Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 230

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

  1. #21

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mamlaz View Post
    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.
    1) There are multiple Qin crossbow findings with powerstroke above 20 inches. Historian Yang Hong in Weapons in Ancient China states that the Qin crossbows (plural) found in Qin Shihuang's tomb had stock lengths of around 71.6 cm. Later findings of Qin crossbows after the book was published were also around the length. At least some of the Qin crossbows were foot drawn.
    2) from the records of Wu and Yue, every stone of draw weight requires an increase in arrow weight, so that a six stone crossbow would be shooting a 93.75 gram arrow. This wouldn't make sense if powerstroke is decreasing with draw weight increasing.
    3) the amount of military crossbows found are mostly of long powerstroke compared to medieval european ones, except mostly mechanically drawn repeating ones. The Chu-Yen slips also show most crossbows to be of six stone draw weight. If what the number implies don't reflect reality, then this is an astronomical coincidence.
    4) the song shi shows that their ShenBiNu crossbow had a stock as long as a meter, and draw weight as heavy as 300 lbs. I will dig up the quote when I'm back to my laptop.

    a single primary source stating both the powestroke and the draw weight being of a certain measure while talking about the same said crossbow.
    Do you have a single primary source showing that high draw weight crossbows invariably have low powerstroke for ancient to medieval Chinese crossbows?

    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.
    1) How do you know Roman torsions pack a hell of a punch, are there primary sources showing both their draw strength and powerstroke?
    2) Roman torsions weapons can be both outswinging and inswinging. Some finds show that they can NOT outswing because the arms would smack against the frame. Also, how do you know the arm length of Roman torsions machines?
    3) calculations of 20 percent efficiency for Roman torsions ballista can be derived from replicas. Meaning it is no longer a guess, as long as you consider that the sinew bundles are not sinew.

    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.
    If you are talking about who I think you are talking about, the guy changed his mind and now believes ancient to medieval Chinese crossbows can have both high draw strength and long powerstroke. This is done by showing him Euler's compression formula and a windlass crossbow just prior to the string being cocked, because during this point the stress of a ton of draw weight is distributed along the entirety of the long stock, not just up to the trigger.

    Also my thread that I linked to also explains the short powerstroke of Ming crossbows. Did you read it? The Han crossbow is built with a sniper rifle mindset. The Ming crossbow is built with a pistol mindset. It's not fair to say the pistol is inferior to the sniper rifle on the basis of shooting power, because the pistol is built for compactness in mind. The Ming crossbow is very tiny compared to both the ancient and Medieval Chinese crossbow and the Medieval European crossbow.
    Last edited by HackneyedScribe; December 16, 2017 at 10:22 PM.

  2. #22

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

    Quote Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
    Also my thread that I linked to also explains the short powerstroke of Ming crossbows. Did you read it? The Han crossbow is built with a sniper rifle mindset. The Ming crossbow is built with a pistol mindset. It's not fair to say the pistol is inferior to the sniper rifle on the basis of shooting power, because the pistol is built for compactness in mind. The Ming crossbow is very tiny compared to both the ancient and Medieval Chinese crossbow and the Medieval European crossbow.
    Couple questions:
    1) Were they both used in mass archery and distributed in large numbers?
    2) How powerful was the Ming crossbow model in terms of penetration and range - given that it had to compete with powerful composite bows (particularly on the enemy's side!) which were probably better than those of Han era archers? I mean, Ming troops must've needed some weapon to counter nomad archers, both mounted and on foot. AFAIK Europeans had good success with crossbows in these scenarios (except at Crécy, for reasons not necessarily related to archery), so in stands to reason that the Chinese should've outfitted their crossbowmen with something that can effectively deal with archers.

  3. #23

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

    Qin-Song crossbows were. Ming crossbows were not, being replaced by gunpowder rockets and arquebus. Gunpowder rockets and guns was what was used to outshoot nomad archers. Ming crossbows couldn't compete with any of them. Ming crossbows were used as a side arm for long pikemen and long swordsmen.this is contrary to Qin-Song crossbows which could outshoot bows in power, albeit not shooting speed and this was consistently reported in different sources of the time period. Ming crossbows were tiny in size and was just a side arm for those wielding large weapons like how pistol are sidearms for modern soldiers.



    Size of all three crossbows are correctly scaled to each other. Notice how the 'trigger handle' of the windlass crossbow adds to stock length without contributing to powerstroke (the area between the yellow and blue lines). This was why I gave the reason for short powerstroke of Medieval European crossbows. High draw weight necessitated a longer lever, and this longer lever requires a longer length of stock for the palm to press against the trigger lever, but this length doesn't contribute to powerstroke.
    Last edited by HackneyedScribe; December 16, 2017 at 10:42 PM.

