Vol. VI (reprint Allahabad: 19
dix "A", pp. 459-460.
2 S. J. von Romocki, Geschichte der Explosivstoffe , Vol. I, (Berlin:
and W. E. Geil, The Great Wall of China , (Shanghai and London: 190
85, 151, cited by J. R. Partington, A History of Greek Fire and Gu
(Cambridge: 1960), pp. 250 and n. 70, 260 and n. 90.

J AH 30/1 (1996)

This content downloaded from 115.97.128.100 on Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:00:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
28 IQTIDAR ALAM KHAN

Saunders has established with reference to

Hungarian (John de Thrcz) and other Europ
during 1227-60, the Golden Horde were not using firearms in
Europe.3
There were, however, Eurocentiists, like W. E Mayers (1870)4 and
Hime (1915), 5 who, taking a contrary view, suggested that gunpow-
der and firearms were introduced in China from the West. Hime, for
instance, argued that the method of using willow and straining the
saltpetre solution through straw, etc., found in the Chinese recipes
was actually copied from Roger Bacon. Later on, during the second
quarter of the twentieth century, it was discovered by European his-
torians that the original Chinese character for cannon was written
with the radical for stone instead of that for fire as it is today. This
persuaded many of them to doubt the presence of gunpowder in the
firearms mentioned in the thirteenth and fourteenth century Chinese
texts.6 This view appears to have crystallized in J. R. Partington's A
History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder (1960). While noticing that
"more or less the modern composition" of gunpowder was known
in the latter part of the Mongol (Yuan) Dynasty (1260- 1368) when it
was also known in Europe, Partington goes on to say: "It is uncertain
whether it [gunpowder] was developed by the Chinese or the Mon-
gols, or even if a knowledge of it came from the west."7 Partington is
harshly dismissive of the impressive documentation by L. Carrington
Goodrich and Fng Chia-shng on the use of gunpowder in warfare
by the Chinese from a very early date.8 J. J. Saunders (1971) implic-
itly seems to endorse Partington's view on this count.9

3 J. J. Saunders, The History of the Mongol Conquests , (London: 1971), p. 198.

4 W. F. Mayers, "On the Introduction and use of Gunpowder and Firearms
among the Chinese", Journal of the North China Branch of the Royal Asiatic
Society , NS. VI (1869- 70), 73-104.
5 H. W. L. Hime, The Origin of Artillery, (London: 1915) cited from Partington,
op. cit. p. 260.
6 For comments see Wang Ling, "On the Invention and Use of Gunpowder and
Firearms in China", Isis , Vol. xxxvii, Nos. 109 and 110, 1947, 160-178.
7 Op. cit. p. 288.
8 L. Carrington Goodrich and Fng Chia-shng, "The Early Development of
Firearms in China", Isis , Vol. XXXVI, Pt. I, No. 103, 1945-46, 114-23.
9 Op. cit. p. 192. However, gunpowder is one thing, firearms quite another,
nor is it certain that the Chinese were pioneers in both".

JAH 30/1 (1996)

This content downloaded from 115.97.128.100 on Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:00:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 COMING OF GUNPOWDER TO THE ISLAMIC WORLD 29

This line of argument suffers from a serious weakness which

needs to be pointed out. A refusal to accept the identification of a
weapon as a firearm suggested clearly in the Chinese texts simply
because it is written there with the radical for stone, would be in
violation of the principles of critical scrutiny of the texts. It is wel
known that the early textual references to a new technology are
often found in terms associated with a technology already familiar
in the given society. The use of the terms kamn (bow) and tir
(arrow) for cannon and cannon-ball in some of the fifteenth and
sixteenth century Persian texts may be cited as an illustration of
this phenomenon.10
Wang ling's masterly survey of the Chinese texts on the art of
warfare and pyrotechnics followed by J. Needham's detailed surve
of the same theme leaves little doubt that "the entire line of develop-
ment, from the first mixing of sulphur, saltpetre and a source of
carbon, took place in China first and passed to Islam and Christian
ity only afterwards".11
Carrington Goodrich, Fng Chia-shng, Wang Ling and Needham
have furnished irrefutable evidence that after 1230 the Mongols were
using gunpowder and gunpowder-based devices in the campaigns
against the Sung and their other adversaries. The Mongols also seem
to have carried gunpowder and firearms to Japan and Korea.
That, after 1230, the Mongols operating in North China were famil-
iar with the use of gunpowder-based firearms strongly suggests th
use of similar devices by them in the Islamic World and North- West-
ern India during the second half of the thirteenth century. Though
the textual linkages suggesting the coming of gunpowder to these
regions from China have emphasized the Mongols' role as carriers o
gunpowder from China to the Islamic World, till now no conclusive
evidence could be produced to establish the use by the Mongols of
gunpowder-based devices during their campaigns in the Islamic

10 See my paper "Early Use of Cannon and Musket in India A. D. 1442-1526",

Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. XXIV, (1981),
114-23, where the transfer of Arabic and Persian terms originally denoting
mechanical devices to gunpowder devices is discussed.
11 J. Needham, "The Guns of Khaifng-fu", Creighton Lecture delivered at the
University of London in November, 1979, Times Literary Supplement, Lon-
don, January 11, 1980, p. 41. For a more detailed discussion see Science and
Civilization in China, Vol. 5, Part 7, (Cambridge: 1986), pp. 161-71.

