Why did the the Ming crossbows become so weak compared to earlier Chinese ones?

[Common Soldier]

The draw length of Ming Chinese crossbows becamed considerably shorter than the draw lengths of the earlier crossbows from the Song and Han dynasties. This would have made the Ming much less powerful than the crossbows of the earlier dynasties for the same draw force. Why would the Chinese make their crossbows so much less powerful?

The arguments I have seen put forward don't seem to stand up under close scrutiny. The Yao Kai Nu Ming crossbow had a dras force of up to 1041 lbs, and a prod span of 2 meters, with a 26 cm/10" powerstroke, but still had a short stock of 54 cm. So the argument that the Chinese triggers became simpler waw somehow the cause doesn't stand up - If you could make a trigger standup for 10" at a 1000 lbs, it will stand up for 20" at a 100 lbs. As far as I can tell, the Chinese did not adopt the long trigger levers you find on European crossbows, so the argument you could not place the trigger at the back of the stock for a longer draw does not seem valid.

Nor do guns seem the complete answer. Until you rifle the the barrel and had a tight fit, the old smooth bore muskets only had an effective range of around 100 yards, not because the ball wasn't powerful enough to reach further, but because they became too inaccurate to hit things further out. I see any evidence the Ming used rifled barrels with tight fitting musket balls. And matchlocks became inerfective in wet weather. A crossbow will still work it wet weather, even if it looses power. The Spanish still used steel crossbows for a century after the matchlocks were introduced, so for the early part of the Ming dynasty at least, before matchlocks were introduced, you should have seen more active use of crossbows than you do.

And with a 2 m prod, and a 1041 lbs draw, the Yao Kai Nu hardly small. While the Yao Kai Nu was as powerfu. as the most powerful handheld European crossbows, most of the other Ming crossbowss were far weaker. The Jue Zhang Nu had a draw of 390 lbs but only a 16 cm (6.3") draw lengrth, a draw length not longer than the European windlass crossbows which had much higher draw forces. The Han and Song had crossbows with comparably high draw forces, but much longer draw lengths, making them far more powerful. If you are going through the trouble of making something as larg as the Yao Kai Nu, why not just build some of the old Han style crossbows, and make them really powerful?

Perhaps the real reason we don't see crossbows as powerful as those in the Song dynasty is not that secret of making trigger mechanisms was lost, but the secret of making a prod with very high draw force, but also with a high draw length at the same. In European crossbows we see an inverse relationship between draw force and draw length - the higher the draw force, the shorter the draw length. Steel crossbows with very high draw force had shorter draw lengths than simple crossbows with lower draw forces. Stiffer materials materials are usually less flexible than less stiff materials. To make a prod with the draw length of a hand bow, but much greater draw force would be difficult without making the prod excessively large, and it might have required a secret that was lost by Ming times. Unlike the trigger mechanisms, which could be reversed engineered from old samples, once the secret of making stiff but flexible prods was lost, it could not be recaptured.

Another possibility is perhaps the Song/Han crossbows with the high draw force had much shorter draw lengths than we think. We know that some Han/Song Chinese crossbows had clearly much longer drawlengths than Ming and European crossbows, but perhaps those were only crossbows of lower draw forces. Perhaps the Song high force crossbows simply had less draw length, more comparable to the Ming Yao Kai Nu crossbow, in which case the mystery disappears. As I mentioned, there is an inverse relation between the draw force and draw length in European crossbows, and would not be surprising if a similar relation existed in the Han/Song crossbows.

