Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Guy Fawkes' Explosion Would Have Devasted London 546

Posted by Hemos from the ka-THOM dept.
Anonymous Coward writes "Experts at the University of Wales in Aberystwyth have worked out for the first time the true extent of the damage Guy Fawkes would have caused if his daring deed had not been foiled on November 5, 1605. " Sorry - history geek/major in me coming out, but this is definitiely one of those major points in history when things Could Have Gone Differently.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Guy Fawkes' Explosion Would Have Devasted London More

Guy Fawkes' Explosion Would Have Devasted London

Comments Filter:

  • My old uni! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Cockney ( 102529 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @09:06AM (#7395306) Homepage
    For the first time ever my old university is mentioned on Slashdot. I'm so happy!

  • Future (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The Guy Fawkes day was a frightning day for all of us British. Had it turned out differently, things would be different today. Why must we worry about the negative what ifs of history, instead of focusing on the future?

    • Re:Future (Score:4, Insightful)

      by kaltkalt ( 620110 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @09:15AM (#7395364)
      because the negative is often quite interesting ("interesting" is not to be confused with "woulda been great had it happened.")

    • Re:Future (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      he Guy Fawkes day was a frightning day for all of us British.

      it happened in 1605. How exactly was it a frightening day for you, again?

    • Re:Future (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Random832 ( 694525 )
      it's only a "negative if", under the assumption that everything since then would have ended up worse than it did now... and you can't make that conclusion unless you _do_ consider what might have happened.

  • well at least (Score:5, Funny)

    by cassidyc ( 167044 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @09:09AM (#7395325)
    He has been the only person to go the parliament with honest intentions

    CJC

  • The Article's ending says it all (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tanya2526 ( 669074 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @09:10AM (#7395334)
    *If* he was an expert,
    *If* he had it packed in
    _Then_ it would've had same effect as TNT
    (and so blasted about a km big hole)
    So this is a GOOD model.

    yada yada.

    Seriously, the assumptions they have made are just too far-fetched. It sounds like someone thought of this idea - hey what would've happened if.. -- and then did some calculations, and then put it in a sensational manner to get press.

    As Dick Feynman would say, this is something like Cargo Cult Science - no true scientific backing for this

    • Sometimes the experts know what they are doing. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Eevee ( 535658 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @09:24AM (#7395436)

      *If* he was an expert,

      There's a link at the end of the article where they point out that Fawkes was brought into the plot because...he was an expert in gunpowder.

      *If* he had it packed in

      This was not a spur of the moment event. There was more than enough time to ensure the gunpowder was correctly placed and packed.

    • and then put it in a sensational manner to get press.

      No kidding? And on November 5th too.

      About 90% of the science stories you hear about have been the subject of media spin, which is why you hear about them in the first place.

    • Black Powder is not a high explosive (Score:4, Informative)

      by hughk ( 248126 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @10:48AM (#7396118) Journal
      so please can someone explain to me why the effect would be the same as the same quantity of TNT. The black powder was in barrels and it was in cellars which would have provided some compression. Would it be enough, well I don't really think so.

      My BS detector needle is hugging the high end again!!!!

      FWIW, a high explosive is one where the detonation wave exceeds the speed of sound in the explosive so that it blows up, so to speak before it flies apart. High explosives do not need compression, but low-explosives do. This is why black powder goes off in a phut unless it is compressed so that it doesn't fly apart until all parts are reacting.

  • Done later anyway (Score:4, Informative)

    by 16K Ram Pack ( 690082 ) <tim.almond@nOsPam.gmail.com> on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @09:10AM (#7395335) Homepage
    Great Fire of London, 1666.

    And let's not forget the South Bank ;-)

    • Re:Done later anyway (Score:2, Interesting)

      by turgid ( 580780 )
      Yes, but the Great Fire didn't turn England back into a Catholic country. The whole of Western history would have been different if old Guido (Guy) Fawkes had succeded. There was more to it than merely destroying property and the government.
    • well, in a fire, people can run away ... if you blast 200,000 people away, they haven't got much of a choice. Surely the 190,000 poor people at the time could have had a difficult time building a decent home again (if they ever had a shack to live in).

  • In other news.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Skraut ( 545247 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @09:10AM (#7395336) Journal
    Experts at the Slashdot labratory have worked out for the first time the true extent of the possible damage to the University of Wales in Aberystwyth's web server due to the posting of a story about Guy Fawkes

  • BBC website (Score:5, Interesting)

    by brejc8 ( 223089 ) * on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @09:12AM (#7395349) Homepage Journal
    BBC [bbc.co.uk] has a nice website about it too. (much more informative)

    • Re:BBC website (Score:5, Interesting)

      by glesga_kiss ( 596639 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @11:19AM (#7396402)
      I once saw a documentary, one of the BBCs late night "learning zone" ones I think (it was many years ago) that showed lots of evidence for the case that the whole thing was a frame up. There's no mention of that on the above site all!

      Googling found this [bonefire.org] link, which mentions the price of gunpowder at the time being far to expensive for the conspirators to afford the amount they had. There is also doubt on the origins of the letter that tipped off authorities to the plot.

      Another [cambs.sch.uk] site states the following:

      Was the Plot a fake?

      There is considerable evidence that there was no real Gunpowder Plot and that the idea of it was invented by Robert Cecil in order to discredit the Catholics, not to mention other motives such as removing a political rival (Northumberland) and gaining land from the the confiscated estates of Midland Catholics. This view of the plot provides answers to some otherwise awkward questions such as: Why were the Essex rebels let off a so lightly, and what exactly was meant by 'Reserved to her Majesty's use'? Why was Parliament postponed and how did the coal cellar became so easily and conveniently available? Where did so much gunpowder come from? Wasn't Tresham's warning letter an obvious giveaway? Why did Monteagle give it to Cecil and why didn't Cecil inform the King immediately? Why didn't Guy Fawkes escape after the first search and was he really tortured? How come the Midland rebels were so quickly surrounded by the Sheriff's men and why were Catesby and Percy both shot?

      I couldn't find any really compelling links, certainally none as good as the documentary.

      • Re:BBC website (Score:3, Interesting)

        by LoonyJetman ( 463345 )
        I heard a representative of the gunpowder plot society on radio 5 (bbc) last night, who seemed fairly knowledgeable about the subject and was level headed enough not to get carried away with the presenters enthusiasm for the blowing up half of london aspect of the story. Their website [gunpowder-plot.org] is as comprehensive as you would expect from their name.

  • Gun powder = TNT (Score:3, Insightful)

    by T.i.m ( 149429 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @09:14AM (#7395357)
    the 2,500kg of gunpowder Guy Fawkes was found with, would be equivalent to the same amount of TNT today

    So TNT is no better then gunpowder? What is so special with this guys gunpowder?

    • My recolection is that the big advantage of TNT touted by Nobel (Yes, THAT [nobel.se] Nobel) was not its explosive power, but its stability.

    • Re:Gun powder = TNT (Score:4, Informative)

      by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @10:50AM (#7396128) Homepage Journal
      Dunk TNT in water, no effect. Hit it with a hammer - no effect. Warm it with a match - no effect. Place it in open and detonate it. The explosion is considerable.

      Dunk gunpowder in water. Won't burn. Hit it. Boom. Apply a small spark (like static from your sweater.) Boom. Put a pile of it in the open. Shhhh! - a big cloud of smoke, some sparks, some bright fire, no explosion. (only puting it in relatively small chamber - like a gun, a barrel or a cellar, depending on amount - causes considerable explosion. Otherwise it just burns quite rapidly.

  • Wasn't he framed? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Black Rabbit ( 236299 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @09:15AM (#7395362)
    I remember reading something somewhere a few years ago that offered proof that Guy Fawkes was framed. Anything to this?

    I also understand that Brits seem to have tossed out the whole Nov 5th thing for the more commercial American import of Halloween, but haven't really picked up on the concept, with many kids showing up on pumpkinless doorsteps sans costume.

    Seems to me that Guy Fawkes Night would be a much bigger blast!
    • anything but! fireworks are going off from about september onwards for Nov 5th, so many fireworks are being let off these days infact the govermint is thinking of restricting the sale of them.
      • He-heh, Tony's scared!
      • Trick or treating is starting in August next year too... so I've heard. The children aren't even going to get changed out of their school uniforms...

        I can't wait to hear Jingle Bells this year too. November is here, can't be long now. The 13 year old boys in my area have such great singing voices. The outstretched hand they also provide adds to the festive jollies.

        Now if one of them was to knock on the door asking if he can wash my car for money then that would be a different story.

        Very sad, it is. Damn

    • Re:Wasn't he framed? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I also understand that Brits seem to have tossed out the whole Nov 5th thing for the more commercial American import of Halloween, but haven't really picked up on the concept, with many kids showing up on pumpkinless doorsteps sans costume.

      Not really. November 5th is still a bigger night in the U.K than Halloween; we spend UKP80million a year on fireworks, most of them for November 5th. Sales of plastic horns and Scream masks pall in comparision really.

      What tends to happen is that Halloween simply ge

    • Re:Wasn't he framed? (Score:4, Informative)

      by martinthebrit ( 565913 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @09:29AM (#7395477)
      Some of us Brits object to the American import of Halloween overshadowing our own pyrotechnic traditions.

      Very funny [bbc.co.uk] diatribe about 20 minutes into last week's Now Show (radio 4 comedy programme) about this very matter.

    • Re:Wasn't he framed? (Score:3, Informative)

      by erinacht ( 592019 )
      We celebrate both all hallows eve and November the 5th, though for me personally, Guy Fawkes night is a rememberance of poor old Guy and the good he could have done.

      Was Guy Fawkes Framed? find out here! [herts.sch.uk]

      Since it may be my namesake's festival, I have to correct you on the "American Import" bit... [about.com]

      It is believed that the tradition of Halloween reached America with the Irish immigrants of the 19th century who, according to Barkin and James, retained the belief that ghosts and spirits roamed the earth on

    • And note that Pumpkins are a recent New World import. Traditionally it was a Halloween turnip. (Now that's scarey!)
    • Reposted from above:

      www.bonfirenight.net [bonfirenight.net]

      tinyurl.com/tnu3 [tinyurl.com]

  • From the article: (Score:4, Funny)

    by plexxer ( 214589 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @09:16AM (#7395375)
    He said the physicists used the weight of explosive to work out how it would affect its surroundings.

    "We know that the more explosive we have the more energy will be released when the charge is set off.

    "From the pressure pulse generated by the explosion, we can tell if windows are going to be smashed or if whole buildings will be demolished," he said.

    He explained that the further from the blast the lesser the effects until only a faint bang is audible.

    Obviously they had their top minds working on this.

  • Well, it did happen in 2000 in Enschede... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ControlFreal ( 661231 ) <niek@nospAM.bergboer.net> on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @09:18AM (#7395388) Journal

    At may 13th 2000, a fireworks storage facility (located in the middle of a residential area, of all places) in the city of Enschede in the east of the Netherlands went skyhigh. Some general info is here [wikipedia.org].

    Whereas the London event would have been equivalent to 2.5 tons of TNT, the Enschede explosion was estimated as being equivalent to anywhere between 5 tons and 15 tons of TNT (between 2e10 and 6e10 Joules, and at maximum about 1/1000th of Hiroshima in terms of energy). In the event, about 100000 kg of fireworks detonated, set off by a detonation in one of the central containers. The energy in the explosion was estimated by analyzing images of the shockfront wave set off by the explosion.

    The result was similar to what has been predicted for London: in Enschede, about 1200 houses were obliterated [bbc.co.uk] and 22 were killed.

    Fortunately, the event led to changes in legislation and much stricter requirements for such dangerous storage facilities near residential areas.

    On a personal note: I was about 6 km from Ground Zero when the event happened, and the sound from the explosion was very, very impressive even at that distance!

    • Halifax Explosion (Score:5, Informative)

      by Irishman ( 9604 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @09:51AM (#7395615)
      An explosion of this magnitude (over 2.5 kilotonnes of TNT) did explode in a city back in 1917. Halifax, Nova Scotia in Canada was devestated by an explosion of a munitions ship on its way to Europe. The explosion killed almost 2000 people, injured over 9000 and rattled dishes about 300 km away. The explosion was so large, it was actually studied by Oppenheimer and his crew as a model of how to deliver the atomic bomb. From this, they determined that damaged is greatly enhanced when the bomb is exploded above ground. If you want to find out more, just go here [www.cbc.ca].
  • "He [Dr. Thomas] added: "If Guy Fawkes was an expert in explosives and so knew what he was doing and had the gunpowder confined in barrels and well packed-in, it could have been almost as powerful as the equivalent TNT explosion so this is a fairly good model," he said."

    The explosion model assumes Fawkes was an expert in explosives and would have packed the barrels really tight instead of just using the barrels as is...so by that logic there would have been more gunpowder there than historical attributed.
    • The explosion model assumes Fawkes was an expert in explosives and would have packed the barrels really tight instead of just using the barrels as is...

      According to the BBC article [bbc.co.uk] Guy Fawkes' job was packing gunpowder for the army, so it's not unreasonable to assume he knew what he was doing.

  • Vasts (Score:3, Funny)

    by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @09:28AM (#7395467)
    Devasted London

    What's wrong with that? I hate vasts! Out with the vasts!

    (Apparently, you're history buffs, but not spelling buffs.)

  • "What if?" Try "Remember when ..." (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kombat ( 93720 ) <kevin@swanweddingphotography.com> on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @09:34AM (#7395504)

    The Halifax Explosion [wikipedia.org] is one of the most impressive disasters in history. Often billed as the largest non-nuclear explosion prior to the atomic age, two ships, one loaded with war ammunition, collided right in the middle of Halifax Harbour in Nova Scotia. It exploded, killing over 1600 people. The anchor from one of the ships was found 5 kilometers away. The explosion shattered windows and rang churchbells in my hometown of Truro, over 100 km away.

  • University/School (Score:3, Funny)

    by The Grassy Knoll ( 112931 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @09:34AM (#7395506)
    It's a school of whales, not a university, you insensitive clod!

    .

  • RIAA math (Score:3, Funny)

    by richie2000 ( 159732 ) <rickard.olsson@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @09:38AM (#7395533) Homepage Journal
    the 2,500kg of gunpowder Guy Fawkes was found with, would be equivalent to the same amount of TNT today

    Or 1,250 really, really fast CD-Rs.

  • I don't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CGP314 ( 672613 ) <CGP&ColinGregoryPalmer,net> on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @09:50AM (#7395608) Homepage
    I moved to London [colingregorypalmer.net] recently, but no one has been able to answer my question about Guy Fawkes with certainty: Are Londoner's celebrating because Fawkes tried to blow up parliament, or because he was caught before he could?

    • Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Informative)

      by riggwelter ( 84180 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @10:00AM (#7395704) Homepage Journal
      We have a national day (it's not actually a holiday) in the UK (well, England certainly) on the 5th of November to celebrate the fact that Guy Fawkes, and his fellow conspiritors we prevented from commiting a major act of what was essentially religious-inspired terrorism, namely the assisnation of the monarch and parliament.

      That's why effigies of Mr Fawkes are burnt as part of the celebrations.

      Of course, given that Mr Fawkes represented the oppressed (at the time) Roman Catholic community, was he a terrorist, or a freedom fighter?

      • Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Dusabre ( 176445 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @11:12AM (#7396342) Homepage
        Of course, given that Mr Fawkes represented the oppressed (at the time) Roman Catholic community, was he a terrorist, or a freedom fighter?

        You can get in trouble for thinking unpatriotic thoughts like that.

        So I'll get into even greater trouble. The phrases freedom fighter/terrorist describe the same people from different viewpoints. The person getting freedom fighted calls them terrorist. Those who use terror call themselves freedom fighters.

        Of course the real qualifier is what means they use and what ends they want to achieve (the means being more important than the ends in judging whether they are acting for good or evil IMHO).

        The Resistance movement in Europe was called terrorist by the Gestapo. Old resistance fighter readily admit using terror tactics against the Nazis. They are proud of the fear they raised amongst the murdering invaders.

        The Polish underground even used anthrax to discourage the Gestapo from reading anonymuous tipoff letters!
    • Are Londoner's celebrating because Fawkes tried to blow up parliament, or because he was caught before he could?

      Because he was caught. There is a certain amount of ironic humour creeping in as people start to wonder just how bad an idea it was, though.

      TWW

    • Since when did Londoners (or Englishmen for that matter) need a valid excuse to get drunk?

      Blow up Parliament? Have a party.
      Fail to blow up Parliament? Have a party.

      It's all the same.
  • This doesn't seem quite accurate. It looks like they just added up all the energy from the explosion and calculated how far the shock wave would reach in ideal conditions.

    The problem is that the conditions were far from ideal for maximum damage to the city. The article mentions that the gunpowder was under the building, which means underground. When something explodes either buried or in a ditch it explodes up not out.

    I have no doubt it would have demolished the building it was under, but I have sincer
  • He explained that the further from the blast the lesser the effects until only a faint bang is audible.


    No shit Sherlock!

  • Child's play (Score:5, Informative)

    by Illserve ( 56215 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @10:21AM (#7395872)
    Back in WW2, the RAF had a huge ammo depot called the Fauld.

    On November 27, 1944, there was an accident and it blew up.

    This is the supposedly the largest non-nuclear explosion in recorded history.

    3670 tons of bombs went up in an explosion that was seismically recordable in Casablanca

    The crater was half a mile across.

    78 people killed.

    A photo:
    http://www.historicairphotos.com/g_uk/imag e2_lge.j pg

    Some informative links with other photos:

    http://www.carolyn.topmum.net/tutbury/fauld/faul dc rater.htm

    http://freespace.virgin.net/kehla.barnes/disaste r. htm

  • Needed to be quoted here (Score:3, Funny)

    by Gudlyf ( 544445 ) <gudlyf@NOspam.realistek.com> on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @10:23AM (#7395885) Homepage Journal
    Saw this on E2 [everything2.com]:

    "In one of the more peculiar of English habits, Guy Fawkes is celebrated with his own day of national remembrance for his role in a failed scheme to dispose of King James I and the House of Lords. You'd think they'd celebrate the foiler of the attempt rather than one of its enactors, but then "1st Earl of Salisbury Day" or "Lord Monteagle Day" just don't have the same ring."