J AH 30/1 (1996)

This content downloaded from 115.97.128.100 on Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:00:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 30 IQTIDAR ALAM KHAN

World and North-Western India. This paper w

on the Mongol campaigns in search of relevan
The ensuing discussion of the problem h
Firstly, a brief reference is made to the evid
Chinese texts on the familiarity of Mongols
Then some of the passages in the Persian chr
history are re-examined to find out if these
of gunpowder devices by the Mongols in We
scription of the Mongol incursions into North-
Kusrau and Ziya Barani are examined to answ
the Mongols using gunpowder during their r
North-Western India in the thirteenth and in the first half of the
fourteenth centimes?

According to Needham, it was around 1230 that the portion of

nitrate was raised in gunpowder used in China which made explo-
sions and detonations possible.12 After this date, in the Chinese texts
one comes across references to the use of really destructive explo-
sions in the fighting between the Sung and the Mongols. From the
Kuei Ksin Tsa Shi's description of an accidental explosion in 1280
at Wei-yang (mod. Yangchow) it comes out clearly that the use of
gunpowder was learnt by the Mongols from the Chinese. Referring
to the accident the Kuei Hsin Tsa Shi comments:

The tragedy of the arsenal in Wei Yang is much to be regretted.

Formerly the positions of gun-makers were all held by southern
people [i.e. people of Sung]. But owing to their covetous and de-
ceitful behavior, they had to be dismissed from their offices and
northern people [Mongols] had to be employed in their stead. But
they understood nothing of the handling of materials.13

This clear statement of a contemporary source clearly shows that

information about gunpowder reached the Mongols not from the
West but from the Sung people i. e. the Chinese. It also suggests that,

12 Op. cit., p. 40.

13 See Kuei Hsin Tsa Shi, cited in English translation, by Wang Ling, p. 162.

JAH 30/1 (1996)

This content downloaded from 115.97.128.100 on Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:00:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 COMING OF GUNPOWDER TO THE ISLAMIC WORLD 31

even after the Mongols had started using gunpowder based devices
around 1230, for some years they continued to rely on the Chinese
for managing arsenals where such material was stored. As late as
1280 (the year of the accident by which date the Mongols had come
to be employed for managing the arsenal) the Mongols were, appar-
ently, not fully proficient in the new skill. The accident was actually
caused by the inexperience and lack of expertise of the Mongol per
sonnel who had replaced the men of Chinese origin in the arsenal
In the light of this and similar other evidence cited by the above
mentioned historians, there does not remain any doubt that gunpow-
der was not brought to China from the Islamic World or Europe by
the Mongols. They actually seem to have conveyed the gunpowder
technology to the Islamic world in the form they found it in China
There is little likelihood of their having carried it directly to Europe
since, from the chronology of the introduction and development of
gunpowder devices among the Yuan (Mongols in China) worked out
by Wang Ling and Needham, one gets the impression that by the
time the Mongols mastered the use of gunpowder in warfare (around
1280), the Golden Horde had already settled down in the steppes of
the Qipchaq region.14
Some of the firearms specifically mentioned in the Chinese texts
as being used by the Yuan during the thirteenth century are exam-
ined by Carrington Goodrich, Fng Chia-shng, Wang Ling and Jo-
seph Needham. A description of these weapons in the chronological
order in which they seem to have appeared is called for here. As we
shall see in the next section, it helps in identifying as gunpowder-
based devices some of the weapons of unusual description men-
tioned in the Persian chronicles of the early history of Mongol ex-
pansion in West Asia. The weapons mentioned in the context of th
Yuan are:
(1) Huo pao "resembled in its construction a balance or
scale, one end being attached to extensible thongs and the other
carrying the projectile" (Illustration No. I).15 Its projectile contained

14 For the withdrawal of the Mongols to the Qipchaq region by 1242, see J. J.
Saunders, pp. 79 -89, 156.
15 Wang Ling, p. 168. The illustration no. 1 depicting huo pao is reproduced
from Goodrich and Fng op. cit., p. 116, Fig. 1. It was taken from the Wu-
Ching tsung yao, originally compiled in 1044. The illustration appears to
have been made between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries.