It must be noted, that the Ming crossbows could have been more powerful than they were. If you just mounted a powerful 200 lbs hand bow, which the Ming could make, in a crossbos prod, and kept a 24" draw length, you could make a pretty powerful crossbow. Yet the Ming didn't seem to do that. The Ming went to the shorter draw lengths more typical of European crossbows but mostly without the high draw forces used by the medieval European war crossbows. Unless you have mechanical mechanisms like goats foot levers and windlasses with ropes and pulleys, it is hard to make high draw force crossbow with a short prod, and for whatever reason the Chinese did not used goat's lever or cranequin, or pulley windlass systems (the spoked wheel windlass used on siege crossbows would have been far too slow for a hand held crossbow). I am kind of surpised the Ming did not use some kind of windlass rope system like the Europeans for the Yao kai Nu - the draw length was short enough, and by the time you sat on the ground, carefully pulled back the string, then got up, I don't think it would be that much faster than using a pulley windlass similar to European crossbows. Did the Chinese know of the principle of mechanical advantages of using multiple pulleys? I haven't seen any pre-European contact Chinese illustrations showing the use of multiple pulleys, and if the Chinese weren't aware of mechanical advantage of multiple pulleys, that could explain the lack of use of windlasses with ropes and pulleys.

[athanaric]

There could be several factors. Perhaps the Ming era models allowed for more rapid, and less accident prone, fire? Perhaps the average size and strength of the Chinese decreased between older periods and the Ming era (I have no data on this, just throwing it out as a question, particularly since China has a history of malnourishment and until very recently, the average citizen was rather petite by international standards)? Perhaps bows became more popular again as a result of Mongol influence?

Anyway, were the earlier models you cited mass produced or were they actually specialist weapons?

[Sar1n]

A little speculation here. Maybe the earlier crossbows were just seen as overkill.

Heavier draw weight means lower fire rate, more exhausted soldier and is considerably more expensive. While it is more powerful and has longer range, there are limits to how much of it can average G.I.Yao use. Basically same reasoning why armies switched from full power to intermediate cartridges after WWII.

As history proved again and again, best weapon is the one most cost-efficient, not the one most effective.

[Mamlaz]

Until you rifle the the barrel and had a tight fit, the old smooth bore muskets only had an effective range of around 100 yards

But that is basically the effective range of warbows and crossbows as well...

In European crossbows we see an inverse relationship between draw force and draw length

the higher the draw force, the shorter the

Another possibility is perhaps the Song/Han crossbows with the high draw force had much shorter draw lengths than we think.

This is most likely the answer.

The issue is that we have very, very little remaining of Han crossbows and just marginally more from the Song crossbow.

So, in essence, the proposition we have now is that the large crossbow findings from the Han period are proposed as being 6 or 8 stone with such a draw length, completely ignoring the possibility that such draw length crossbows were simply of a much, much lighter draw weight.


So yes, the issue of composite material breaking under draw force was completely the same in China as it was in Europe, which equates the issue the European had and the reason they also made their draw lengths shorter as they increased their draw weight.

In my opinion, the most likely scenario is that little was actually lost during the Song and later the Ming, but that the crossbow situation at the time was identical since the Han period and that their heavy crossbows actually had short draw lengths from the start.

[Common Soldier]

A little speculation here. Maybe the earlier crossbows were just seen as overkill.

Heavier draw weight means lower fire rate, more exhausted soldier and is considerably more expensive. While it is more powerful and has longer range, there are limits to how much of it can average G.I.Yao use. Basically same reasoning why armies switched from full power to intermediate cartridges after WWII.

As history proved again and again, best weapon is the one most cost-efficient, not the one most effective.

I tnought of that, but why build the Yao Kai Nu crossbow? With a 2 m prod, and a 1040 lbs draw, it wasn't small.

With the draw length and power of the other Ming crossbows, they were not more powerful than a 60 - 70 lbs crossbow, which I think most men would have no trouble drawing. And to fire a 60 lbs bow doesn't need the years of training that the heavier 100 - 150 lbs bows required. It takes years to build up the strength to draw something as heavy as 150 lbs, only a few of the Nmary Rose bows were as heavy as 150 lbs. So it is easy to see why the Ming largely gave up using crossbows, no point using a weapon that has a lower rate of fire and is weaker.

But even if the crossbows were more powerful, they still had a lower rate of fire, so maybe you havd something. Perhaps the Ming just preferred a higher rate of fire. The muskets were as strong as powerful crossbows, and not much slower, so crossbows become redundant except for special applications, which the Yao Kai Nu was as strong as they needed. Still, ir you are going through the trouble making as large as the Yao Kai Nu, why not make it as powerful as you can? If you could increase the draw length by 2, the power would go up a lot.