  4. #24

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

    Quote Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
    1) There are multiple Qin crossbow findings with powerstroke above 20 inches. Historian Yang Hong in Weapons in Ancient China states that the Qin crossbows (plural) found in Qin Shihuang's tomb had stock lengths of around 71.6 cm. Later findings of Qin crossbows after the book was published were also around the length. At least some of the Qin crossbows were foot drawn.
    2) from the records of Wu and Yue, every stone of draw weight requires an increase in arrow weight, so that a six stone crossbow would be shooting a 93.75 gram arrow. This wouldn't make sense if powerstroke is decreasing with draw weight increasing.
    3) the amount of military crossbows found are mostly of long powerstroke compared to medieval european ones, except mostly mechanically drawn repeating ones. The Chu-Yen slips also show most crossbows to be of six stone draw weight. If what the number implies don't reflect reality, then this is an astronomical coincidence.
    Again, I am not arguing against such powerstrokes existing...


    Quote Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
    4) the song shi shows that their ShenBiNu crossbow had a stock as long as a meter, and draw weight as heavy as 300 lbs. I will dig up the quote when I'm back to my laptop.
    Please do.

    Because so far, when it comes to actually providing anything to properly tie the long powestroke with the heavy draw weight crossbows, I found literally nothing apart from your forum posts and people copying your forum post along with a few vague statements about the Han crossbow.



    Quote Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
    Do you have a single primary source showing that high draw weight crossbows invariably have low powerstroke for ancient to medieval Chinese crossbows?
    No, I am not the one making claims or declarative statements here though.


    Quote Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
    1) How do you know Roman torsions pack a hell of a punch, are there primary sources showing both their draw strength and powerstroke?
    Works of historiography state it so.

    Quote Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
    2) Roman torsions weapons can be both outswinging and inswinging. Some finds show that they can NOT outswing because the arms would smack against the frame. Also, how do you know the arm length of Roman torsions machines?

    ...sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
    3) calculations of 20 percent efficiency for Roman torsions ballista can be derived from replicas. Meaning it is no longer a guess, as long as you consider that the sinew bundles are not sinew.
    No, you speak of some amateur reenactment blokes crafting a "reconstruction" back in 2012.

    From what I've read, we still are not sure about the effectiveness and some do state it going up to 50-60%(unlikely that high probably though).



    Quote Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
    If you are talking about who I think you are talking about, the guy changed his mind and now believes ancient to medieval Chinese crossbows can have both high draw strength and long powerstroke. This is done by showing him Euler's compression formula and a windlass crossbow just prior to the string being cocked, because during this point the stress of a ton of draw weight is distributed along the entirety of the long stock, not just up to the trigger.
    I will look into it.


    Quote Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
    Also my thread that I linked to also explains the short powerstroke of Ming crossbows.
    No it doesn't.

    It just writes your own personal theory about it, as weightless as my own criticisms so far.

    Though, a lot of your own assumptions and presumptions in your forum post share the same lack of anything concrete after you throw in the wrench fact that we do not really know the powerstroke of the heavy crossbows and that the whole thing stands on the shaky leg of all the crossbows having a similar powerstroke regardless of draw weight, including the 8 stoner, which very possibly could not be the case, and you know this.

  5. #25

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

    You are basically saying that all the military crossbow prods found belong to the minority of draw weights, and little if any of crossbow stocks represent typical military stocks. Sure, if you believe that then that's your right.
    I still don't see anything about the length of Roman powerstroke lengths for ballistas then. I suppose by the standard that is set, Roman ballistas have short powerstroke like medieval European crossbows. At least we found military crossbows ranging around 28 inches and military records showing that most crossbows have draw weights of 6 stone. I can't say the same for Roman ballistas. Their powerstroke are based on the assumption that Romans were not idiots and would maximize the efficiency of their weaponswith the technology available to them, and historians fill in the blanks of what we don't know based on this. I don't see even a fraction of this standard when it comes to Chinese crossbows. We know they had compact triggers and we know they have long stocks and we know they put the triggers at the end of the stock. The technology was clearly available, and it fits in nicely with written sources.

    Also, I am hardly the first to notice this. For English speaking historians, some notice that most Chinese crossbows have very long powerstroke. Others notice that six stone (387 lbs) crossbows are the most common draw weight. I wasn't the first to put two and two together. I didn't invent the law of large numbers, I only apply it.
    Last edited by HackneyedScribe; December 16, 2017 at 11:48 PM.

  6. #26

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mamlaz View Post

    No, you speak of some amateur reenactment blokes crafting a "reconstruction" back in 2012.

    From what I've read, we still are not sure about the effectiveness and some do state it going up to 50-60%(unlikely that high probably though).

    It's funny, and a blog isn't an amateur bloke, in your opinion? What evidence did you provide than a couple hundred pound draw weight crossbow can't have long powerstroke. A nameless historian that you will "look into"? That's not much in comparison.