J AH 30/1 (1996)

This content downloaded from 115.97.128.100 on Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:00:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 32 IQTIDAR ALAM KHAN

Fig. 1

gunpowder, a sort of grenade or an incendiary shell. This made huo

poo a weapon very different from an ordinary catapult for throwing
stones.16 According to Carrington Goodrich and Fng Chia-shng,
the huo pao was used by the Mongols in their final assault on the
city of Ts'ai (in modern Honan) defended by the Jurchen in the year
1233. The Mongols are also reported to have used huo pao during
1268-1273 in the sieges of two Chinese cities Hsiang-yang and Fan-
ch'eng.17

16 Wang Ling op. cit. p. 168.

17 Goodrich and Fng, p. 118.

JAH 30/1 (1996)

This content downloaded from 115.97.128.100 on Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:00:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 COMING OF GUNPOWDER TO THE ISLAMIC WORLD 33

(2) Huo ch'iang ikM was reportedly invented by Ch'en Kuei an

expert in the art of warfare and a co-author of Shou Ch'eng lu ("Re-
cord of the Defence of Cities") published in 1172. It consisted of a
long bamboo tube filled with explosive powder which was carried
by two soldiers. The earliest reported use of huo ch'iang was by the
Chinese to rout the bandits attacking the city of T-an (in modern
Hupeh) in 1132. The Mongols first encountered huo ch'iang when
they carried out raids into the Chinese territories in the lifetime of
Chinggis Khan (d. 1227). In the siege of the two Chinese cities, Hsi-
ang-yang and Fan-ch'eng during 1268-1273, the Mongols are re-
ported to have again come up against huo ch'iang used by the Chi-
nese. In 1276, during the siege of Yangchow, Shih Pi, a noted Chinese
commander in the service of Qubilai, was reported to have been
attacked by two Chinese soldiers carrying a huo ch'iang. It seems
the Mongols were already using huo ch'iang on a large scale by
1280. In the accidental fire in the Mongol arsenal at Wei-yang a large
number of huo ch'iangs are also reported to have been destroyed.
According to one description: "First the huo ch'iang caught fire,
looking like terrified snakes."18
(3) Tu huo ch'iang is described in a book on ancient tech-
nology published by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (1983) as an
improved form of huo ch'iang in which the bamboo tube was much
thicker and into this tube, in addition to gunpowder, bullets ( zike )
were also packed. When fired from the bamboo barrel, flames came
forth followed by bullets. In the above publication of the Chinese
Academy of Sciences this weapon is characterised as "a primitive
musket or gun".19
(4) Pao chang, fire crackers, are mentioned in the records
of the Northern Sung Dynasty (960-1126). According to Wang Ling,
the name pao chang suggested that these crackers were distinct
from pre-gunpowder device, pao chu ["bursting bamboo"]. The
following description of the pao chang suggests that in the Southern
Sung Dynasty it was a gunpowder-based device: "Towards the end

18 Goodrich and Fng, pp. 117-20. See also Needham, Science and Civiliza-
tion in China , Vol. 5, Part 7, pp. 220-27.
19 Ancient China's Technology and Science , Chinese Academy of Sciences,
(Beying: 1983), p. 189. Also see Goodrich and Fng, p. 117. See Needham,
Science and Civilization in China , Vol. 5, Part 7, pp. 226-27 who suggests
that it was invented around 1259 in the arsenal at Shou-Ch'un-fu.

J AH 30/1 (1996)

This content downloaded from 115.97.128.100 on Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:00:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
34 IQTIDAR ALAM KHAN

Fig. 2

of the year, the pao chang fire crackers were made in a new shape,
that looked like fruits, men, other things. They were connected by a
continuous fuse. When this was lit, one cracker after another ex-
ploded, without interruption."20 On a scroll dated 1293 preserved in
J AH 30/1 (1996)

This content downloaded from 115.97.128.100 on Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:00:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 COMING OF GUNPOWDER TO THE ISLAMIC WORLD 35

the Imperial Collection there is a depiction of a bursting cracker

used during the Mongol invasion of Japan in 1280.21 This is irrefut-
able evidence that by that date the Mongols were already using a
gunpowder-based device very similar to pao chang.22

