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

[Hurricane Six]

Found a reconstruction of Giant Crossbow based on Da Vinci’s design. It is, perhaps, the most powerful crossbow on the planet. (~1,000 joules). Maximum range attained is 20 yards (yes 20 yards!) for a 9 kg ball. After that, the crossbow broke. It took a team of 10 craftsmen and engineers 3 months to build using modern methods: https://www.theslingshotforum.com/threads/the-da-vinci-slingshot-cannon-challenge.28696/



It supports the reality that you cannot supersize something and expect it to act like the small version. Another nail in the coffin for giant crossbows.

[Common Soldier]

Found a reconstruction of Giant Crossbow based on Da Vinci’s design. It is, perhaps, the most powerful crossbow on the planet. (~1,000 joules). Maximum range attained is 20 yards (yes 20 yards!) for a 9 kg ball. After that, the crossbow broke. It took a team of 10 craftsmen and engineers 3 months to build using modern methods: https://www.theslingshotforum.com/threads/the-da-vinci-slingshot-cannon-challenge.28696/



It supports the reality that you cannot supersize something and expect it to act like the small version. Another nail in the coffin for giant crossbows.

That is my issue with the alleged power of the Han dynasty crossbows. They assume that results from a much lighter crossbow will still be applicable to a much heavier crossbow, and that might not be the case. I think the reason no one has tried making a replica of a heavy Han dynasty crossbow is that they actually have, but the results were so poor, they didn't share them.

[Common Soldier]

PS. While looking up the Giant Crossbow link, I came across some videos of a guy would made ballista machines using giant rubber bands. He created some that had a lot of power to them. One, that was inspired by the 4 arm crossbow used to kill Smaug in the Hobbit movie, achieved 1536 J shooting a 3kg bolt. Here is the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ool1i98Z_J0


Just building a crossbow with bigger prods will reach limitations, which is why the Greeks and Romans went with torsion machines, they scaled up better than tension machine. The BBC built a giant ballista that shot a 27 kg (60 lbs) stone ball, and while not properly designed (it broke after a few shots), it still managed 90 m. Philo of Byzantium said they had a range of 160 m.

[Hurricane Six]

That is my issue with the alleged power of the Han dynasty crossbows. They assume that results from a much lighter crossbow will still be applicable to a much heavier crossbow, and that might not be the case. I think the reason no one has tried making a replica of a heavy Han dynasty crossbow is that they actually have, but the results were so poor, they didn't share them.

They did make a large triple prod crossbow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS73nT5qENk.They

They managed a maximum velocity of 28 m/s for a javelin sized projectile, which would manage a range of 80 meters in vacuum, quite a bit less than an Olympic javelin thrower. The certified unlimited composite bow/crossbow range record stands at 566 meters.

Just building a crossbow with bigger prods will reach limitations, which is why the Greeks and Romans went with torsion machines, they scaled up better than tension machine. The BBC built a giant ballista that shot a 27 kg (60 lbs) stone ball, and while not properly designed (it broke after a few shots), it still managed 90 m. Philo of Byzantium said they had a range of 160 m.

Philo was referring to point blank range (likely against a large wall), not maximum. PBR refers to the maximum range of a projectile when flying it flat with no adjustment for range. A rifle may have a PBR of 250 meters against 12 inch target, but that is far from its maximum range.

The lowest ranges I have seen for ballista was ~400 meters, but these were for the earlier machines (outswingers), not inswingers. Calculations based on a more modern hatra style ballista: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/me...-roman-legions, produce a range of 786 meters with a 21.8 kg stone ball @ 118 m/s, resulting in an energy of 151 kj, or nearly ten times that of the warwick trebuchet. With a lead ball @ 45 degrees, range would exceed 1,200 meters w/ air resistance. Seems incredible, but reconstructions of torsion catapults confirm the performance:

Orsova Ballista reconstruction: http://alexisphoenix.org/ballista.php
The Orsova ballista reached a range of 1,000 yards and velocity over 120 m/s. It is only at ~50 degrees for the arms. A proper reconstruction should have ~110 degrees.

Torsion Catapult Reconstruction: https://www.nj.com/entertainment/art...at_punkin.html
Chucky II can launch a 4.5 kg pumpkin (a terribly un-aerodynamic projectile to 1,000 meters @ over 400 mph (180 m/s). With a 4.5 kg lead ball, which is 12x more dense than a pumpkin, it can reach over 2,000 meters! It is less than ten times the size of the warwick trebuchet, but generates 4x the kinetic energy w/ a far lighter lighter projectile (which reduces efficiency).

[Common Soldier]

They did make a large triple prod crossbow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS73nT5qENk.They

They managed a maximum velocity of 28 m/s for a javelin sized projectile, which would manage a range of 80 meters in vacuum, quite a bit less than an Olympic javelin thrower. The certified unlimited composite bow/crossbow range record stands at 566 meters.