I thought that crossbows had a longer range, same with other bows, But I suppose hitting a target at 200 yards is not the sameas hitting a moving soldier. Even a fast arrow could only go 200 to at most 300 ft/s, so it would take something like 2 seconds to go 200 yards, and even at walking speed of 3 ft/s, the target you aimee at will be 6 ft away by the time the arrow arrived. So it would pribably be a waste to fire at longer distances. A man has enough time to see someome firing at 200 yards react and step out of the way of the arrow. And at longer range it is less likely to penetrate armour as well.

[Common Soldier]

But that is basically the effective range of warbows and crossbows as well...






This is most likely the answer.

The issue is that we have very, very little remaining of Han crossbows and just marginally more from the Song crossbow.

So, in essence, the proposition we have now is that the large crossbow findings from the Han period are proposed as being 6 or 8 stone with such a draw length, completely ignoring the possibility that such draw length crossbows were simply of a much, much lighter draw weight.


So yes, the issue of composite material breaking under draw force was completely the same in China as it was in Europe, which equates the issue the European had and the reason they also made their draw lengths shorter as they increased their draw weight.

In my opinion, the most likely scenario is that little was actually lost during the Song and later the Ming, but that the crossbow situation at the time was identical since the Han period and that their heavy crossbows actually had short draw lengths from the start.

That was my thinking as well. But that means that the ancient Han crossbows were simply not as powerful as peope make out. There were probably not mucn more powerful than their European counterparts.

[Sar1n]

I tnought of that, but why build the Yao Kai Nu crossbow? With a 2 m prod, and a 1040 lbs draw, it wasn't small.

With the draw length and power of the other Ming crossbows, they were not more powerful than a 60 - 70 lbs crossbow, which I think most men would have no trouble drawing. And to fire a 60 lbs bow doesn't need the years of training that the heavier 100 - 150 lbs bows required. It takes years to build up the strength to draw something as heavy as 150 lbs, only a few of the Nmary Rose bows were as heavy as 150 lbs. So it is easy to see why the Ming largely gave up using crossbows, no point using a weapon that has a lower rate of fire and is weaker.

But even if the crossbows were more powerful, they still had a lower rate of fire, so maybe you havd something. Perhaps the Ming just preferred a higher rate of fire. The muskets were as strong as powerful crossbows, and not much slower, so crossbows become redundant except for special applications, which the Yao Kai Nu was as strong as they needed. Still, ir you are going through the trouble making as large as the Yao Kai Nu, why not make it as powerful as you can? If you could increase the draw length by 2, the power would go up a lot.

I thought that crossbows had a longer range, same with other bows, But I suppose hitting a target at 200 yards is not the sameas hitting a moving soldier. Even a fast arrow could only go 200 to at most 300 ft/s, so it would take something like 2 seconds to go 200 yards, and even at walking speed of 3 ft/s, the target you aimee at will be 6 ft away by the time the arrow arrived. So it would pribably be a waste to fire at longer distances. A man has enough time to see someome firing at 200 yards react and step out of the way of the arrow. And at longer range it is less likely to penetrate armour as well.

For the same reason why we have marksman and sniper rifles along ARs. Specialist weapon.

It's not about drawing the crossbow once. It's about marching twenty miles a day with 10+ kg on your back for weeks while being fed only rice, then dragging that crossbow another mile to battlefield, and then sustaining decent accuracy and rate of fire for 20-50 shots under combat pressure.

[Roma_Victrix]

This is most likely the answer.

The issue is that we have very, very little remaining of Han crossbows and just marginally more from the Song crossbow.

So, in essence, the proposition we have now is that the large crossbow findings from the Han period are proposed as being 6 or 8 stone with such a draw length, completely ignoring the possibility that such draw length crossbows were simply of a much, much lighter draw weight.


So yes, the issue of composite material breaking under draw force was completely the same in China as it was in Europe, which equates the issue the European had and the reason they also made their draw lengths shorter as they increased their draw weight.

In my opinion, the most likely scenario is that little was actually lost during the Song and later the Ming, but that the crossbow situation at the time was identical since the Han period and that their heavy crossbows actually had short draw lengths from the start.

To paraphrase a Ben Stiller movie, I don't know the physics of it. I just know the sound it makes...when it takes another man's life.


Interesting analysis, +1 rep. However, for Han-dynasty period crossbows are we reaching back all the way to the Greco-Roman gastraphetes? The gastraphetes, which was handheld (and cocked by applying pressure of one's stomach down onto it) but large enough to require a prop for mounting it when firing? E. W. Marsden (1969) considered it to be an artillery device, a non-torsion catapult. The Romans of the Imperial period most likely had a smaller handheld crossbow than this, more akin to the later medieval European crossbow, but I think evidence for it is pretty scanty (a passing reference by Arrian and sculpted artwork from Roman Gaul).

Meanwhile, the Chinese of the Han period and prior to that the Warring States and Qin had a far smaller, lightweight crossbow that did not require cocking it with the stomach or mounting it on a prop like the gastraphetes. Aside from the limited archaeological finds, which you've mentioned, it was written about extensively by Han-period authors such as Imperial Secretary Chao Cuo (200-154 BC), who thought it was superior to the nomadic Xiongnu composite bow despite the nomads being incredibly skilled horse archers, far better than the contemporary Han Chinese mounted archers as Chao admits.

In either case, the OP raises interesting questions, ones that I think you effectively answered though. I don't see how medieval European crossbows and their Chinese counterparts during the Song and Ming would have operated incredibly differently than ancient Han-period ones. I know that Chinese movies nowadays have a bunch of guys flying around and defying physics like in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, but that's not how things work in real life, folks.

But that is basically the effective range of warbows and crossbows as well...

Only 100 yards? I think there are some who would disagree about that. For instance, Spencer C. Tucker, "Spring-Powered Artillery Engine," in A Global Chronology of Conflict: from the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East, Volume I, Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, p. 463:

The first mechanical artillery piece was probably the gastraphetes, or belly bow. In essence a large crossbow, it was used to project a large arrow or stone...Fired by one man, the gastraphetes got its name from the fact that the user pushed down with his stomach against the concave butt of the weapon in order to cock the bowstring...The gastraphetes proved an important factor in Dionysius' victory over Motya. With an effective range of some 250 yards, it exceeded that of conventional bows by some 50 yards. It helped clear the defenders from the city's walls and enabled Dionysius to advance six-story siege towers into position.

Tucker thus affirms that contemporary bows in the ancient Greco-Roman world had an effective range of some 200 yards. The gastraphetes exceeded that by about 50 yards. Do you have a scholarly source to refute that statement? Notice how Tucker's book is published by ABC-CLIO, an academic publishing company. Perhaps you can find something credible from a university press?

One must wonder why the gastraphetes wasn't more well-documented, although its use seems to have been superseded by the larger artillery piece known as the oxybeles, as Tucker notes. Fans of Europa Barbarorum II also know what I'm talking about.

After discussing spring-powered artillery of the Middle Ages, including a device invented by Leonardo da Vinci, Tucker also relates how spring-powered engines were reintroduced during WWI. The French, for instance, used a crossbow-like device known as the "grasshopper" that was capable of launching grenades about 100 yards.

[Mamlaz]

Only 100 yards? I think there are some who would disagree about that. For instance, Spencer C. Tucker, "Spring-Powered Artillery Engine," in A Global Chronology of Conflict: from the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East, Volume I, Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, p. 463:

Tucker thus affirms that contemporary bows in the ancient Greco-Roman world had an effective range of some 200 yards. The gastraphetes exceeded that by about 50 yards. Do you have a scholarly source to refute that statement? Notice how Tucker's book is published by ABC-CLIO, an academic publishing company. Perhaps you can find something credible from a university press?

I meant effective battlefield range, shooting at enemy formations effectively.

I know that loads of works of historiography state hundreds of yards/meters, but that it just possible killing range.

Effective killing range is different, and much higher of course, for instance medieval Icelandic law gives Icelandic bows he distance of the flight of an arrow, ördrag (bowshot), in Grágás, the medieval Icelandic law book, requires that the court empowered to confiscate an outlaw's property be held within a bowshot of the outlaw's home (K 62). A later addition to Grágás defines lethal bowshot to be two hundred faðmar(480m), which is a silly distance to assume to be used against a shieldwall.

Similarly, Arrows Against Steel, Vic Hurley, Mason/Charter states the effective range of heavy European crossbows at about 380 yards to 500 yards, yet when talking about effective battlefield range it goes down to 150 yards being the highest possible effective battlefield range, but again, still states it being able to kill at 300 yards.

One must wonder why the gastraphetes wasn't more well-documented

To be fair, it probably was better documented, it is just that very little survives from the Roman period compared to how much writing actually was in circulation at the time.

For instance, we do not have a single surviving textual description of lorica segmentata to my knowledge and scorpio's and other ballista's are only mentioned a few times in vague passing, as simply being there.

We even have a single source describing some kind of "machines" being used on horseback by the Romans, but again, the vast majority of writing was lost forever.

After discussing spring-powered artillery of the Middle Ages, including a device invented by Leonardo da Vinci, Tucker also relates how spring-powered engines were reintroduced during WWI. The French, for instance, used a crossbow-like device known as the "grasshopper" that was capable of launching grenades about 100 yards.

Hey, if it works, it works lol

Syrian rebels even constructed trebuchets during the current Syrian civil war;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKc-QAKv1NQ&t=0m38s

[hellheaven1987]

As history proved again and again, best weapon is the one most cost-efficient, not the one most effective.

Indeed, Ming basic military force was levy who was expected to provide their own equipment with a farmland that was not much bigger than normal farmer. We also need to remember that most its own force and enemies of Ming wore no armor or armor made by paper.

[Roma_Victrix]

Quick question for the OP: is there any comparative evidence from the Sui or Tang dynasty worth mentioning? There's quite a gap between the end of the Han Dynasty in 220 AD and start of the Song Dynasty in 960 AD. If we had surviving evidence from the Tang or even the Three Kingdoms, Western Jin and Southern and Northern Dynasties then we could piece together some sort of narrative for an evolutionary change in crossbows. Or, alternatively, it could just reaffirm a fairly static design from antiquity all the way until the Early Modern period, i.e. the late Ming dynasty (c. 1600-1644).

I meant effective battlefield range, shooting at enemy formations effectively.

I know that loads of works of historiography state hundreds of yards/meters, but that it just possible killing range.

Effective killing range is different, and much higher of course, for instance medieval Icelandic law gives Icelandic bows he distance of the flight of an arrow, ördrag (bowshot), in Grágás, the medieval Icelandic law book, requires that the court empowered to confiscate an outlaw's property be held within a bowshot of the outlaw's home (K 62). A later addition to Grágás defines lethal bowshot to be two hundred faðmar(480m), which is a silly distance to assume to be used against a shieldwall.

Similarly, Arrows Against Steel, Vic Hurley, Mason/Charter states the effective range of heavy European crossbows at about 380 yards to 500 yards, yet when talking about effective battlefield range it goes down to 150 yards being the highest possible effective battlefield range, but again, still states it being able to kill at 300 yards.

I'd rep you again if I could. Thanks for the clarification.

To be fair, it probably was better documented, it is just that very little survives from the Roman period compared to how much writing actually was in circulation at the time.

For instance, we do not have a single surviving textual description of lorica segmentata to my knowledge and scorpio's and other ballista's are only mentioned a few times in vague passing, as simply being there.

We even have a single source describing some kind of "machines" being used on horseback by the Romans, but again, the vast majority of writing was lost forever.

Really makes you wonder about all that was lost with the burning of the Library of Alexandria (by either the Christianized Eastern Romans or the later Rashidun Arab invaders) and destruction of the House of Wisdom in Baghdad by the Mongols. There is at least some evidence for crossbows used by the Romans but the pictorial evidence for it pales in comparison to the massive amounts of carved and sculpted depictions of lorica segmentata armor on various triumphal arches and monumental columns. Funnily enough, though, at least crossbows are mentioned in writing by Arrian in the 2nd century AD, whereas no contemporary mentions of lorica segmentata have survived in Latin literature, as you've pointed out.

Hey, if it works, it works lol

Syrian rebels even constructed trebuchets during the current Syrian civil war;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKc-QAKv1NQ&t=0m38s

Awesome. It's amusing to know that 12th-century siege technology still finds its use in modern warfare. It's a shame that cavalry is beyond outmoded due to mechanized mobility and the power of conventional firearms these days; dragoons riding around with cavalry sabers were sweet. Speaking of WWI, it still boggles the mind that shock cavalry were still so essential only a hundred years ago during that conflict. Well, I suppose it was the last great conflict where they were relevant, given how armored vehicles quickly superseded them by the end of the war.

[sanbourne]

We even have a single source describing some kind of "machines" being used on horseback by the Romans, but again, the vast majority of writing was lost forever.

What exactly would that be? That makes me wonder if there are kind of "weird" roman engines of war that might have existed but we don't know much about them.

[Mamlaz]

What exactly would that be? That makes me wonder if there are kind of "weird" roman engines of war that might have existed but we don't know much about them.

Probably some kind of manuballista;

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

with an obvious requirement to dismount to reload.

Though, Roman torsion devices delivered a heck of a punch and are assumed to reach very heavy draw weights, so I guess, if they indeed did it as Arrian states they did, it was worthwhile doing.

Speaking of WWI, it still boggles the mind that shock cavalry were still so essential only a hundred years ago during that conflict. Well, I suppose it was the last great conflict where they were relevant, given how armored vehicles quickly superseded them by the end of the war.

Well, the Italians did a number of cavalry charges on the eastern front in World War 2, some insanely successful considering the period;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge...at_Izbushensky

[Roma_Victrix]

This thread is so entertaining. I was well aware that the Italians used cavalry in WWII, but I wasn't really familiar with that battle. Thanks for sharing. Your picture of the Roman legionary with the portable, handheld manuballista is fascinating.

[HackneyedScribe]

If you think that is entertaining, I suggest you read this: http://historum.com/asian-history/13...ossbow-ii.html

It addresses everything questioned here with historical/archaeological sourcing to back it up.

[HackneyedScribe]

Addressing the second post, according to bone collagen from excavated tombs, the Han diet was pretty good by ancient standards. What's more, there doesn't seem to be a significant difference in meat consumption between males and females, wealthy and commoner. Han average height for males was about 170 cm.

[Mamlaz]

It does not provide anything on my question at all though.

There is really no proof as to how long the powerstroke of the 4, 6 or 8 stone Han crossbow was.

For all we know, the single finding that powerstroke is based on could be much, much lighter.

Addressing the second post, according to bone collagen from excavated tombs, the Han diet was pretty good by ancient standards. What's more, there doesn't seem to be a significant difference in meat consumption between males and females, wealthy and commoner. Han average height for males was about 170 cm.

Aren't those tombs for the upper class?

Meaning, those far better fed?

[Roma_Victrix]

If you think that is entertaining, I suggest you read this: http://historum.com/asian-history/13...ossbow-ii.html

It addresses everything questioned here with historical/archaeological sourcing to back it up.

Fascinating! Thanks for sharing.

Addressing the second post, according to bone collagen from excavated tombs, the Han diet was pretty good by ancient standards. What's more, there doesn't seem to be a significant difference in meat consumption between males and females, wealthy and commoner. Han average height for males was about 170 cm.

Aren't those tombs for the upper class?

Meaning, those far better fed?

From what I have observed, subterranean tombs were usually built for royalty and nobility, while the grandiose mausoleums in the form of pyramids/mounds were reserved for royalty exclusively. I don't ever remember tombs being built for wealthy merchants of the Han period, let alone for commoners. However, high officials and government bureaucrats were often buried in lavish tombs adorned with luxurious grave goods and painted wall decorations on the inside, while Han-period stone-carved que gate towers still stand outside many of these tombs. Royalty, nobility, and Confucian scholar-officials were all members of the upper class, though, hardly a representative sample of the peasants who were conscripted into the army during Western Han, the volunteers who joined up during Eastern Han, the grunts who made up the smaller professional standing army (Northern Army, Beijun,) or the paid mercenaries who comprised much of the capital guard.

From her 2nd-century BC tomb, we have actual decayed remnants of dishes with food as well as detailed written recipes for meals prepared for the Lady Dai, which included a variety of stews including meat, vegetables, and rice. Other recipes found in tombs included various different meats stuffed into cereals or wrapped in cakes and seasoned with sugar, honey, soy sauce, and salt. The upper class enjoyed a variety of domestic and exotic fruits on their dinner tables, including melons, apricots, strawberries, peaches, plums, pears, and jujubes. Game meat included rabbit, sika deer, goose, owl, pheasant, crane, and magpie meat, while domesticated chickens, Mandarin ducks, cows, sheep, pigs, and of course dogs were consumed (although, judging by all the guard dog statues in tombs decorated with leashes and bells, many were kept as pampered pets). The upper class also obviously enjoyed lots of rice wine but also grape wine from Hellenistic Central Asia.

That being said, the commoners regularly consumed staple foods such as barley, wheat, rice, millet, beans, bamboo shoots, sorghum, and the roots of lotus plants. They also drank a good amount of beer and did so with meat from many of the domesticated animals mentioned above, especially pork. They probably consumed a lot more beer on average than your average Roman in the Mediterranean who, like the Greeks, favored wine (although Romans up north influenced by Celtic and Germanic traditions would have also drank beer, to say nothing of the strong beer-drinking tradition in places like Egypt).

Sources:
Hansen, Valerie, The Open Empire: A History of China to 1600, W.W. Norton & Company, 2000
Wang, Zhongshu, Han Civilization, Yale University Press, 1982

[HackneyedScribe]

It does not provide anything on my question at all though.

There is really no proof as to how long the powerstroke of the 4, 6 or 8 stone Han crossbow was.

For all we know, the single finding that powerstroke is based on could be much, much lighter.

For starters, how much proof do you want? And how does that compare to, say, the evidence for powerstroke of Han crossbows being short or the powerstroke of manuballistas?

But I assure you, evidence for long powerstroke of ancient to medieval Chinese crossbows is way more than one example.

Aren't those tombs for the upper class?

Meaning, those far better fed?

It compares brick lined tombs with multiple rooms with those which are just a body in the dirt. In terms of meat consumption, there is no difference between the two. Upper class did eat mainly millet whereas lower class had the cheaper option of wheat in their diet.

[Mamlaz]

For starters, how much proof do you want?

A single crossbow finding with such a long powerstroke whose draw weight was actually estimated to be so high,

or a single primary source stating both the powestroke and the draw weight being of a certain measure while talking about the same said crossbow.

And how does that compare to, say, the evidence for powerstroke of Han crossbows being short or the powerstroke of manuballistas?

There is basically no data for the manuballistas, only estimates and mist selling.

Draw weights go from 150lbs to 1500lbs, the powerstroke varies wildly depending on how long the bow arms are estimated(considering the torsion mechanism moves the arms backwards instead of flexing them, increasing the powerstroke a bit more) and the energy delivery effectiveness of the torsion mechanism itself estimated from as low as 20% to 50-60% without anything to back it up but opinions.

But I assure you, evidence for long powerstroke of ancient to medieval Chinese crossbows is way more than one example.

Absolutely, the powestroke being long is not the issue.

The issue argued here is merely the powerstroke staying long with heavier draw weights, which is something a lot of people do not believe, including a number of Chinese historiographers which I will quote the moment I manage to find the article I read a year ago about the topic of post-Han crossbows until the Tang.

I do not argue at all that the Chinese crossbows were the most powerful hand held projectile weapon until the invention of the firearm, I merely doubt the powerstroke of the heavy draw pieces somehow being so long in the early dynasties then suddenly being shortened for some reason the moment we actually do get data on the heavy draw weight pieces.

Suspicious, that's all.