II

There are passages in the Trkh-i Jahn Gusha by 'Alauddin 'Ata

Juwaini (1280) and the Jm' i al-Tawrlkh by Rashiduddin Fazlullah
(1304-5) which might be interpreted as suggesting the use of gun-
powder devices by the Mongols during the thirteenth century not
only in North China but in West Asia as well. One such very problem-
atic passage in the Jm' i al-Tawrkh appears to refer to the use of
huo ch'iang by the Mongols as early as the reign of gedei (1129-
41).
Describing the siege of a city in North China [name spelt as Nam-
kink] by the Mongols in A. H. 631/1233-34, Rashiduddin says that
the Mongols "deployed ( nikdand ) on the (outer) wall many cata-
pults (manjantq) and ladders ( nardubn-h )" and then makes a
statement rendered by Blochet as Wa naqqbn r b chng-h ba
py br murattab gardnd.23 This statement would translate into
English as: "They arranged along the foot of the rampart sappers
carrying changs ." The word chang-h in this statement has been
taken by the editor as a synonym for changl-h (claws). But this

20 Wang Ling, p. 163.

21 J. J. Saunders, p. 198. See also J. R. Partington, p. 265, who focuses his
comment on the depiction of the cracker to prove that Goodrich and Fng
were quite wrong in calling this cracker a cannon-ball. But in the course of
this argument he makes the statement, "... it seems to be incendiary ball,
although by this date the explosive properties of gunpowder were known in
the west". The thrust of this comment seems to be that, were we to view
this cracker as a proof of the Mongols' use in China of gunpowder devices
around 1280, the possibility of the gunpowder coming to the Yuan from
Europe, would still not to be ruled out.
22 See illustration No. 2. It depicts the bursting of a pao chang cracker thrown
by the Mongol troops at a Japanese warrior (1281) reproduced from Mako
Shurai Ekotobe (1292). Cf. Goodrich and Fng p. 118, fig. 4.
23 Rashiduddin Fazlullah, Jami c al-Tawrikh, ed. E. Blochet, Vol. II, (London:
1911), p. 25.

JAH 30/1 (1996)

This content downloaded from 115.97.128.100 on Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:00:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
36 IQTIDAR ALAM KHAN

is very far-fetched. Moreover, this interpretation

the expression b chang-h quite meaningless.
that this is, perhaps, a reference to a weapon
possibly a firearm, that the Mongols were usin
very well be huo ch'iang, with which, as notice
had already become familiar during Chinggis's
On checking this passage in the manuscript pres
thque Nationale, Paris, it was noticed that fro
word br (rampart) is missing.25 Again the w
line appears to be a misreading for nafftn.
Nationale manuscript this word could be rea
seemingly his interpretation of the word chang-h
changl-h that appears to have led Blochet to
nafftn as naqqbn. In this light, a more co
line under discussion would be wa nafftn
py murattab gardnd and its English transla
follows: "and they deployed fire-workers carr
along the foot (of the rampart)." The above sta
din may thus be taken as clearly alluding to th
by the Mongol armies operating in North Chin
That huo ch'iang was used by Hleg durin
Syria (1256) is borne out by two similar passa
Jahn Gush of Juwaini (1280). In the section
i al-Maut, at one place Juwaini describes the be
from early in the morning in the following word

chwshn-i jamshad-i falak tegh-h-i duru

ufuq bar kashdand wa siph-i shm r hazvm
i chang/hank jang skhtand".26

24 For an earlier attempt to interpret this passage see

Development of Gunpowder Technology in India: A.
dian Historical Review , IV, No. 1, (July 1977), p. 22,
this was a reference to firearms. But I was not able t
ch'iang.
25 Ms. Bibliothque Nationale, Persian, Supp. 1113, f. 73
26 Trih-i Jahn Gush , ed. Muhammad bin Abdu
Also see Bibliothque Nationale, manuscrits, persans:
153b where the word chang of the edited text is writ
any dots.

J AH 30/1 (1996)

This content downloaded from 115.97.128.100 on Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:00:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 COMING OF GUNPOWDER TO THE ISLAMIC WORLD 37

The expression ba subh-i chang/hank jang skhtand of this pas-

sage is difficult to interpret. Andrew Boyle was not able to properly
incorporate its meaning in his English translation. But when the
word chang of the edited text and hank of the Bibliothque Natio-
nale manuscript is read ch'iang, the apparent obscurity of the ex-
pression is removed. It would thus be translated into English as fol-
lows:
"They made war with the morning draught [blasts] from [ huo]
ch'iang."
In this light it may be noted that this is perhaps the earliest (1256)
mention of the use of huo ch'iang by the Mongols in West Asia.
This in turn goes to reinforce my reading of Rashiduddin's passage
suggesting the use of the same weapon by the Mongols as early as
1233-34 in North China.
At another place in the same section of the Trkh-i Jahn Gush
there is a reference to (huo)ch'iang shots [zahm-i chang of the
edited text]. It was also missed in Boyle's English translation, aDD^r-
ently, owing to his, as well editor's inability to see that chang
at this place should read ch'iang [<- denoting the Chinese fire-
arm, huo ch'iang.
From the editor Muhammad bin cAbducl Wahhab Qazwini's foot-
note on the expression, zakhm-i chang it is evident that he was
bewildered by this unusually worded formula. It seems, his original
reading was zakhm-i jang but he suggests that jang here should
read chang (claw). He interprets the expression zakhm-i chang as
meaning "the blow by hand".27 The textual context of this expres-
sion, however, does not fully agree with Qazwini's interpretation. On
the other hand, this problem is entirely solved as soon as the word
read by Qazwini as jang and interpreted as chang is read as ch'iang
and interpreted as a reference to huo ch'iang, the firearm of Chinese
origin. The relevant line would then read as follows:
Text:
Chn an roz zakhm-i ch'iang mushhida kardand dast az jang
bz dshtand wa arbb-i qil'a az tb-i mukwahat ba ab-i mas-
lahat giriftand.

