Napoleon discovers Greek Fire

[The Zeppelin]

I was thinking over an idea of Napoleon rediscovering the secret of greek fire while campaigning in Egypt and Syria and, perhaps, even improving various aspects of this weapon (including, perhaps, range) with the help of numerous french scientists accompanying the expedition. Is that possible or ASB? I mean, let's not mistake something unusual and highly unlikely for something impossible and meaningless.

What do you think? I apologise for making any sort of spelling or grammar mistakes. English is not my native language.

 

[AlternateEagle]

Vietnam-style flamethrowers use by the French Army. Could also be useful in naval engagements with the British, and since Napoleon was a clever general he could manipulate winds in forest battles to burn his opponents alive.

 

[sloreck]

The major use of Greek Fire was in naval battles which were fought with galleys. With the best efforts you won't get a flamethrower with early 1800s technology with a lot of range, certainly not anywhere close to effective cannon range. A ship with a Greek Fire weapon can be pounded to pieces out of range, and if it is winning the idea is to capture the enemy vessel not burn it (if you take it and it can't be salvaged you can burn it easily). A hot to the weapon could start a fire on your own ship. lastly, with an enemy close enough to use this weapon, you run a real risk of having fire spread to your ship.

On land, this weapon would be at least as large and unwieldy as an artillery piece and limber. Useful for a defensive position, but not much use offensively. The man portable weapons that made their appearance in WWI needed technology well ahead of what was there in 1800 or so, and in several different areas.

 

[Capuleten]

The major use of Greek Fire was in naval battles which were fought with galleys. With the best efforts you won't get a flamethrower with early 1800s technology with a lot of range, certainly not anywhere close to effective cannon range. A ship with a Greek Fire weapon can be pounded to pieces out of range, and if it is winning the idea is to capture the enemy vessel not burn it (if you take it and it can't be salvaged you can burn it easily). A hot to the weapon could start a fire on your own ship. lastly, with an enemy close enough to use this weapon, you run a real risk of having fire spread to your ship.

On land, this weapon would be at least as large and unwieldy as an artillery piece and limber. Useful for a defensive position, but not much use offensively. The man portable weapons that made their appearance in WWI needed technology well ahead of what was there in 1800 or so, and in several different areas.

There is evidence as provided by some (rather sketchy) accounts and a good number of Byzantine artwork that Byzantine "marine troops" had close range flamethrowers. I don't know how useful they would be, but I can't help but feel faintly amused imagining some crazed flamethrower-wielding Napoleonic grenadiers dashing up to a bayonet line yelling bloody murder in French.

 

[Cornelis]

The major use of Greek Fire was in naval battles which were fought with galleys. With the best efforts you won't get a flamethrower with early 1800s technology with a lot of range, certainly not anywhere close to effective cannon range. A ship with a Greek Fire weapon can be pounded to pieces out of range, and if it is winning the idea is to capture the enemy vessel not burn it (if you take it and it can't be salvaged you can burn it easily). A hot to the weapon could start a fire on your own ship. lastly, with an enemy close enough to use this weapon, you run a real risk of having fire spread to your ship.

On land, this weapon would be at least as large and unwieldy as an artillery piece and limber. Useful for a defensive position, but not much use offensively. The man portable weapons that made their appearance in WWI needed technology well ahead of what was there in 1800 or so, and in several different areas.

The Greek fire in maritime combat is useful against anchored fleets and for defending land positions from attacking fleets. Problem is, the Royal Navy was not usually at anchorage waiting for the French to attack, nor it did actually stage large-scale attack from the sea. In the beginning of the 19th c., the superiority of the RN maneuvering would have negated the efficiency of the greek fire in open-sea combat. The only practical use could have been to put greek fire in fire-ships launched on anchored fleet or (more difficult) in Congreve rockets, but the only fire-ships attack was made by the Royal Navy, not the French, at Basque Roads in 1809 and we all know about the Congreves.