A triple bow might overcome tne limitation of just building a bigger, thicker prod. I saw a video once of someone building a triple crossbow, and seemed to nave impressive range, a couple hundred meters is my guess, but it was all in Chinese, so I don't know.




Philo was referring to point blank range (likely against a large wall), not maximum. PBR refers to the maximum range of a projectile when flying it flat with no adjustment for range. A rifle may have a PBR of 250 meters against 12 inch target, but that is far from its maximum range.

The lowest ranges I have seen for ballista was ~400 meters, but these were for the earlier machines (outswingers), not inswingers. Calculations based on a more modern hatra style ballista: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/me...-roman-legions, produce a range of 786 meters with a 21.8 kg stone ball @ 118 m/s, resulting in an energy of 151 kj, or nearly ten times that of the warwick trebuchet. With a lead ball @ 45 degrees, range would exceed 1,200 meters w/ air resistance. Seems incredible, but reconstructions of torsion catapults confirm the performance: 

The recreations of ballistas seem to indicate more of a range of 300 m. Scrhamms reconstructed ballista tnrough a stone ball (1 - 2kg, I think) around 300 m. His arrow throwing ballista shot a large arrow 370 m Crossbow maker Tod Todeschini built a spear shooting ballista that shot 319 m, but he only had 11 days to build it, and Tod felt he could have gotten more range with time.

Roman ballista balls were stocked pile about 300 m outside the walls of the Judean town of Gamala, which was besieged by the Romans during tne F;irst Jewish Revolt. The location might indicate the location of the ballistas and hence their range. So I would say the effective range of a stone throwing ballista was probably around 300 m, maybe a litte less for heavier projectiles.

I am skeptical of shooting a large 21 kg stone ball 786 m, which is a lot more than any reconstruction has done so far. While I realize that the Romans, with centuries of experience behind them, would like do considerably better than any reconstructionist, to go from 300 m to 786 m is a huge amount of improvement



Orsova Ballista reconstruction: http://alexisphoenix.org/ballista.php
The Orsova ballista reached a range of 1,000 yards and velocity over 120 m/s. It is only at ~50 degrees for the arms. A proper reconstruction should have ~110 degrees. 

I tnought that Orsova said in his blog that he found that to be the most effective amount of swing. Still, his inswinger design seems far more powerful rhan any outswinger reconstrudtion I have seen. But his was a spear/javelin thrower, which will go father than a stone ball.

Some of Roman reliefs clearly show an outswinger design with the box like structure. I think ot may be that the wood box like structure desing limited how far apart you could have tne rope springs, forcing them to go to an outswinger. Later, with a more rigid metal structure. they could move tne springs further apart and then switch to an inswinger, giving the ballistas more range since you can swing tne arms more.

Base on what Vegetius said, it appeared that in later Roman times, when we see the all metal ballistas, ballistas nnad become mostly spear shooting engines, and stone projecting was taken over by tne one arm onagers




Torsion Catapult Reconstruction: https://www.nj.com/entertainment/art...at_punkin.html
Chucky II can launch a 4.5 kg pumpkin (a terribly un-aerodynamic projectile to 1,000 meters @ over 400 mph (180 m/s). With a 4.5 kg lead ball, which is 12x more dense than a pumpkin, it can reach over 2,000 meters! It is less than ten times the size of the warwick trebuchet, but generates 4x the kinetic energy w/ a far lighter lighter projectile (which reduces efficiency).

Chucky II was done with modern materials - stronger steel, lower friction bearingx and washers, and such, than would have been available to thr Romans. So I don't think its range can necessarily be extrapolated to more ancient machines. Still, it does mean tnat perhaps we shouldn't dismiss the range of Josephus 1 talent machine of 400 yards (2 stadia) out of hand as an exaggeration.

[Hurricane Six]

A triple bow might overcome tne limitation of just building a bigger, thicker prod. I saw a video once of someone building a triple crossbow, and seemed to nave impressive range, a couple hundred meters is my guess, but it was all in Chinese, so I don't know.

I think you are right on that. Just by trial and error an observant individual would notice that the efficiency and range of a bow/crossbow decreases as the prod becomes larger and heavier. Notice the decrease in dry fire speed from the shortest 44 inch bow to the largest 60 inch bow:

http://www.atarn.org/islamic/Performance/Performance_of_Turkish_bows_files/image010.gif

Was the one you saw full size, or was it small with short bow prods? I think I know which one you are talking about. It shot to +/-170 meters@ 30 degrees. However, the crux of my argument is that larger prods will fire slowly as compared to short prods. I have no problem believing the unlimited composite bow/crossbow record of 566 meters. With a short composite bow and flight arrows, significant ranges can be achieved.