27 Tankh-i Jahan Gusha. Part III, p. 128 and n. 6. Compare The History of the
World Conqueror, tr. John Andrew Boyle, Vol. II, (Manchester: 1958), p. 631.

JAH 30/1 (1996)

This content downloaded from 115.97.128.100 on Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:00:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
38 IQTIDAR ALAM KHAN

Translation:
On that day as they noticed [huo]ch'iang shots, [they] withheld
their hands from combat and the chiefs of the fort poured water
of reconciliation on the heat of confrontation.

The same section (entitled Fathnma-i al-Maut ) of the Trkh-i Ja-

hn Gush describing the siege of an Ismaili stronghold by Hleg
in Syria (1256) discussed above also mentions a weapon made by
the Chinese engineers [asteza-i khat'] for Hleg. It had a range
of 3,500 paces. The weapon is named in the edited text as kamn-i
gw while the manuscript in the Bibliothque Nationale gives the
name, kamn-i kw. Another manuscript used by the editor gave
the reading kamn-i dw.28 It was used against the fort of al-Maut
as a last resort. Under the impact of the fiery missiles [b-nisl-i
shuhub asy mutzinda ] many of the besieged were incarcerated
[sohta gashtand ]. Accepting Oman's identification, Boyle suggests
that it was "a balista, i. e., a magnified crossbow, which propelled,
not stones like the mangonel, but javelins".29 This identification suf-
fers from one serious deficiency. It does not take into account the
fact that the missile thrown by this weapon was a fiery projectile
capable of burning down the target. Moreover, from Juwaini's de-
scription it is evident that the kamn-i gw/kamn-i kw/kamn-i
dw was not a simple mechanical device designed to throw naphtha
pots but appeared to be based on a different technology in which
the North Chinese ' Khat'] engineers were considered greater ex-
perts. This description further suggests its identification with huo
pao which threw projectiles containing gunpowder. As has been no-
ticed in the preceding section, by 1268, the Mongols were already
using huo pao in North China which in turn, makes the above identi-
fication quite plausible.
It is important to note that Juwaini's reference to a gunpowder
device made by the North Chinese engineers for Hleg's Syrian
campaign (1256), fits in very well with his other statement that in
1253 Hleg had brought to his camp in Central Asia "1000 families
of the Chinese engineers of manjaniq and naphta throwers [ ust -

28 Trkh-i Jahn Gush , Part III, p. 128. Compare MS. in Bibliothque Natio-
nale, Persian, Supp. 205 which reads kamn-i kw. In another manuscript
used by the editor this reads kamn-i dw.
29 The History of the World Conqueror , Vol. II, p. 631, no. 51.

JAH 30/1 (1996)

This content downloaded from 115.97.128.100 on Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:00:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 COMING OF GUNPOWDER TO THE ISLAMIC WORLD 39

dn-i manjanq wa naftandzn]".30 In one of my earlier papers I

had ventured to suggest that these North Chinese engineers were,
perhaps, put to work for repairing or improving some kind of gun
powder devices.31 That conjecture based on a critical examination of
the text is, on the face of it, strongly endorsed by Juwaini's passage
discussed above where he seems to refer to North Chinese engineer
making huo pao for the use of Hiilegti's troops in 1256.
From the evidence cited in this section it is thus fully established
that from 1253 onwards the Mongol armies operating in Central Asia,
Iran, Iraq and Syria were equipped with gunpowder devices, whic
were mainly siege weapons; they were made for the Mongols by
engineers from North China.

