Talk:Pot-de-fer

"first metal cannon"

 * "first metal cannon, used by the French". This signifies that it was the first metal cannon, and that it was used by the French.
 * "first metal cannon used by the French". This signifies that this was the first cannon that the French used.
 * I can't tell which is intended. --Wetman (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I cleared up this issue. Thanks!  bibliomaniac 1  5  23:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm noting that Wikipedia has an article Bombard (weapon). The Milamete manuscript's depiction of a "bombard" is discussed in Lu Gwei-Djen, Joseph Needham, Phan Chi-Hsing, "The Oldest Representation of a Bombard", Technology and Culture 29.3 (July 1988), pp. 594-605. The article discusses a representation of a bombard (being fired by a demon, by the way) in a high-relief cave sculpture that can be dated as early as 1128. Should this article be merged with Bombard (weapon), a more familiar name? --Wetman (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Pot-de-fer is a specific type of cannon, and isn't really a bombard. Besides, the representation you mentioned comes from China, not Europe.  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Then the distinction that was missed by Joseph Needham and co-writers should be made explicit in the article, with a link to Bombard (weapon).--Wetman (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Image
Is the picture at right a pot-de-fer? I thought that it was, in which case it ought to be on this article. Srnec (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why, that's the Milamete image! Thank you so much!  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. I could have figured it out myself I now realise, but I didn't take the time to read the whole title of the image. I have seen that image in books many times. Srnec (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Expansion etc
I noticed your nom. at WP:DYK and was quite interested, since I had just nominated Early thermal weapons, which overlaps a little. Anyway, I have added in some information about recent research from one of my sources; it's now over the 1500 characters required for DYK, and I have made a note to that effect there. Gwinva (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow! Thanks! I never expected I would get this much help.  bibliomaniac 1  5  06:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)