  • Devastated *London*? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @10:26AM (#7395909) Homepage
    Nevermind London, the buildings and the people in them would have been replaced eventually. It's a monarchy too, so it's a case of "The King is dead! Long live the King!". The revived concept of an elected government on the otherhand, only a few decades old at that time, would not have recovered for a much longer time. If he had been successful, Guy Fawkes would have devastated democracy *way* more than any damage he might have inflicted on London.

    As to the response, well, we have a good parallel for that, don't we? Guy Fawkes launched a religiously motivated attack at heart of the the "infidel" symbol of power. So did Usama bin Laden, and given what happened there, in the context of the times another knee-jerk purge of English Catholisism would almost certainly have ensued.

  • The Slimy Stuarts (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lindsayt ( 210755 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @10:31AM (#7395953)
    It has been surmised by some historians that James' aides, and not Guy Fawkes, planted the explosives only to have them found. The English people were pretty sceptical of a mostly-Catholic Scot ruling their country (remember that because of the Auld Alliance between Scotland and France, the Scottish nobility was about 90% French as every Scottish king married a French princess for many generations, and the French princesses were all Catholic), and James I of England needed to prove that he was (1) not Catholic but rather C of E; and (2) primarily James I of England and only secondarily James VI of Scotland.

    So anyway, some surmise that his advisers knew nothing would prove his non-Catholicism better than some Catholic zealot trying to kill him. Of course that was the result, that the C of E English largely accepted James I until his death as loyal both in terms of religion and nationality. Of course things went a little differently for his son (and grandson too)...

    As a European historian, I've always found Stuart England and its brief reprieve during the Commonwealth to be the most fascinating part of English history. Perhaps it's because they were just so untrustworthy and untrusted...

  • I question this. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Shoten ( 260439 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @11:08AM (#7396306)
    Dr Geraint Thomas, head of the Centre for Explosion Studies, who led the research, said that the 2,500kg of gunpowder Guy Fawkes was found with, would be equivalent to the same amount of TNT today.

    Um. There are two general categories of explosives; low-order and high-order. When someone says "high explosives," they are technically referring to the latter, or they are misusing the term. Different explosive compounds burn at different rates; the gases given off by the burn is what produces the force of the blast. The faster the rate of burn, the more destructive an explosive compound is, all other things being equal. Gunpowder, which is meant to propel projectiles, burns slowly and therefore is low-order explosive. If it burned too quickly, the projectile wouldn't have time to accelerate and get out of the way, and pressure would spike inside the cannon/barrel....BOOM! This is why nobody makes bullets that are propelled by dynamite or C4. TNT, on the other hand, is not intended for this use, but is rather intended to blow things up; it has a much faster burn rate, and is a high-order explosive.

    So, with that said, how the hell can 2,500 kilograms of 17th-century gunpowder have the same destructive force as the same amount of 20th-century TNT?

  • How come they didn't have this at my school? (Score:4, Funny)

    by m0smithslash ( 641068 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @11:09AM (#7396321) Homepage Journal
    Physicists from the university's Centre for Explosion Studies found that the amount of gunpowder Guy ...

    Centre for Explosion Studies!! Now there is a cool major.

    Bob: Hi, what's your major?
    Jane: Theater. How about you?
    Bob: Explosion Studies.
    Jane: Wow, that is soooo cool. Wanna go out tonight?

    Doesn't work that way with CS I can tell you. Seriously, was there ever a cooler thing to major in? I would have even dropped out of CS to be able to blow things up. They also get to study all the great explosions of all time.

    I wonder what kind of job Explosive majors get? Cool stuff like special effects, building demolition, pyrotechniques, rodent control. I think I missed my true calling in life.

    • Fire.

      Friend of mine's brother-in-law burns things for a living. Every day he gets to burn something or blow some shit up and get paid for it. Now and then they'll go out into the desert, build a house, and burn it down.

      He's the happiest guy I think I've ever met.

  • Explosive Studies (Score:3, Funny)

    by FrankDrebin ( 238464 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @12:31PM (#7397123) Homepage

    ...the university's Centre for Explosion Studies...

    I'm guessing to get a degree there you simply have to be alive at the end of the programme.

Slashdot Top Deals

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. -- Niels Bohr

Close