Ill

The thirteenth and fourteenth century Persian texts noticing re-

peated Mongol incursions into the North Western parts of the Delh
Sultanate between 1226 and 1351 do not appear to contain any refer
ence to the Mongols using gunpowder. The sole piece of contempo-
rary evidence is a passage in Amir Khusrau's Khaz'in ul-Futh
which hints at Mongol deserters in North India around 1300 consid
ered experts in the art of fire-throwing, and, possibly, also points to
the introduction of huo ch'iang by them into North-Western India
This passage, however, needs to be examined carefully before one
forms a definite opinion regarding the above inferences.
The first part of this passage where Amir Khusrau mentions that
the Hindus besieged by 'Alauddin Khalji in the fort of Ranthambor
had started fires in the towers of the fort appears to allude to the
use by them of huo ch'iang. It is suggested by the very opening lin
of the passage, which in the text edited by Wahid Mirza reads:
Hinduwn-i zuhal ke nisbat-i kwn drand ba nahas kash-i
jang dar har deh burje tishe barafrokhtand.
Here the expression nahas kash-i jang, is quite absurd. On
checking with three manuscripts present in the Maulana Azad Li-

30 Tankh-i Jahan Gush , Pt. III, pp. 92-93.

31 "Origin and Development ..." pp. 23-24. I take this opportunity to say that I
no longer stand by my reading of the expression bazakhm-i sang as ba
rahm-i sang.

J AH 30/1 (1996)

This content downloaded from 115.97.128.100 on Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:00:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
40 IQTIDAR ALAM KHAN

brary, AMU, Aligarh, namely Habib Gax'j Colle

Abdul Salam Collection No. 219/6 and Munir Alam Collection No.
23/2, one may suggest that nahas kashi-i of the edited text is a
misreading for ba khass/khas kushi-i [for igniting rubbish/for slaying
Khas tribesmen of mountainous region between India and Tartary].
Still the word jang in the context in which it is read in the above
line remains meaningless. Perhaps, that is why Professor Muham-
mad Habib in his excellent translation of Khaz'in ul-Futh (possi-
bly prepared on the basis of the same manuscript that was later
relied upon by Wahid Mirza) renders this expression rather vaguely
"for the purpose of defence". It is obviously an attempt to incorpo-
rate the ostensible thrust of this rather problematic expression in
his otherwise very accurate translation without committing clearly
in favour of its one or the other not very convincing interpretations.
One may, however, point out that in this line the word jang is ren-
dered as chang in the manuscript No. 219/6 of the Abdul Salam Col-
lection. Here the word chang, if taken as the Persianised abbrevia-
tion of huo ch'iang in the manner it is used at a few places in Trkh-
i Jahn Gush, makes the meaning of the line under discussion
quite clear. It would thus read:
Hinduwn-i zuhlt ke nisbat-i kvonl drand ba-khass/bakhas
kush-i chang dar har deh burje atishe afrohtand.
Hindu Saturnians having a natural tendency to give up or fail,
with the [huo] ch'iang blasts [capable of] igniting the rubbish/
slaying the Khas tribesmen [mountaineers dwelling betwen India
and Tartaiy] started a fire in every one of the ten towers [of the
fort].

This interpretation of the line under discussion would suggest that,

perhaps, by this time (1300), huo ch'iang had already reached North-
western India with the Mongols. Possibly, the use of this firearm
was considered their speciality. In this regard, it is worth noting that,
as mentioned by Amir Khusrau in the same passage, the defenders
of Ranthambor at this occasion, had in their ranks many Mongol
deserters considered experts in fireworks. It should, however, be
stated that the absence of any other reference to huo ch'iang in the
Persian texts written in India leaves a lurking uncertainty about the
suggestion that this firearm of Chinese origin had already been intro-
duced in the North-Western India by 1300. But then this suggestion
J AH 30/1 (1996)

This content downloaded from 115.97.128.100 on Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:00:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 COMING OF GUNPOWDER TO THE ISLAMIC WORLD 41

certainly deserves to be mentioned in a discussion of the passage

under scrutiny.
After the line alluding to the use of huo ch'iang, Amir Khusrau
goes on to state:

Every day the fire of those people of Hell extended its heated
tongue to the light of Islam. As the means of extinguishing it were
not available, the Musalmans took care of their water (honour)
and did not try to overcome it. Sandbags were sewn and with
them a covered passage [pshib] was constructed.
This seems to be a description of incessant fire-throwing which was
making it difficult for the besiegers to storm the towers. It suggests
the use of fire-throwers of extraordinary effectiveness (were these
huo ch'iangs ?).32
Then Amir Khusrau proceeds to refer to the Mongol fire-throwers
defending the fort in the following words:

A few neo-Muslims from amongst the ill-fated Mongols turned

their faces from the Sim of Islam and joined the Saturnians [i. e.,
Hindus]. All those fire-brands [Mirrkhin, i. e. Mongols] wielded
bows [qaus gir shuda' in that tower [full] of fire. Although they
had lighted fire in three towers but in one of them (an) arrow
getting entangled in a faulty bow (ba wabl-i qaus girftr amada )
fell into fire and was burnt out.33