    I will look into it.
    Or you could give some other historian who echoes your view. I noticed you used plural, so I assume there is more than one historian.


    No it doesn't.

    It just writes your own personal theory about it, as weightless as my own criticisms so far.

    Though, a lot of your own assumptions and presumptions in your forum post share the same lack of anything concrete after you throw in the wrench fact that we do not really know the powerstroke of the heavy crossbows and that the whole thing stands on the shaky leg of all the crossbows having a similar powerstroke regardless of draw weight, including the 8 stoner, which very possibly could not be the case, and you know this.
    [/Quote]

    There are quotes on the Ming crossbow being small, the sizes are written down in contemporary records. There are quotes that it was used alongside much bigger weapons. That makes the crossbows as sidearms. How is that a theory? Its a much smaller weapon belonging to soldiers carrying much bigger weapons. You asked for contemporary sources, but here you don't accept them.

    Now I don't know why you focus on eight stone crossbows. The most common draw weight mentioned is six stone, and the most common ancient chinese military stock found is around 28 inches. By the medieval period, the Song Shi also mentions that the Shenbi Nu have a stock length of a meter and a draw weight as high as 300 lbs. And if powerstroke decreases significantly for six stone crossbows, then why did they set the standard for quarrel weights to increase by 16 grams per 64.5 lbs of draw weight. This military standardization wouldn't make sense unless if powerstroke was increasing alongside draw weight, or at least not decreasing by a significant amount. Plus, all the records of crossbows being more powerful than bows wouldn't make sense either. All the available evidence would clash if your theory is correct. All the available evidence would fit together if my theory, as you call it, is correct. Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is most likely to be true. The one that causes the most confusion is probably false.
    Last edited by HackneyedScribe; December 17, 2017 at 12:09 AM.

  7. #27

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

    Quote Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
    You are basically saying that all the military crossbow prods found belong to the minority of draw weights
    I do not agree that those draw weights were the minority.


    Quote Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
    I still don't see anything about the length of Roman powerstroke lengths for ballistas then. I suppose by the standard that is set, Roman ballistas have short powerstroke like medieval European crossbows. At least we found military crossbows ranging around 28 inches and military records showing that most crossbows have draw weights of 6 stone. I can't say the same for Roman ballistas. Their powerstroke are based on the assumption that Romans were not idiots and would maximize the efficiency of their weaponswith the technology available to them, and historians fill in the blanks of what we don't know based on this. I don't see even a fraction of this standard when it comes to Chinese crossbows. We know they had compact triggers and we know they have long stocks and we know they put the triggers at the end of the stock. The technology was clearly available, and it fits in nicely with written sources.
    Yeah, I do not understand why you keep coming back to the Romans and their devices...

    I made no arguments through them and the discussion is not about them.

    Quote Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
    Also, I am hardly the first to notice this. For English speaking historians, some notice that most Chinese crossbows have very long powerstroke. Others notice that six stone (387 lbs) crossbows are the most common draw weight. I wasn't the first to put two and two together. I didn't invent the law of large numbers, I only apply it.
    They did not "notice" anything, they assumed, as you assume.

    There is far to little surviving evidence for them to make declarations of how common certain draw weights were before the late Song.


    Quote Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
    It's funny, and a blog isn't an amateur bloke, in your opinion?
    What are you talking about?


    Quote Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
    What evidence did you provide than a couple hundred pound draw weight crossbow can't have long powerstroke. A nameless historian that you will "look into"? That's not much in comparison.
    That is the case yes

    Quote Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
    There are quotes on the Ming crossbow being small, the sizes are written down in contemporary records. There are quotes that it was used alongside much bigger weapons. That makes the crossbows as sidearms. How is that a theory? Its a much smaller weapon belonging to soldiers carrying much bigger weapons. You asked for contemporary sources, but here you don't accept them.
    The theory is the reason you theorize of why it was so, no that it was so.

  8. #28

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mamlaz View Post
    I do not agree that those draw weights were the minority.
    You agree that low power draw weights are the minority. But you think all the military crossbows excavated belong to low power draw weight crossbows, so you believe most excavated crossbow stock found belong to the minority. This contradicts the law of large numbers.




    Yeah, I do not understand why you keep coming back to the Romans and their devices...

    I made no arguments through them and the discussion is not about them.
    You said Roman torsions engines packs a hell of a punch. That requires a long powerstroke, or it won't pack a hell of a punch for its size. The evidence given for long Roman powerstroke for their torsions artillery is much less than the evidence I have given for long powerstroke of ancient-medieval Chinese crossbows. Historians believe Roman torsions machines had long powerstroke because that allows the machine to match the claims of Roman records on their machine's performance. Thats reasonable for me. For evidence on Chinese crossbows, we got more evidence than that.