 

[Balaur]

Honestly, the best way to use Greek Fire would not be as a flamethrower, but as an especially nasty carcass(incendiary/illumination) shell.

 

[Bad@logic]

Do you really want a flamethrower on your ship which is filled with gunpowder and built of timber with flammable rigging and sails?

It isn't really something I would think one would want on a capital ship, given the risk in losing it, just in regular service. Imagine the terror each time one tried to train with it. This counts for incendiary shots too if it was used in cannons.

But, might it not make sense onboard smaller frigate ships? Reasonably expendable, fast-building, more capability to maneuver, and they don't take a significant chunk out of your line of battle for using them independently. I imagine that given the terror that sailors feel of fire, a few French fire-frigates would do much to make the British very wary of them, and since their destructive capacity vis-a-vis the enemy fleet at close range would be the same as an equivalently equipped larger ship, enough to make any fight with them suicide, having a few of them on the flanks might restrict British freedom of maneuver and intimidate them in attacking French positions.

Whether it would be a boon to the French though is questionable, since the English will inevitably capture some example of a greek fire weapon and will copy it themselves, and given the more aggressive and close-ranged tactics of the English navy it might be more useful for them than for France, who after all preferred combat at range.

 

[weasel_airlift]

Do you really want a flamethrower on your ship which is filled with gunpowder and built of timber with flammable rigging and sails?

It isn't really something I would think one would want on a capital ship, given the risk in losing it, just in regular service. Imagine the terror each time one tried to train with it. This counts for incendiary shots too if it was used in cannons.

But, might it not make sense onboard smaller frigate ships? Reasonably expendable, fast-building, more capability to maneuver, and they don't take a significant chunk out of your line of battle for using them independently. I imagine that given the terror that sailors feel of fire, a few French fire-frigates would do much to make the British very wary of them, and since their destructive capacity vis-a-vis the enemy fleet at close range would be the same as an equivalently equipped larger ship, enough to make any fight with them suicide, having a few of them on the flanks might restrict British freedom of maneuver and intimidate them in attacking French positions.

Whether it would be a boon to the French though is questionable, since the English will inevitably capture some example of a greek fire weapon and will copy it themselves, and given the more aggressive and close-ranged tactics of the English navy it might be more useful for them than for France, who after all preferred combat at range.

Perhaps right idea, but smaller ships yet. Frigates still don't get THAT close, however gunboats, such as those designed for harassing becalmed blockaders might be ideal. During a calm, row up, set your fire, beat a hasty retreat. May not work often, but it's such a dangerous idea. I seem to recall that the French tried mounting shot furnaces in some ships, and that worked exactly as well as you might think in battle.

You will need some specially designed, crew protective boats, though. Setting ships on fire is likely to annoy the British, who will try to counter with musketry and the like.

 

[Ameck16]

What about spilling in into the sea, then setting it on fire when the Brits sail on it.

 

[Capuleten]

What about spilling in into the sea, then setting it on fire when the Brits sail on it.

This seems like the most obvious use for Greek Fire that Napoleon would probably utilize for naval escapes.

 

[Hecatee]

Why not imagine some kind of "bottle round" that would be strong enough to withstand the shooting from a gun and would break on impact, putting incendiary material all over enemy ships, the rest of the fight proving enough to cause damages ? One may even imagine the components kept separate during cruise periods, then mixed just before the fight, with a few bottles prepared for the battle and used on specific orders early in the engagement...

 

[weasel_airlift]

Why not imagine some kind of "bottle round" that would be strong enough to withstand the shooting from a gun and would break on impact, putting incendiary material all over enemy ships, the rest of the fight proving enough to cause damages ? One may even imagine the components kept separate during cruise periods, then mixed just before the fight, with a few bottles prepared for the battle and used on specific orders early in the engagement...

Could such a thing be made in the era? There were explosive mortar/howitzer rounds, but nothing that I know of fired out of a naval cannon. Regardless, the ship is already made out of incendiary materials, what you would really need is a reliable, not-dangerous-to-yourself way of lighting them up.