In this passage the allusion to the Mongol use of some kind of

bows {qaus) for throwing fiery projectiles is very clear. This descrip-
tion also implies that the burning projectiles used by the Mongols

32 Amir Khusrau, Khazin ul-Fut ed. Wahid Mirza, (Calcutta: 1953), pp. 54-
56.

33 For the English translation of this passage compare, Muhammad Habib "The
Campaigns of Alauddin Khali i: Being the English Translation of The Kha-
zin-ul Futh" (originally published in 1931), in Politics and Society during
the Early Medieval Period , ed. K. A. Nizami, Vol. II, (New Delhi: 1981), p.
183. It may be pointed out here that Muhammad Habib 's translation of the
opening line of this passage speaks of "all the ten towers" of the fort which
conforms to the expression har deh burje of Wahid Mirza's text and deviates
from those of Aligarh manuscripts cited above where the word deh is mis-
sing. This suggests that Muhammad Habib 's translation of Khazin ul-Futh
(prepared in 1931) was perhaps based on the same manuscript which was
later (1953) relied upon by Wahid Mirza for his critical edition.

JAH 30/1 (1996)

This content downloaded from 115.97.128.100 on Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:00:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
42 IQTIDAR ALAM KHAN

were so big that one of them getting entang

loosing its way was perceived by Amir Khus
deserving special mention.
Amir Khusrau's passage unmistakably shows
Mongol neo-Muslims of the Delhi Sultanate, w
expertise in throwing fiery projectiles with the
signed bows (qaus). In this context it is a per
whether the fireworks handled by the Mong
the Delhi Sultanate were based on the use of combustible material
akin to gunpowder rather than on naphtha. The evidence discussed
in sections I & II of this paper leaves little doubt that during the
second half of the thirteenth century the Mongols were already using
gunpowder devices in siege operations not only in North China but
also in West Asia. Thus it is, very likely that during the same period,
Mongols were using the same technology in their incursions into the
North Western parts of the Delhi Sultanate. Also, it is very likely that
the special expertise in the art of fire-throwing attributed to Mongol
neo-Muslims present in the Delhi Sultanate during 'Alauddin Khalji's
reign had something to do with their familiarity with the use of gun-
powder. One may further suggest that the bow (qaus) with which
the neo-Muslim Mongols are reported throwing fiery projectiles from
the walls of Ranthambor was perhaps the same as the kamn-i gw/
dw/kw [identified above as huo pao] mentioned by Juwaini as
being used by Mongols around 1256 in Syria.
The exceptional vulnerability of the city fortifications in North
Western India in the face of Mongol incursions during the thirteenth
century points to the use of gunpowder in the siege operations. This
is clearly borne out by Amir Khusrau's and Ziya Barani's testimony.
According to Ziya Barani, Balban had to rebuild the fortifications of
Bhatnir, Lahore and the towns and villages around Lahore. 'Alaud-
din's was advised by 'Ala ul-Mulk to rebuild the forts located in the
path of the Mongols and also to add moats to them.34 'Alauddin's
orders, the fortifications of Delhi were rebuilt according to a new
plan. Similarly, the fortifications of many of "the villages (deh) pro-

34 Trkh-i Frz Shh , ed. Saiyid Ahmad Khan, (Calcutta: 1862), p. 269, 302-3;
In Elliot's English translation [History of India by H. M. Elliot, ed. John
Dowson, Vol. Ill (reprint), Allahabad, p. 191] this passage lacks the crucial
phrase, "kavndan-i khandaa-h [diggings of moats]".

JAH 30/1 (1996)

This content downloaded from 115.97.128.100 on Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:00:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 COMING OF GUNPOWDER TO THE ISLAMIC WORLD 43