The recreations of ballistas seem to indicate more of a range of 300 m. Scrhamms reconstructed ballista tnrough a stone ball (1 - 2kg, I think) around 300 m. His arrow throwing ballista shot a large arrow 370 m Crossbow maker Tod Todeschini built a spear shooting ballista that shot 319 m, but he only had 11 days to build it, and Tod felt he could have gotten more range with time.

Schramm’s 370 meter shot was against a metal plated shield. That tells me that it was not a maximum range, shot. Hitting a shield at 370 meters @ 40 degrees elevation is a crap-shoot. At a projectiles maximum range, it is useful only against large targert concentrations. Nick watts shot his ballista @ 800 meters (near maximum range) against a man sized target, and while he was within 5-10 meters of the target, he was never able to hit it.

Here is another orsova reconstruction w/ oiled horse hair: http://www2.hsu-hh.de/hisalt/projects/ag_torsion_2016.htm

They have achieved 550+ meters @ 86 degree arm rotation w/ good accuracy: http://www2.hsu-hh.de/hisalt/project...eeinander3.jpg. Enough to hit a small group (~30 soldiers) relatively consistently @ 500 meters. Projectile was nearly 10 ounces in weight, which meant it would be lethal at any range, if it hit.

Roman ballista balls were stocked pile about 300 m outside the walls of the Judean town of Gamala, which was besieged by the Romans during tne F;irst Jewish Revolt. The location might indicate the location of the ballistas and hence their range. So I would say the effective range of a stone throwing ballista was probably around 300 m, maybe a litte less for heavier projectiles. I am skeptical of shooting a large 21 kg stone ball 786 m, which is a lot more than any reconstruction has done so far. While I realize that the Romans, with centuries of experience behind them, would like do considerably better than any reconstructionist, to go from 300 m to 786 m is a huge amount of improvement.

There are many factors that determine effective range. Size of target, durability of target, weather conditions, etc. For example 300 – 350 meters for an individual target, 500 – 600 meters for a small group. 1,000++ meters for a giant group may be typical for an inswinging bolt shooter.

We do have torsion machines exceeding the performance figures (in velocity) of the Hatra Style mathematical reconstruction. Numerous reconstructions have gotten over 118 m/s. Performance improvements of reconstructions for torsion catapults are the norm. Take a look at the early torsion onagers used in Punkin Chumkin. They went from shooting a few hundred yards at at some 60 m/s to over 180 m/s. The horse hair orsova reconstruction that I linked to earlier in my post started out shooting at 40 m/s (163m max range in vacuum), but is now shooting at over 86 m/s (754m max range in vacuum) w/ room for improvement. That is >4x increase in improvement.

I tnought that Orsova said in his blog that he found that to be the most effective amount of swing. Still, his inswinger design seems far more powerful rhan any outswinger reconstrudtion I have seen. But his was a spear/javelin thrower, which will go father than a stone ball.

Indeed he did. However, the reason it was the most effective shooting angle was he artificially increased the diameter of the torsion spring thinking it would result in more energy. In reality a short torsion spring leads to massive stack, high draw weight (extra strain on every part of the machine), limited limb rotation and heavy arms that further exacerbated the stacking by displacing the torsion spring (due to the diameter of the arm) considerably.

Correct, a bolt thrower (if the bolt is made correctly) will go much farther than a stone ball (2.5 g/cc) and even farther than a lead ball. However, as you scale up to multiple kg projectiles, the maximum ranges will start to converge for all projectiles because surface area only goes up squared, but volume goes up cubed. A 2x diameter ball will have 4x the surface area but 8x the mass as a 1x diameter ball. Section density increases, linearly.

Base on what Vegetius said, it appeared that in later Roman times, when we see the all metal ballistas, ballistas nnad become mostly spear shooting engines, and stone projecting was taken over by tne one arm onagers

The hatra ballista remains could be both a small stone thrower or a large spear thrower. I have heard that the move to the one arm onager was in part due to the stagnation of Roman Engineering. But looking at similarly sized reconstructions, the onager has a much larger torsion spring volume for the same footprin, meaning a more powerful machine.

Chucky II was done with modern materials - stronger steel, lower friction bearingx and washers, and such, than would have been available to the Romans. So I don't think its range can necessarily be extrapolated to more ancient machines. Still, it does mean tnat perhaps we shouldn't dismiss the range of Josephus 1 talent machine of 400 yards (2 stadia) out of hand as an exaggeration.

Are we talking about the same reconstruction?: http://www.siege-engine.com/chunk07comp/pb020165.jpg

The only material that the Romans didn’t have and would increase performance is the aluminum reinforcing tube on the hickory arm. Chucky II is primarily constructed of wood. We know that the Romans constructed machines larger than Chucky II, they had steel and ample amounts of wood and sinew. It is not a perfect reconstruction, but it does show the potential of torsion.

[Common Soldier]

I think you are right on that. Just by trial and error an observant individual would notice that the efficiency and range of a bow/crossbow decreases as the prod becomes larger and heavier. Notice the decrease in dry fire speed from the shortest 44 inch bow to the largest 60 inch bow:

http://www.atarn.org/islamic/Performance/Performance_of_Turkish_bows_files/image010.gif

Was the one you saw full size, or was it small with short bow prods? I think I know which one you are talking about. It shot to +/-170 meters@ 30 degrees. However, the crux of my argument is that larger prods will fire slowly as compared to short prods. I have no problem believing the unlimited composite bow/crossbow record of 566 meters. With a short composite bow and flight arrows, significant ranges can be achieved.

The Chinese triple bow looked life size, but it could have been 2/3 life size. The prods were about the size of a normal crossbow, not especially large.




Schramm’s 370 meter shot was against a metal plated shield. That tells me that it was not a maximum range, shot. Hitting a shield at 370 meters @ 40 degrees elevation is a crap-shoot. At a projectiles maximum range, it is useful only against large targert concentrations. Nick watts shot his ballista @ 800 meters (near maximum range) against a man sized target, and while he was within 5-10 meters of the target, he was never able to hit it.

Here is another orsova reconstruction w/ oiled horse hair: http://www2.hsu-hh.de/hisalt/projects/ag_torsion_2016.htm

They have achieved 550+ meters @ 86 degree arm rotation w/ good accuracy: http://www2.hsu-hh.de/hisalt/project...eeinander3.jpg. Enough to hit a small group (~30 soldiers) relatively consistently @ 500 meters. Projectile was nearly 10 ounces in weight, which meant it would be lethal at any range, if it hit. 

Actually nitting anything at very long range is more a matter of luck. Even with modern rifles, without scopes, I am told that effective range is something like 300 m - its not that the rifle can 't accurately hit farther, it is just if you are just a little off in you aim, you will miss the target. An object you are looking at at 300 m away is small. And even at a speed of 100 m/s, it will still take 3 seconds for the projectile to arrive, plenty of time to step out of the way after it is released.

The max range is only useful to tell you tne power of the engines. And while I can see a bolt or smaller object easily going far, a large round stone projectile will have a lot of drag, shortening tne range considerably.




There are many factors that determine effective range. Size of target, durability of target, weather conditions, etc. For example 300 – 350 meters for an individual target, 500 – 600 meters for a small group. 1,000++ meters for a giant group may be typical for an inswinging bolt shooter.

We do have torsion machines exceeding the performance figures (in velocity) of the Hatra Style mathematical reconstruction. Numerous reconstructions have gotten over 118 m/s. Performance improvements of reconstructions for torsion catapults are the norm. Take a look at the early torsion onagers used in Punkin Chumkin. They went from shooting a few hundred yards at at some 60 m/s to over 180 m/s. The horse hair orsova reconstruction that I linked to earlier in my post started out shooting at 40 m/s (163m max range in vacuum), but is now shooting at over 86 m/s (754m max range in vacuum) w/ room for improvement. That is >4x increase in improvement. 

Yes, for a bolt/spear shooting device, I agree 800 m range and tnd like is not unrealistic. But air drag is significant for a large round projectiles.




Indeed he did. However, the reason it was the most effective shooting angle was he artificially increased the diameter of the torsion spring thinking it would result in more energy. In reality a short torsion spring leads to massive stack, high draw weight (extra strain on every part of the machine), limited limb rotation and heavy arms that further exacerbated the stacking by displacing the torsion spring (due to the diameter of the arm) considerably. 

I don't know about that. Orsova's ballistas iis one of the most powerful reconstructioms I am seen, Perhaps his approach of larger springs is correct. Alan Wilkins, Morgan achieved much less impressive results.



Correct, a bolt thrower (if the bolt is made correctly) will go much farther than a stone ball (2.5 g/cc) and even farther than a lead ball. However, as you scale up to multiple kg projectiles, the maximum ranges will start to converge for all projectiles because surface area only goes up squared, but volume goes up cubed. A 2x diameter ball will have 4x the surface area but 8x the mass as a 1x diameter ball. Section density increases, linearly. 

I suspect you will not be abld to accelerate a large projectile as rapidly, and it will have a lower speed, thus shortening range, along with increased drag.




The hatra ballista remains could be both a small stone thrower or a large spear thrower. I have heard that the move to the one arm onager was in part due to the stagnation of Roman Engineering. But looking at similarly sized reconstructions, the onager has a much larger torsion spring volume for the same footprin, meaning a more powerful machine. 

I think they switched to the onager because if all you are interested is in throwing large rocks, the onager is a better choie. You do not have to spend as much time shaping your projectiles, and indeed, if you are relatively close, you might not have to shape your rocks at all. A ballista requires a better shaped projectile to work effectively. You would use rocks against walls, large body of men, where accuracy isn't as important.

For use against just men, arrows/spears are a better choice, sincd thd projectile will travel farther and penetrate more. And using spears, it is easier to carry all your own ammunition, you don't have to make it all at the battle field site. Carry a lot of large stones is a hassle, and so we see the ballista ballista balls made at the siege site. You might not find good stone available at the site, and if you want to use the ballista for a battle, you won't have time to make the stone balls. So you restrict your anti-personnel weapons to arrow shooting ballistas, and make all your siege weapons onagers - not only is the design simpler, but you get the advantage of the lever actions of the long arm.




Are we talking about the same reconstruction?: http://www.siege-engine.com/chunk07comp/pb020165.jpg

The only material that the Romans didn’t have and would increase performance is the aluminum reinforcing tube on the hickory arm. Chucky II is primarily constructed of wood. We know that the Romans constructed machines larger than Chucky II, they had steel and ample amounts of wood and sinew. It is not a perfect reconstruction, but it does show the potential of torsion.

The aluminum can add reinforcement to the wood without the weight penalty of iron, improving performance. And they would haved modern beearings and washers and the like, which would have less friction than what the Romans used, again improving performance. The use of modern materials can make a difference.

[AqD]

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.

There were inconsistencies in Ming records.

Officially every Chinese dynasties monopolised weapon and armor manufacturing. And there was at least one account citing how weak officially made armor was, when an arrow from Manchurian warrior penetrated a commander's suite easily.

Unofficially, since before the time of Japanese pirates, the generals had started to hire their own retainers and entire regiments. Paid officially but their names were not registered in the old system, more like mercenaries except they didn't have the freedom of choosing employers. At least those from Fujian brought everything themselves as their equipment were unique.

Isnt penetration power rather pointless as it's anti cavalry weapon and most horses from either side were unprotected?

[Common Soldier]

There were inconsistencies in Ming records.

Officially every Chinese dynasties monopolised weapon and armor manufacturing. And there was at least one account citing how weak officially made armor was, when an arrow from Manchurian warrior penetrated a commander's suite easily.

Unofficially, since before the time of Japanese pirates, the generals had started to hire their own retainers and entire regiments. Paid officially but their names were not registered in the old system, more like mercenaries except they didn't have the freedom of choosing employers. At least those from Fujian brought everything themselves as their equipment were unique.

Isnt penetration power rather pointless as it's anti cavalry weapon and most horses from either side were unprotected?

More.power!.gives you a longer range, always useful.

[Inst]

Sorry for the bump, but I want to point out what HackneyedScribe doesn't want to admit. Chinese heavy-long crossbows are a pain to load. He's saying that they're loadable as they were foot-loaded, but in practice, heavy-long crossbows are exacting to load and you're not going to have a cadre of footbowmen firing crossbows for hours.

In Three Dynasties records, heavy-long crossbows were negated by shieldmen, presumably with well-reinforced shields and armor. This meant that heavy-long crossbows, as killing weapons, had a limit to how effective their firepower could be, and while Chinese crossbows were probably better engineered than their European equivalents up to the end of the Song Dynasty, the Chinese likely switched to using crossbowmen as suppressive fire, as opposed to the deciding force. The Song were an exception in that they tried to switch to a pure crossbow military, but in the race between armored horsemen (Jurchen cataphracts) and heavy crossbows, the winner was the Zhangmadao (anti-cavalry long-sword), which could just sidestep the entire armor-penetration at range question.

[Roma_Victrix]

Sorry for the bump, but I want to point out what HackneyedScribe doesn't want to admit. Chinese heavy-long crossbows are a pain to load. He's saying that they're loadable as they were foot-loaded, but in practice, heavy-long crossbows are exacting to load and you're not going to have a cadre of footbowmen firing crossbows for hours.

In Three Dynasties records, heavy-long crossbows were negated by shieldmen, presumably with well-reinforced shields and armor. This meant that heavy-long crossbows, as killing weapons, had a limit to how effective their firepower could be, and while Chinese crossbows were probably better engineered than their European equivalents up to the end of the Song Dynasty, the Chinese likely switched to using crossbowmen as suppressive fire, as opposed to the deciding force. The Song were an exception in that they tried to switch to a pure crossbow military, but in the race between armored horsemen (Jurchen cataphracts) and heavy crossbows, the winner was the Zhangmadao (anti-cavalry long-sword), which could just sidestep the entire armor-penetration at range question.

Pretty much. You couldn't win a battle with crossbows alone. Even with their puncturing power, the Chinese crossbows were always used to pepper the enemy, demoralize them, drop their numbers a bit and weaken them before a melee confrontation. They were never used to wipe out the enemy altogether, that's a fantasy. You'd still need a compliment of other troops serving radically different roles to achieve victory via the combined arms theory. Even ancient Chinese authors like the Western Han chancellor Chao Cuo, who argued that the Chinese crossbow if properly used could be superior to the Mongolic Xiongnu bow, didn't advocate for crossbow troops being used alone and without support.

Even the famed Roman loss against the Parthians at the Battle of Carrhae, which admittedly involved horse archers constantly harassing Roman legionaries (who were supported by by Gallic and Germanic cavalry auxiliaries), had moments of melee and use of heavy cataphracts by the Parthians. It wasn't just entirely a missile-fest, and even then most of the missiles fired were deflected by Roman chain mail, helmets, and shields. It would have killed some men, wounded others, and distracted a larger amount as they tried to flee back into Roman territory while hauling the wounded.

[Inst]

I have to disagree here.

Many people have this preconception that military technology never advanced after the advent of iron, and that the first break in military norms after the Agricultural Revolution occurred with gunpowder.

In actuality, the Qin-Han crossbow was probably a superweapon for its time, because it had the power of a late Medieval European crossbow when most opponents were wearing leather armor. The key was that while potent, Qin-Han crossbows were not invincible, and that soldiers with strong shields and good armor could survive repeated salvos, survive being the operable word, explaining why Chinese armies tended to combined arms, instead of core with support (cavalry, artillery, archers), as with the Roman legions.

And the idea that Chinese armies never used pure crossbows is incorrect. The Tang Dynasty had around a 1:1 ratio between crossbows and swordsmen in the infantry arm, while the Song Dynasty moved towards a 9:1 ratio. But Chinese writers also wrote about how different weapons were better suited for different terrain, recall how the Romans broke the Macedonian phalanx by choosing a terrain type to which it was ill-suited. The Song crossbow-heavy army was not well-noted for its success, and the resort to mass crossbows probably said more about the desperation of the Southern Song, which sent million-man armies to its doom fighting the Jin Dynasty.

[Inst]

Edit: I mean I agree with combined arms tactics being necessary for crossbows, but a key point is that until people realized that heavily-reinforced shields could stop crossbow bolts, they were highly decisive weapons. And depending on terrain, crossbows might be uncounterable (forest ambushes with crossbows features in Warring States annals).

[hellheaven1987]

Chinese heavy-long crossbows are a pain to load. He's saying that they're loadable as they were foot-loaded, but in practice, heavy-long crossbows are exacting to load and you're not going to have a cadre of footbowmen firing crossbows for hours.

The Song were an exception in that they tried to switch to a pure crossbow military

Irony even Book of Song pointed out they had trouble mass-producing crossbowmen because this issue.

[Mamlaz]

The issue is that the Chinese crossbows required crossbowmen to reload with both their arms and feet, resulting in less dense formations and lower rate of fire, which is why they required lots of supporting troops to cover them.

Even if pitted against an infantry attack, lets say the likes of the Romans, the effective range of the crossbow would be perhaps 200m, of which only the first few frontal ranks would be flat shooting, the rest arc shooting(far less accurate and effective).
An infantry troop could march at a mid pace of 2m/s, meaning the crossbowmen would have 100 seconds, or 1 minute 40 seconds until the enemy infantry reaches them.

...meaning about 2 or 3 volleys tops, before the lines clash.

Not even mentioning cavalry, which would go from range limit to clash within a few dozen seconds if properly led in a charge.

So yes, the crossbows were absolutely a superb weapon for its day, but, as Publius Ventidius Bassus proved three times over, troop positioning and tactics are as important as weaponry is.

[Common Soldier]

I have to disagree here.

Many people have this preconception that military technology never advanced after the advent of iron, and that the first break in military norms after the Agricultural Revolution occurred with gunpowder.

In actuality, the Qin-Han crossbow was probably a superweapon for its time, because it had the power of a late Medieval European crossbow when most opponents were wearing leather armor. The key was that while potent, Qin-Han crossbows were not invincible, and that soldiers with strong shields and good armor could survive repeated salvos, survive being the operable word, explaining why Chinese armies tended to combined arms, instead of core with support (cavalry, artillery, archers), as with the Roman legions.

And the idea that Chinese armies never used pure crossbows is incorrect. The Tang Dynasty had around a 1:1 ratio between crossbows and swordsmen in the infantry arm, while the Song Dynasty moved towards a 9:1 ratio. But Chinese writers also wrote about how different weapons were better suited for different terrain, recall how the Romans broke the Macedonian phalanx by choosing a terrain type to which it was ill-suited. The Song crossbow-heavy army was not well-noted for its success, and the resort to mass crossbows probably said more about the desperation of the Southern Song, which sent million-man armies to its doom fighting the Jin Dynasty.

I have always been rather skeptical that the Han crossbows were quite as powerful as claimed. It is not that they weren't, the Chinese crossbows were, just if they were really as powerful as claimed, I don't see the Han crossbow design being ever abandoned during the Ming as it was, even with the disdvantage of a large prod making the handling of the crossbow awkward. More understandable if the crossbows were only somewhat more powerful than a heavy medieval European crossbow that they would be abandoned when guns came around.

That said, I think that people mistakenly assume that regular bows technology was stagnant, and that I suspect might not be the case. A Hundred bow of 200 CE might not be as powerful as a Mongol bow of 1200 CE, or the Manchurian bows of the later period. The English longbow seems to have increased in power over time, the bow off he 11th century doesn't seem as powerful as the longbow of the 15th or 16th century. When I look at the bowmen I. The Bayeux Tapestry, their bows don't see as powerful.as the later English longbows. If the Mongols and Jin bows were more powerful than the earlier Hun bows, then the lack of success of the Song might be explained, there would have been a smaller relative advatage of the crossbows as regular bows became more powerful.


Even powerful crossbows will always be at a disadvantage in rate of fire with regular bows. There are strategies that can minimize that disadvantage, but never make that disadvantage completely vanish. Of course, higher rate of fire isn't always as big an advantage it is made out to be. Archers don't have an unlimited supply of arrows, the English longbow men were given something like 20, and if the archers shot all their arrows as fast as they could, within the first few minutes of the battle they would have shot all their arrows.

[Common Soldier]

Sorry for the bump, but I want to point out what HackneyedScribe doesn't want to admit. Chinese heavy-long crossbows are a pain to load. He's saying that they're loadable as they were foot-loaded, but in practice, heavy-long crossbows are exacting to load and you're not going to have a cadre of footbowmen firing crossbows for hours.

In Three Dynasties records, heavy-long crossbows were negated by shieldmen, presumably with well-reinforced shields and armor. This meant that heavy-long crossbows, as killing weapons, had a limit to how effective their firepower could be, and while Chinese crossbows were probably better engineered than their European equivalents up to the end of the Song Dynasty, the Chinese likely switched to using crossbowmen as suppressive fire, as opposed to the deciding force. The Song were an exception in that they tried to switch to a pure crossbow military, but in the race between armored horsemen (Jurchen cataphracts) and heavy crossbows, the winner was the Zhangmadao (anti-cavalry long-sword), which could just sidestep the entire armor-penetration at range question.

Having.to sit down to draw a crossbow, which we know from.models.tus Chinese sometimes did, makes you less manueverable and less able. I o.get out.ofnhe way.of a sudden.ambush while.you are arming your crossbow. The few seconds it takes you.to get to your feet could be the difference between life and death.

Plus having to sit in the mud to.draw your crossbow.seems uncomfortable, and more likely to get.you sick I would think. From the description of Anna Comnena of Crusader crossbowman, European crossbowmen also.at one time.sat on the ground to draw their crossbows, but medieval illustrations, to coming from a later date, show crossbowmen as standing while arming their crossbows. Mechanical.assist like goat's foot lever and pulleys may have eliminated the need to have to sit and strain with your back to draw a heavy crossbow. Many of the King crossbow men are show as standing too.while.drawing the crossbow strings.

[Common Soldier]

Sorry for the bump, but I want to point out what HackneyedScribe doesn't want to admit. Chinese heavy-long crossbows are a pain to load. He's saying that they're loadable as they were foot-loaded, but in practice, heavy-long crossbows are exacting to load and you're not going to have a cadre of footbowmen firing crossbows for hours.

In Three Dynasties records, heavy-long crossbows were negated by shieldmen, presumably with well-reinforced shields and armor. This meant that heavy-long crossbows, as killing weapons, had a limit to how effective their firepower could be, and while Chinese crossbows were probably better engineered than their European equivalents up to the end of the Song Dynasty, the Chinese likely switched to using crossbowmen as suppressive fire, as opposed to the deciding force. The Song were an exception in that they tried to switch to a pure crossbow military, but in the race between armored horsemen (Jurchen cataphracts) and heavy crossbows, the winner was the Zhangmadao (anti-cavalry long-sword), which could just sidestep the entire armor-penetration at range question.

Having.to sit down to draw a crossbow, which we know from.models.tus Chinese sometimes did, makes you less manueverable and less able. I o.get out.ofnhe way.of a sudden.ambush while.you are arming your crossbow. The few seconds it takes you.to get to your feet could be the difference between life and death.

Plus having to sit in the mud to.draw your crossbow.seems uncomfortable, and more likely to get.you sick I would think. From the description of Anna Comnena of Crusader crossbowman, European crossbowmen also.at one time.sat on the ground to draw their crossbows, but medieval illustrations, to coming from a later date, show crossbowmen as standing while arming their crossbows. Mechanical.assist like goat's foot lever and pulleys may have eliminated the need to have to sit and strain with your back to draw a heavy crossbow. Many of the King crossbow men are show as standing too.while.drawing the crossbow strings.

[Roma_Victrix]

That said, I think that people mistakenly assume that regular bows technology was stagnant, and that I suspect might not be the case. A Hundred bow of 200 CE might not be as powerful as a Mongol bow of 1200 CE, or the Manchurian bows of the later period. The English longbow seems to have increased in power over time, the bow off he 11th century doesn't seem as powerful as the longbow of the 15th or 16th century. When I look at the bowmen I. The Bayeux Tapestry, their bows don't see as powerful.as the later English longbows. If the Mongols and Jin bows were more powerful than the earlier Hun bows, then the lack of success of the Song might be explained, there would have been a smaller relative advatage of the crossbows as regular bows became more powerful.

Except for the fact that real life isn't a Total War or Dynasty Warriors video game where bows are a deciding factor in battle, and certainly not on a strategic level where, you know, logistics and economics is the thing that usually decides victory in war. That was as true of Song dynasty China as it was in medieval Europe, where in both cases sieges were paramount and pitched battles were usually avoided because they were too costly for either side. Small skirmishes were far more common.

Perhaps we could talk about the bow like this on a tactical level in certain cases and special circumstances, such as the pivotal role of the English longbow at the Battle of Agincourt. Even then, though, the latter battle wasn't decided entirely by bows, it was a French loss due largely to their hubris. While the longbow certainly aggravated the French and goaded them into melee, I've read how most of the casualties on the French side came from the crushing, trampling, suffocated mass of men who fell on top of one another in the narrow muddy marsh between the woodlands on the flanks that completely aided the English position. This is made painfully clear by the Gesta Henrici.

If we're going to make arguments that the Mongol bow was the deciding factor in all their battles, I might as well advance the theory that the Mongols took over Song dynasty China simply because of counterweight trebuchets. LOL. The argument is just as silly. It would totally ignore how the Mongols conquered the southern half of China, for starters, by building an impressive Chinese-style navy to counter the Southern Song dynasty's navy on the rivers and lakes of southern China's mountainous landscape. Yeah, good luck conquering southern China with only a nomadic steppe army. Kublai Khan wasn't dumb. He knew what he had to do in order to defeat the Southern Song, and it wasn't a strategy predicated on Mongol bows or the adopted siege artillery from the West.

[Common Soldier]

Except for the fact that real life isn't a Total War or Dynasty Warriors video game where bows are a deciding factor in battle, and certainly not on a strategic level where, you know, logistics and economics is the thing that usually decides victory in war. That was as true of Song dynasty China as it was in medieval Europe, where in both cases sieges were paramount and pitched battles were usually avoided because they were too costly for either side. Small skirmishes were far more common.

Perhaps we could talk about the bow like this on a tactical level in certain cases and special circumstances, such as the pivotal role of the English longbow at the Battle of Agincourt. Even then, though, the latter battle wasn't decided entirely by bows, it was a French loss due largely to their hubris. While the longbow certainly aggravated the French and goaded them into melee, I've read how most of the casualties on the French side came from the crushing, trampling, suffocated mass of men who fell on top of one another in the narrow muddy marsh between the woodlands on the flanks that completely aided the English position. This is made painfully clear by the Gesta Henrici.

If we're going to make arguments that the Mongol bow was the deciding factor in all their battles, I might as well advance the theory that the Mongols took over Song dynasty China simply because of counterweight trebuchets. LOL. The argument is just as silly. It would totally ignore how the Mongols conquered the southern half of China, for starters, by building an impressive Chinese-style navy to counter the Southern Song dynasty's navy on the rivers and lakes of southern China's mountainous landscape. Yeah, good luck conquering southern China with only a nomadic steppe army. Kublai Khan wasn't dumb. He knew what he had to do in order to defeat the Southern Song, and it wasn't a strategy predicated on Mongol bows or the adopted siege artillery from the West.

I agree with much of what you say. I was merely pointed it out that we should not assumed that the nomads weapons and tactics remained up changed for thousands of years. Just as the Chinese were learning to adapt and fight the nomads, so the nomads were learning to fight the Chinese. I agree that bows or any single weapon by themselves would not decide a battle, but improvement in one's weapon could help tip a battle in one's favor. An improvement in the performance of a Mongol bow might have reduced somewhat the advantage the crossbow had given the Chinese. An improvement in bows by themselves would not result in victory, but with other changes might have made some contribution.


The Ming seemed that have mostly given up the use of the crossbow, compared to previous dynasties and the Qing seemed pretty much given up the crossbow altogether, even they still used the bow for much of their dynasty. In the case of the Ming, the rise of handgonnes could have caused the Chinese to switch from crossbows, but in Europe, it wasn't until.arquebus arose that Euoropean gave up the use of crossbow in combat as a major weapon, although the Spanish did find crossbows useful in the he New World well after they had ceased to be used.on European battlefields. Perhaps the next session of steel crossbows, which seem less effected than wood or composite in wet weather, gave them a useful niche when in wet weather when guns might not work. (Galloway soaked a steel crossbow overnight, and found it's performance only slightly degraded.). The Chinese crossbows, made of wood, bamboo, or composite, might not have doesn't much better in wet weather than a gun, so there would keep them, since even the early handgonnes were likely more powerful.than the crossbows.