    They did not "notice" anything, they assumed, as you assume.

    There is far to little surviving evidence for them to make declarations of how common certain draw weights were before the late Song.
    The Chu-Yen slips are contemporary slips that lied buried, untouched until relatively recently. Tons of them mention crossbows and their draw weights. Historians such as Yang Hong noticed that the majority of crossbows mentioned belonged to the six stone category. Again, it's the law of large numbers.


    What are you talking about?
    So far the only one who theorized that a long crossbow stock would snap under several hundred lbs draw weight came from a blog written year ago. You theorized the same thing when you said you read it a year ago. If that's not the source you read, then please provide the source like I asked.

    That is the case yes



    The theory is the reason you theorize of why it was so, no that it was so.
    I said the Ming crossbow was a sidearm. My 'theory' is that the Ming crossbow is designed as sidearms. Right now you seem to disagree only with the theory that Ming crossbows were designed as a sidearm, but don't disagree that Ming crossbows were sidearms....Are you saying that the Ming crossbow which were sidearms, are not designed as a sidearm? Is your chair not designed as a chair? Is not your car designed as a car? You really going to call those as theories?
    Last edited by HackneyedScribe; December 17, 2017 at 12:44 AM.

  9. #29

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

    Quote Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
    .

    I don't know why you focus on eight stone crossbows. The most common draw weight mentioned is six stone, and the most common ancient chinese military stock found is around 28 inches. By the medieval period, the Song Shi also mentions that the Shenbi Nu have a stock length of a meter and a draw weight as high as 300 lbs. And if powerstroke decreases significantly for six stone crossbows, then why did they set the standard for quarrel weights to increase by 16 grams per 64.5 lbs of draw weight. This military standardization wouldn't make sense unless if powerstroke was increasing alongside draw weight, or at least not decreasing by a significant amount. Plus, all the records of crossbows being more powerful than bows wouldn't make sense either. All the available evidence would clash if your theory is correct. All the available evidence would fit together if my theory, as you call it, is correct. Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is most likely to be true. The one that causes the most confusio is probably false.
    It is my understanding that we don't have a lot of surving stocks and virtually no prods from ancient Chinese crossbows. Just how big is our sample size for the stock length; It is small, only a handful, then it might just bad the luck of the draw that we only have those for the lower power bows. "Average" value doesn't much if we only have a few samples to rely on. So just how many stocks are we talking about? We may be making an erroneous assumption that the few stocks we have.

    Your argument about quarrel size with draw weight is invalid. Medieval European crossbows increased rhe bolt mass wirh higher draw weights, even though the powerstroke was less. Higher mass bolts are more efficient for higher dras weights, it has nothing to do with draw length.

    The source I read only gave 200 lbs for the Shen Bi Nu draw weight, somewhat less than what you gave. With a short draw stroke typical of Ming crossbows, even at 300 lbs it would not very powerful, not much more than a typical hunting bow, and less than a 100 lbs longbow or Mongolian bow. The source also gave a prod length of 1.44 m for She Bi Nu.


    You seem to believe that the ancient to Song dynasty crossgows had both high draw weight and a long draw length. so what is your explanation as to why the Ming had such a short draw on a crossbow like the Yao Kai Nu? The common explanation/that the HAN/Song trigger mechanism was lost doesn't seem to fly, since I have seem Ming crossbows with the trigger at the back. The Ming triggers, inferior or not, could clearly handle the load. And with a 2 m prod, they didn't gain in making it more compact.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; December 17, 2017 at 02:23 AM.

  10. #30

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

    Quote Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
    .

    Nhistoriat know why you focus on eight stone crossbows. The most common draw weight mentioned is six stone, and the most common ancient chinese military stock found is around 28 inches. By the medieval period, the Song Shi also mentions that the Shenbi Nu have a stock length of a meter and a draw weight as high as 300 lbs. And if powerstroke decreases signacceptly for six stone crossbows, then why did they set the standard for quarrel weights to increase by 16 grams per 64.5 lbs of draw weight. This military standardization wouldn't make sense unless if powerstroke was increasing alongside draw weight, or at least not decreasing by a significant amount. Plus, all the records of crossbows being more powerful than bows wouldn't make sense either. All the available evidence would clash if your theory is correct. All the available evidence would fit together if my theory, as you call it, is correct. Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is most likely to be true. The one that causes the most confusion is probably false.
    It is my understanding that we don't have a lot ofserving stocks and virtually no prods from ancient Chinese crossbows. Just how big is our sample size for the stock length; It is small, only a handful, then it might just bad the luck of thd draw that we only have those for the lower power bows. "Average" value doesn't much if we only have a few samples to rely on. So just how many stocks are we talking about? And what is our sample size for the draw weight? We may be making an erroneous assumption that the few stocks we have.

    The source I read only gave 200 lbs for the She Big Nu draw weight, somewhat less than what you gave. With a short draw stroke typical of Ming crossbows, even at 300 lbs it would not very powerful, not much more than a typical hunting bow, and less than a 100 lbs longbow or Mongolian bow.

    You seem to believe than the ancient to Song dynasty crossgows had both high draw weight and a long draw length. so what is your explanation as to why the Ming had such a short draw on a crossbow like the Yao Kai Nu? The common explanation/that the HAN/Song trigger mechanism was lost doesn't seem to fly, since I have seem Ming crossbows with the trigger at the back. The Ming triggers, inferior or not, could clearly handle the load. And with a 2 m prod, they didn't gain in making it more compact.

  11. #31

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

    Quote Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
    1) There are multiple Qin crossbow findings with powerstroke above 20 inches. Historian Yang Hong in Weapons in Ancient China states that the Qin crossbows (plural) found in Qin Shihuang's tomb had stock lengths of around 71.6 cm. Later findings of Qin crossbows after the book was published were also around the length. At least some of the Qin crossbows were foot drawn.
    2) from the records of Wu and Yue, every stone of draw weight requires an increase in arrow weight, so that a six stone crossbow would be shooting a 93.75 gram arrow. This wouldn't make sense if powerstroke is decreasing with draw weight increasing.
    3) the amount of military crossbows found are mostly of long powerstroke compared to medieval european ones, except mostly mechanically drawn repeating ones. The Chu-Yen slips also show most crossbows to be of six stone draw weight. If what the number implies don't reflect reality, then this is an astronomical coincidence.
    4) the song shi shows that their ShenBiNu crossbow had a stock as long as a meter, and draw weight as heavy as 300 lbs. I will dig up the quote when I'm back to my laptop.



    Do you have a single primary source showing that high draw weight crossbows invariably have low powerstroke for ancient to medieval Chinese crossbows?



    1) How do you know Roman torsions pack a hell of a punch, are there primary sources showing both their draw strength and powerstroke?
    2) Roman torsions weapons can be both outswinging and inswinging. Some finds show that they can NOT outswing because the arms would smack against the frame. Also, how do you know the arm length of Roman torsions machines?
    3) calculations of 20 percent efficiency for Roman torsions ballista can be derived from replicas. Meaning it is no longer a guess, as long as you consider that the sinew bundles are not sinew.



    If you are talking about who I think you are talking about, the guy changed his mind and now believes ancient to medieval Chinese crossbows can have both high draw strength and long powerstroke. This is done by showing him Euler's compression formula and a windlass crossbow just prior to the string being cocked, because during this point the stress of a ton of draw weight is distributed along the entirety of the long stock, not just up to the trigger.

    Also my thread that I linked to also explains the short powerstroke of Ming crossbows. Did you read it? The Han crossbow is built with a sniper rifle mindset. The Ming crossbow is built with a pistol mindset. It's not fair to say the pistol is inferior to the sniper rifle on the basis of shooting power, because the pistol is built for compactness in mind. The Ming crossbow is very tiny compared to both the ancient and Medieval Chinese crossbow and the Medieval European crossbow.
    You are using the average draw weight from one dynasry and the stock length from a different dynasrty. You assume the draw weight average for the Qin is the same as for the other dynasties, but this need not be true. The average draw weight for the Ming dynasty wasn't as high as for the previous dynasties, so the Qin does not have to be as high. Do you have average draw weights from the Qin dynasty itself?

    As for the Roman ballista, yes there is archaeological evidence for their power. You can see the power demonstrated in skeletons found in Maiden Head, England, and the location and size of Roman ballista balls gives us solid evidence of the range and power of the Roman engines, more archaeological evidence than for the Chinese. Do you have any ancient skeleton demonstrating the power of the Chinese crossbows and engines? Or ranges based on archaeological rather than just written records?

    As for your arguments regarding the Ming crossbows I have already showed has issues. The Yao Kai Nu certainly was not a pistol, and clearly never meant to be, yet it had a relatively short powerstroke. Your argument in another post that rockets and guns meant you no longer needed crossbows to outrange the nomad's arrows is equally false. Arbeques did not have effectice ranges longer than arrows, because they became too inaccurate much beyond 100 yards, and the Mongolia bows had that range (English longbows did). Samething for rockets. Crossbows were more accurate longer ranges than guns until they became riflee, and the Ming did not rifle their guns. Also, while the Ming did not use crossbows much, they did use powerful regular bows, and the Chinese continued to use bows even after guns. If anything, it was the adoption of powerful regular bows that might have led to the decline of crossbows - England preferred their longbows to crossbows in battle too. Continental Europe chose crossbows partly because they did not have a pool of archers using powerful bows as England did. Perhaps the Ming acquired a greater pool of archers capable of using very powerful bows comparable to Mongolian, rendering the crossbow no longer needed.

    Also, the Ming crossbows were not very pistol like, and were not "tiny", the European crossbows were not much larger, and they were far more than pistols. Although, with their relatively low draw weight and short powerstroke, thus being rather weak,mthey probably functioned like pistols, being a close range weapon for defense. i wonder if they were mostly carried by just officers like pistols?.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; December 18, 2017 at 02:14 AM.

  12. #32

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

    The only evidence you use for short Han crossbow stocks was because late Ming crossbows had short crossbow stocks. That's almost a 1500 year gap between the two time periods. Now I used the Qin crossbow stocks to say that ancient Chinese crossbows had long powerstroke, because the Qin is during the ancient era. The late Ming is during the Renaissance era. If you think my logic is unsound, then what about yours? What other 'evidence' do you have except the crossbow design of something that existed a millennium later? On the other hand, the time difference between the Han and the Qin is minimal, as one superceded the other. Plus, there is the fact that at least some Qin crossbowmen were foot drawn crossbowmen, which means the crossbow is drawn to well over 200 lbs as even I can draw a crossbow of 200 lbs with my arms.

    The Roman empire transitioned through multiple dynasties as well, but here I am seeing you are using single finds to represent an empire of many dynasties. You do not give the same leeway to two Chinese dynasties that existed right next to each other in the timeline. Also the one excavated sample I've seen about the range of Roman torsions artllery shows it to be firing downhill to 175 meters. Of course, chances are they wee firing below their maximum range. I don't see how you think that shows archaeological evidence for the range of torsions machinery though. Because 175 m isn't that great, albeit I know it's higher due to recorded evidence and replica evidence. But don't say there's archaeological evidence when there is none.

    Let us say there are five excavated Qin crossbow stocks found. For all of them to represent the the "nonaverage" stock (say 30%) would require a probability of 0.3*0.3*0.3*0.3*0.3. You have a better chance of winning at gambling, or getting struck by lightning.

    Now, the YaoKaiNu have a powerstroke of 12 inches as opposed the the 6.5 inches of the JueZhangNu. This is already a significant increase in powerstroke length already. The author can't increase it by anymore with the stock length that he is used to. If a 12 inch powerstroke can support a 1050 lb draw weight prod, then why can't a 19 inch powerstroke support a far smaller draw weight of 400 lbs?

    The Shen Bi Nu has a powerstroke of more than that of Han crossbows, because the stock is a meter in length. At 300 lbs it would be equivalent to a Han crossbow of something more than 300 lbs. In my thread I linked to, the windlass medieval crossbow of 976 lbs don't seem to be more powerful than a badly built hand drawn ShenBiNu of 160 lbs.

    There is no record of Medieval crossbows using some standardized arrow whose weight increases per X amount of draw weight. That is a Han standard. If draw weights is the sole determination for which arrow weight to use, then it is a wonder why Medieval crossbows use quarrels of 60-80 grams despite their massively high draw weight, when 60-80 grams is the weight of arrows for bows

    Ming crossbows have half the length of Medieval European crossbows. The former is tiny enough to be strapped on a belt while fighting with a great sword. The Eruopean windlass crossbow shown is not. Did you not see the picture I provided? What makes you think the Ming crossbow prod shown in the pictures have a length anywhere near 2 meters?

    You were agreeing wih Mamiaz that accuracy at range did not factor in to why the crossbow was replaced with gunpowder weapons. Now in order to disagree with me you say the exact opposite of what you agreed to previously.
    Last edited by HackneyedScribe; December 17, 2017 at 08:22 AM.

  13. #33

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

    Quote Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
    Let us say there are five excavated Qin crossbow stocks found. For all of them to represent the the "nonaverage" stock (say 30%) would require a probability of 0.3*0.3*0.3*0.3*0.3. You have a better chance of winning at gambling, or getting struck by lightning.
    That is grossly incorrect. There is a lot of other factors in play when it comes to archeology that makes any law of probabily virtually unapplicable. Also, when you say "Let us say" you mean there aren't even 5 crossbow stockes excavated or are there just five?
    "We will bring Rome to them not because of the strength of our legions, but because we are right"

    "The Romans had left marble and stone, brick and glory."

  14. #34

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

    Except in this case the crossbows are found in the Qin terracotta army armed with actual weapons meant to represent an actual army. So how is that incorrect? All I know is that Yang Hong knows of at least several Qin crossbows with stocks intact enough to be measured, and more were found after his book was published. Five was just a number I made up to show a mathematical example. Don't read too much into it.

    Seriously, right now the basic argument is 'bad luck' in finding long powerstroke crossbows instead of more typical short ones, and I suppose it's also bad luck that records indicate ancient-medieval crossbows with long powerstroke are also bad luck, and it's bad luck that the metal quarrelsfound in Qin ShiHuang's spit 2 is so heavy as bad luck, or crossbowmen found in sitting positions as bad luck. How much bad luck and 'coincidence' are people entitled to throw here?.

    I also don't see how archaeological evidence of how Roman quarrels being lodged in someone's spine or other body parts is indicative of it's power, that only tells us that it is powerful enough to Lodge in someone's spine. Plus, it's not indicative of how big the shooting machine is. If the bolt was shot from a ballista the size of a house, then if should fly straight through the man completely. Being lodged in a any part of the body would be underwhelming from a quarrel shot from a large ballista.. The Qin mausoleum also have a skull with a bolt lodged into it, if that makes people happy.

    Also here is heavenlykaghan's post on Song draw weights: http://historum.com/asian-history/12...g-army-16.html

    Note Song Shenbinu were about a meter in length or 40 inches
    Last edited by HackneyedScribe; December 17, 2017 at 09:21 AM.

  15. #35

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

    Now let's see the evidence available here for ancient-medieval Chinese crossbows:
    Chu-Yen slips show high draw weight
    Chu-Yen records show high penetration power, able to shoot through a wooden wall (fence?) At 252 meters
    Records of Wu and Yue's arrow grading scale indicate higher crossbow power as draw weight increases
    Archaeological evidence indicates long powerstroke of military crossbows based on excavated crossbow stocks
    Song Shi indicate even longer draw weight.
    Written records indicate high shooting power, more than that of a bow
    We know they had the technology for compact triggers that allow high powerstroke and high draw weight.

    Evidence against:
    A Ming military blog(I admit an impressive one) whose author later changed his mind. Even if you don't agree with the evidence, then at least bring better evidence of your own.
    Last edited by HackneyedScribe; December 17, 2017 at 09:17 AM.

  16. #36
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,243

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

    Quote Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
    Except in this case the crossbows are found in the Qin terracotta army armed with actual weapons meant to represent an actual army. So how is that incorrect? All I know is that Yang Hong knows of at least several Qin crossbows with stocks intact enough to be measured, and more were found after his book was published. Five was just a number I made up to show a mathematical example. Don't read too much into it.
    Instead of just claiming these things to be true, it would help to dispel people's doubts if you would just link to a credible academic website explaining all of this. You've linked to blog posts thus far, but that's not good enough. Why not share an article from JSTOR? Or something from a university press? A passage from a chapter in a Cambridge history series would be a perfect demonstration that what you're saying is legitimate.

    I was at least able to find a South China Morning Post news article about a Qin crossbow: Ancient China Qin dynasty crossbow found at China’s Terracotta Army site may reveal secret of emperor’s success: A 2,200-year old 1.3-metre long crossbow believed to have had a range of up to 800 metres has been found by archaeologists during excavations in China

    The article also shares pictures of the find. Here's the part that's relevant to our conversation:

    Quote Originally Posted by South China Morning Post article
    Previous crossbows found buried at the site had been badly damaged, causing researchers difficulty in estimating the effectiveness and power of the weapon, Shen said.

    However, the newly uncovered crossbow remained well preserved and had almost all of its parts intact.

    The ancient weapon contained some rare parts that researchers had only read about in historical documents, he said.

    It will still take a lot more work by archaeologists to retrieve the fragile bow in its entirety from the site.

    Shen said they would carry out the final part of excavation work on the bow with the utmost care as it was very fragile.

    For the moment it remained half buried in ground alongside a terracotta warrior, he said.
    This article is from 2015 and was updated 2016. Did Yang Hong just publish his findings this year? If not, this article seems to contradict what you're saying about several Qin crossbows with stocks being intact enough to measure. Sounds to me like we only have one solid surviving specimen from the site, one that's finally intact enough to make general observations about crossbows.

  17. #37

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

    Quote Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
    Except in this case the crossbows are found in the Qin terracotta army armed with actual weapons meant to represent an actual army.
    Is that a guess or is it backed up by other sources? Because monuments tend to be idealized. Like Trajan's column, which meant to represent a real military campaign but shows a Roman army that is widely accepted to be idealized and do not match how the real roman army would look. It can give good information about the Roman army in campaign, but it needs to be interpreted. So it's not impossible, indeed it's likely, that the Terracotta army follows a similar logic. For all intends and purposes the crossbows there might have never been intended to be fired, or were not practical for a battle. Or maybe they show an unproportinal number of this or that type of weapon, let it be crossbow or any other.

    Also, when we talk about powerstroke length of Han crossbows, do they come from archeology from that period or from the Qin? And people just assume they are the same or can be compared?