vincial headquarters 'khitta 1 and towns (in general) all over the em
pire were rejuvenated".35 In this connection, the suggestion for th
addition of moats to the existing forts and a tendency towards re
designing the fortifications is not without significance. Such evi
dence points to the new or unconventional techniques or weapons
of siegecraft, involving the use of gunpowder used by the Mongols
that rendered the existing fortifications obsolete.
It may thus be inferred that gunpowder was, perhaps, introduced
in the Delhi Sultanate some time towards the middle of the thir-
teenth century. This is also supported by a significant piece of se-
condary evidence. According to Firishta, in 1258, at the reception
extended to Hleg's envoy at the court of Sultan Nasiruddin Mah-
mud there were present three thousand carts carrying pyrotechnical
devices [sift hazr ' arrda-i atishbz]36. The specific nature of Fir-
ishta's evidence tends to suggest that it was evidently borrowed
from one of the lost fourteenth or fifteenth century Persian texts
used by him for information on the history of this period. It is als
plausible that the term atishbz is used here in its real sense,
namely, pyrotechnics, and is not his substitute for some archaic term
referring to naphtha-based fireworks.
The facts that gunpowder-based pyrotechnics were already known
in the Delhi Sultanate during Firuz T'ighlaq's reign (1351-88) and
that the gunpowder recipes given in the Sanskrit texts of the six-
teenth century bore striking resemblance with those given in the
Chinese texts like Wu Ching Tsung Yao (1044) would suggest that
gunpowder originally came to India from China some time before
1351.37 It is possible that gunpowder reached South India and Bengal
through maritime contacts with South China and Assam by land
across Burma. As early as 1419, Chinese ships are reported bringing
firearms ("bombarde") to Calicut.38 Similarly, Tavernier's (1662) ref-
35 Khazin ul-Futh , pp. 28-29. Also Yahya Sirhindi, Trkh-i Mubarak Shh,
ed., Hidayat Husain, (Calcutta: 1931), p. 40, and Abul Qasim Firishta, Trkh-
i Firishta , Nawal Kishore, Vol. I, A. H. 1321, pp. 77-78, 112.
36 Trkh-i Firishta , Vol. I, p. 73. For comments on Firishta's references to the
use of gunpowder and firearms in the Delhi Sultanate during the thirteenth
and fourteenth countries see my article cited in note 24, pp. 21-22.
37 Partington, pp. 213-14.
38 An anonymous account by "a Florentine nobleman" of Vasco da Gama's lan-
ding at Calicut was printed by Giovanni Battista Ramusio (1485-1557). It
speaks of an Indian pilot who accompanied Vasco da Gama to Lisbon in

JAH 30/1 (1996)

This content downloaded from 115.97.128.100 on Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:00:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
44 IQTIDAR ALAM KHAN

erence to Assamese local traditions suggesting

firearms were acquired by the people of Ass
with China would show that gunpowder origi
valley of the Brahmaputra from South China
tacts.39 On the other hand, the earliest unambig
powder-based pyrotechnics in the Delhi Sulta
written at Delhi in the second half of the fourtee
a strong case for gunpowder having been brou
India by the Mongols some time in the second ha
century.

IV

In conclusion the following findings may briefly be reiterated:

(a) The Mongols had learned the use of gunpowder from the Chi-
nese as early as 1230.
(b) The firearms of Chinese origin the Mongols started using in
North China from 1230 onwards were:
(i) Huo pao designed to propel gunpowder based incendiary
shells.
(ii) Huo ch'iang, a bamboo tube filled with explosive powder.
(iii) Tu huo ch'iang, a thick bamboo tube capable of throwing
flames as well as propelling bullets.
(iv) Pao chang, a gunpowder based fire cracker.

1499. This Indian pilot is reported to have told the author of the account that
"foreign" ships had landed in Calicut eighty years before (i. e. in 1419). These
ships carried "bombardes" which were much shorter than "the modern
ones". Twenty or twenty-five of these ships returned every two or three
years. Cf. Partington, pp. 222-23.
39 Cf. Travels In India by Tavernier, tr. V. Ball and ed. William Crooke, (reprint,
New Delhi: 1977), p. 217. The tradition as recorded by Tavernier predictably
speaks of gunpowder being first discovered in Assam and being taken from
there to South China. At any rate, it points to the close interaction between
Assam and South China in the field of gunpowder technology from a very
early stage.
40 Afif, Trkh-i Frz Shh , ed. Maulvi Vilayat Husain, (Calcutta: 1890), pp.
356-57. It is a description of pyrotechnics, involving "bursting" of "flower
scattering rockets" ( hawi-h-i gulrez c anberbez mi bkht) on the occasion
of a shab brt at Delhi during the reign of Sultan Firuz Tughlaq (1351-88).

JAH 30/1 (1996)

This content downloaded from 115.97.128.100 on Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:00:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 COMING OF GUNPOWDER TO THE ISLAMIC WORLD 45

(c) The Mongol armies operating in Syria (1256) were, possibly,

using huo ch'iang and huo pao in the siege operations.
(d) Gunpowder came to India from China before 1351 through vari-
ous intermediaries of which, perhaps, the most important were
the Mongols who appear to have introduced gunpowder in
North-Western India during the second half of the thirteenth
century.
(e) Mongol deserters appear to have introduced in North-Western
India around 1300 the use of a device resembling huo pao.
(f) The possibility of the introduction of huo ch'iang into North-
Western India by the Mongols some time before 1300 cannot be
entirely ruled out.

JAH 30/1 (1996)

This content downloaded from 115.97.128.100 on Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:00:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms