Konstantinos Karatolios (trans. by Leonard G. Meachim)
Greek Fire and its contribution to Byzantine might
(Lulu: 2014) 40pp. $3.03.
In the last years there have been an increasing number of works about medieval naval warfare that try to fill a huge gap in the study of medieval military. The present volume is a welcome addition to this trend although it does not completely fit in it.
Readers of popular history and non-specialist scholars would be well-served by a brief, general, and accessible study of Greek Fire. While Konstantinos Karatolios’ Greek Fire and Its Contribution to Byzantine Might aims at these goals, the final product remains in need of some further work. Fortunately, Karatolios has self-published online, which will hopefully allow for him to revise this little and necessary book in the future. Thus while this review is quite critical, one hopes that it will become defunct in the near future when an improved version of the book appears.
With five chapters and an introduction and conclusion crammed into only forty pages, this book is very brief. The actual text amounts to approximately 5500 words. The first chapter is an occasionally problematic history of references to the weapon in literary sources. Karatolios dates the weapon earlier then most, claiming that Ammianus Marcellinus, John Malalas, and Procopius all made mention of it. Constantine Porphyrogennetos’s De Administrando Imperio is also included in the list since he claimed that Constantine I had received the secret of the mixture from an angel. The inclusion of these authors is deceiving and underlies a fundamental flaw in this book: the inability to distinguish between what scholars consider Greek fire, a naptha-based incendiary propelled out of a tube in comparison to the use of the general incendiaries in warfare. Ammianus and Procopius talk of incendiaries but no specific examples are given by Karatolios. The passage in Malalas only mentions a sulphur mixture prepared by a philosopher which was thrown at the ships of the rebel Vitalian in the early sixth century. Additionally problematic is Karatolios’ assertion that the passage is troublesome since it derives from Julius Africanus, an impossibility since Julius died two and a half centuries before the event described took place. Africanus did describe a similar mixture, but its effect on Malalas’ text remains unexplained. The passage from Constantine Porphyrogennetos is confusing in this context, particularly since Karatolios cogently argues in the second chapter that its importance lies in the realm of understanding how the Byzantine elite viewed their weapon. The first chapter also lists more well-accepted uses of Greek fire, notably the Arab sieges of Constantinople, and the Rus’ attacks of 941 and 1043. Confusingly, Karatolios notes that Greek fire was used twice more, but then goes on to list four additional attestations. However, this list is far from exhaustive, and one could mention, for example, the Parangelmata Poliorketika, or John Kinnamos’s claim that Manuel I Komnenos used fire-ships to awe Kilij Arslan in the twelfth century.(1)
The second chapter deals with the composition of Greek fire. Here, Karatolios gives a history of interpretations of the recipe. Two problems emerge here. First, while Karatolios quotes a wide variety of authorities, no specific references are given, unlike in the previous chapter where thanks to the e-book format a reader can conveniently select the hyperlink to be taken to the end notes. Given the number of scholars invoked, this is a serious problem. The conclusion to the chapter accepts the proposed mixture of T. Korres in his 1995 ‘Υγρὸν πῦρ ΄Ενα όπλο της Βυζαντινής ναυτικής τακτικής (Liquid fire: A weapon of Byzantine naval tactics), a work quoted frequently throughout. This is not a serious problem, per se, but it neglects the important work done by John Haldon and others. While Karatolios cites Haldon and Maurice Byrne’s important 1977 article “A Possible Solution to the Problem of Greek Fire” he neglects Haldon’s 2006 article.(2) The latter article is crucial since it describes the results of Haldon’s experiments with Greek fire, which involved the creation of a liquid fire projector.
The third chapter directly discusses the discharge of Greek fire. Hyperlinked references re-appear here. Unfortunately, most of the end notes are again simply to Korres, although a variety of scholars are named. In a manner similar to the last chapter, Haldon and Byrne’s 1977 article is referenced as supporting the pump siphon theory of projection, although the much more detailed discussion presented in the 2006 article is never mentioned. Problematically, Karatolios fails to mention that Korres has a completely different theory, in which the siphon was the bronze slider on a torsion ballista that launched pots of Greek fire. It should be noted that this idea is not accepted by either Haldon or Pryor and Jeffreys, all of whom argue for a force pump.(3)
The fourth chapter is one of the longest but least problematic. Although entitled “Its use at sea” the chapter covers the deployment of Greek fire at sea and on land. Those wishing for references to anything in this chapter will be disappointed, since despite Karatolios’ use of the Taktika of Leo VI and John Skylitzes, not a single specific citation is given. Karatolios also notes in this chapter that the last use of Greek fire was during the siege of Constantinople in 1453, however, it is generally accepted that the siphon-projected liquid fire of the middle Byzantine period ceased to be used in the late twelfth century.(4) The chapter argues that Greek fire was not used in land battles, and that when it appears on land it is related to siege warfare. The example given of the capture of some siphons by the Bulgars in 812 is not the most convincing example for Greek fire not being deployed on land, but Karatolios’s thesis remains solid nonetheless.
The final chapter, on other peoples who had Greek fire, is likely to mislead. It lists a variety of incendiaries, few of which actually appear to be Greek fire. The Persians were familiar with naptha, but nothing suggests that they had the Byzantine means of projection. That the Muslims possessed the secret of the projection of fire is certain, although when they learned it is unclear.(5) The point of the chapter, however, is on firmer ground: that the Syrian artificer who was credited by Theophanes with first creating Greek fire may have been overstated. Greek fire was just one incendiary amongst a long tradition, and he probably just adapted existing technology rather than create something totally new.
This little book is an opportunity, but one that needs further work. Citations need to be made, and the bibliography needs to be expanded. Anglophone readers would probably appreciate the direct quotations from medieval authors in the end notes in translation. Greek transliteration needs to be applied more consistently throughout. The three images in the text, two from Byzantine manuscripts and one from a museum exhibit need to be cited. In its present state, this book needs more work before it will fill the niche of popular history on Greek fire. Fortunately, the distribution medium allows Karatolios to do just that, and hopefully a revised and expanded edition will appear.
LUCAS R. MCMAHON
Central European University, Budapest <[email protected]>
________________________________________________________________________
1 Heron of Byzantium, “Parangelmata Poliorketika,” in Siegecraft: Two Tenth-Century Instructional Manuals by “Heron of Byzantium,” ed. and trans. Denis F. Sullivan (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 2000), 99. John Kinnamos, Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus, trans. Charles M. Brand (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), 157.
2 John Haldon and Maurice Byrne, “A Possible Solution to the Problem of Greek Fire,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 70.1 (1977): 91-99. John Haldon, “‘Greek Fire’ revisited: recent and current research,” in Byzantine Style, Religion, and Civilization: In Honour of Sir Steven Runciman, ed. E. Jeffreys (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006): 290-325.
3 Haldon, “‘Greek Fire’ revisited,” 303-4. John H. Pryor and Elizabeth M. Jeffreys, The Age of the ΔΡΟΜΩΝ: The Byzantine Navy ca 500-1204 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 623-4.
4 For Pseudo-Sphrantzes, see Marios Philippides and Walter Hanak, The Siege and Fall of Constantinople in 1453: Historiography, Topography, and Military Studies (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011), 508, n. 106. For the loss of Greek fire, Alex Roland, “Secrecy, Technology, and War: Greek Fire and the Defence of Byzantium, 678-1204,” Technology and Culture 33.4 (1992): 666-75.
5 Douglas Haldane, “The Fire-Ship of Al-Salih Ayyub* and Muslim Use of ‘Greek Fire,’” in The Circle of War in the Middle Ages: Essays on Medieval Military and Naval History, ed. D. Kagay and L. Villalon (New York: Boydell Press, 1999), 137-144.