    Five was just a number I made up to show a mathematical example. Don't read too much into it .
    Use mathematical theory might give an argument a shadow of legitimacy, but not if it's used incorrectly. Probability is not simple, and the simple fact that the crossbow were all find it the same place give them a bias that doesn't drastically change how any probability theory can be applied.
    "We will bring Rome to them not because of the strength of our legions, but because we are right"

    "The Romans had left marble and stone, brick and glory."

  18. #38

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sanbourne View Post
    Is that a guess or is it backed up by other sources? Because monuments tend to be idealized. Like Trajan's column, which meant to represent a real military campaign but shows a Roman army that is widely accepted to be idealized and do not match how the real roman army would look. It can give good information about the Roman army in campaign, but it needs to be interpreted. So it's not impossible, indeed it's likely, that the Terracotta army follows a similar logic. For all intends and purposes the crossbows there might have never been intended to be fired, or were not practical for a battle. Or maybe they show an unproportinal number of this or that type of weapon, let it be crossbow or any other.

    Also, when we talk about powerstroke length of Han crossbows, do they come from archeology from that period or from the Qin? And people just assume they are the same or can be compared?



    Use mathematical theory might give an argument a shadow of legitimacy, but not if it's used incorrectly. Probability is not simple, and the simple fact that the crossbow were all find it the same place give them a bias that doesn't drastically change how any probability theory can be applied.
    Trajan's column depicts minitature sculptures of an army. The QinShiHuang's Terra cotta army contains Real weapons that can be used to Kill people. Trajan's column shows only depictions of weapons. Why did you think I used Qin ShiHuang's army instead of the load of art depictions? Art can display fantasy, Qin ShiHuang's terracotta army. Shows real weapons that you can grab a hold of and use.

    If I wanted art I would show this Qing painting:

    https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HigZfmHa1...iu_gu_miao.png

    When speaking of Roman torsions artillery, did you give torsions artillery evidence for each Roman dynasty? You are silent when people use reinassance era Ming crossbows to depict the powerstroke of ancient Chinese crossbows. You speak out when ancient Chinese crossbows were used to de the powerstroke of ancient Chinese crossbows of an adjacent dynasty separated by several years.

    You haven't shown how the math was used incorrectly. Just saying something is incorrect doesn't make it so.

  19. #39

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    Instead of just claiming these things to be true, it would help to dispel people's doubts if you would just link to a credible academic website explaining all of this. You've linked to blog posts thus far, but that's not good enough. Why not share an article from JSTOR? Or something from a university press? A passage from a chapter in a Cambridge history series would be a perfect demonstration that what you're saying is legitimate.

    I was at least able to find a South China Morning Post news article about a Qin crossbow: Ancient China Qin dynasty crossbow found at China’s Terracotta Army site may reveal secret of emperor’s success: A 2,200-year old 1.3-metre long crossbow believed to have had a range of up to 800 metres has been found by archaeologists during excavations in China

    The article also shares pictures of the find. Here's the part that's relevant to our conversation:



    This article is from 2015 and was updated 2016. Did Yang Hong just publish his findings this year? If not, this article seems to contradict what you're saying about several Qin crossbows with stocks being intact enough to measure. Sounds to me like we only have one solid surviving specimen from the site, one that's finally intact enough to make general observations about crossbows.
    Yang Hong is a book written by a historian. Not a blog. I did not use a blog as a source, where did I do that? I summarized the sources on post 35. You should read it.

    Plus, the news article is filled with click bait. If I took the article for granted, then 800 meters is a hell of a range. There are other Qin crossbow stocks with the dimensions available. This one is intact enough that we can see the string. But that does not mean there aren't older finds in which we can measure the stock length. I guarantee you that if you search through the same click-bait heading you will find at least another excavated crossbow which looks to be the same length. That's because click-bait news isn't trustworthy. Also, if Yang Hong was just guessing, then that is one hell of an accurate guess based on the newest find available. Such articles also claim it has the power of an AK-47 and other BS. This would actually support my argument, but I don't use these sources because they are click-bait. I can, however, use the recorded dimensions...
    Last edited by HackneyedScribe; December 17, 2017 at 10:11 AM.

  20. #40

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

    Quote Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
    Trajan's column depicts minitature sculptures of an army. The QinShiHuang's Terra cotta army contains Real weapons that can be used to Kill people. Trajan's column shows only depictions of weapons. Why did you think I used Qin ShiHuang's army instead of the load of art depictions? Art can display fantasy, Qin ShiHuang's terracotta army. Shows real weapons that you can grab a hold of and use.
    The Terracotta army in itself is an art depiction. A likelife one, but art nonetheless. You said nothing to defend the idea that it's a realistic representation of an actual army.

    You haven't shown how the math was used incorrectly. Just saying something is incorrect doesn't make it so.
    Ok...
    "We will bring Rome to them not because of the strength of our legions, but because we are right"

    "The Romans had left marble and stone, brick and glory."

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •