82 replies to this topic

[Mei Houwang]

^Did I say anything about banning the thread? No.

Did I say anything about Arabic inventions of cannon/gunpowder as Europe v Asia? No

Did I say anything about banning blind attempts to critisize Needham on how Europe is inferior to Asia when Needham never said a thing like that? Yes. Outright guesses is straighout lies, and lies when it comes to an inferiority/superiority complex is the worst. team Needham this, team Needham lost that, I'm getting tired of hearing it used in such a vs way throughout this forum by now. Needham isn't on a team, and we should stick with that.

Seriously, when I say one thing on topic A it doesn't mean I generalize it to everything.

Edit: Of course, I'm not calling Tibet Libre a liar(no offence). He gave his sources soon after(although I really don't see how his source connects with what I'm talking about now), and I'm waiting for more details.

Edited by Anthrophobia, 16 April 2007 - 03:18 PM.

[fcharton]

1. The earliest could be representation of a Chinese Cannon is from a Buddhist painting painted in 950 AD - True or False?
2. The earliest record of could be Chinese cannon in battle was in Song dynasty text in January 28, 1132 - True or False?
3. In the battle depicted, 2 types of firearms were used, one is HuoChong 火銃 one is smoke bombs projected by escalade - True or False?
4. Chinese HuoChong was made with Bamboo prior to 13th century - True or False?

I think it all boils down to a matter of definition, ie what is a cannon... What was used in 1132, and might have been depicted on the dunhuang mural, is a firelance. If a firelance is a cannon, then 1-2 are true, else they are not.

Francois

[Intranetusa]

It was written earlier, but the extant copies are from a much later date which means we cannot exclude a later interpolation (which was a very common thing in China as in all other book cultures).
We have to make two distinction:
One between black powder and smokeless powder (which was invented in the 19th century), and the other between burning and exploding black powder mixtures and black powder with propelling quality, which may be be termed 'true' blackpowder, and with which we are dealing here. With these definitions in mind, al-Hassan's text shows IMO that true blackpowder was first invented by the Arabs.

Actually, wikipedia does distinguish between saltpeter explosives and true gunpowder. Just go to the link.

There is, though, one reference in Chinese sources to the use of a clay pellet shooting tube from about 1250 which may constitute the first use of black powder as projectile propellant. The question is now whether this miniscule affair already constitutes the invention of cannon or whether we should wait until the first handguns appear.

No, what you are talking about is essentially a firelance. I'm talking about a casted bronze cannon dating from the Song dynasty around 1250.

Also, al-Hassan refers to earlier Arab uses of projectile weapons in the first half of the 13th century, but I left out these instance above to concentrate on the first really solid references.

Yes, and there are Han dynasty texts that refer to saltpeter projectiles that propelled fireworks, before the 2nd century,
There are Tang and Song dynasty references to true gunpowder, which were used in grenades, fire arrows, early 13th century metal cannons, etc. Again, Tibet Libre, you need to find more sources rather than just this al-Hassan person.

Edited by Intranetusa, 16 April 2007 - 09:39 PM.

[Kenneth]

Some conclusions of Needhams are questionable, especially those based on subjective evidence rather than physical. He used a Han era shrine detail, which turns out to be inaccurately represented, to suggest a centuries earlier dating for stirrups in China. This was certainly his error, although stirrups in steppes people (non-Han) at this time have been found in archaeological contexts since. It shows how he had some problems in his selection of evidence and conclusions. His comments on ancient Chinese arcuballista as used on CHF debates for 'superiority' over contemporary Roman designs has always been a mystery to me since to date no device has been reconstructed and all the present evidence only provides details on the size of the arrows and a rough concept of a machine existing. Elsewhere I have seen his work on missile weapons in China criticised as out of date based on more recent studies and even parts of that section being the work of a contributor who didn't read Chinese. Likewise the 'wind demon' with a bellows-like device being held in the hands, but firing an object or projectile, is not itself very sound evidence for dating cannon to over a century earlier than other evidence.
Given that Donald Wagner's book on steel in ancient China had to have a central hypothesis overturned only a few years after publishing (as post-scripted by the author himself based on new Chinese discoveries) I would be prepared to revise anything Needham may have concluded in the past. It doesn't mean he had an agenda but it does mean for myself I have found he made odd conclusions.

Since there are only decades between the appearance of the earliest securely dated firearms in China and Europe (or this was my previous impression) and the knowledge of Chinese powder, is said by firearm historians like Ian Hogg, said to have come via Arabs to the West I would consider this addition an interesting 'maybe'. The Chinese can be credited with invention, but such technologies did not stand still. For example the Chinese invented a compass but used it for Feng Shui, instead of navigation, during its inception.
The problem is that even if we take this Arab black powder formula as the earliest literary reference for such a % it is the oldest literary reference but not proof positive it must be the earliest black powder use ever. All this does is murky the waters even more since this issue is already unclear as it is.
Certainly the Chinese invented gunpowder, they certainly used it militarily first, and it seems quite probable may have had the first firearms too.
This Arab possibility is an interesting consideration and one that could fit within the existing evidence as well. The problem is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence {that the Chinese had not found black powder at the same time as the Arab writing, or utilised cannon}. The threads idea is conceptually valid, interesting and should not simply offend the sensibilities of historical discussion. Giving final credit is not required when the full truth is not known.

[Mei Houwang]

As I have said over and over, don't depend on what others say of Needham, read it yourself if you must. It seems the topic of Needham = sinocentric bigot came through the spread of how internet misquoted him, adding inferior/superior words to many things, INCLUDING Roman/Chinese ballistas/siege machines(and left out some of the range detail, thus the conclusion that Needham TRIED to make Chinese ones seem longer, which he did not show. In fact the ranges of the two averages out to be the same as shown in his book). As for your mention of stirrups, I can't find that in his book(as far). What I do know is that he mentions that it started around +300, at least 100 yrs after the Han dynasty, and those he mentioned were only stirrups for mounting purposes only. That is as I recall more conservative than your view that stirrups used in mounting MIGHT have appeared during late Han. I can just go on and on(obviously Okham's razor just magically doesn't apply whenever he's considering things). Thus, things like this(aka China > West, which Needham never nearly dwelt into as much as he was accused of) touched a nerve, spread, the misquoted things spread with them, and now it's in this forum. By all means, go on if yall must, it's funny. It's like seeing Animal Farm being accused of pro-communism.

Edited by Anthrophobia, 17 April 2007 - 10:58 AM.

[Kenneth]

You need to relax Anthophobia. Everything I said of Needham is valid. I made it clear it doesn't mean he has an agenda of the type you have mentioned but that some of his conclusions are open to debate {see above}. Such as the stirrups dating; as Yun said over the use of the shrine rubbing; http://www.chinahist...p...15&start=15
"According to Dien's footnote, Needham did later criticize Lynn White's "cavalier" dismissal of the reliability of the rubbing in another article he wrote. "
...when Needham was perhaps unaware the details were altered in 1831 since the original detail of the riders lower half is lost. Needham was wrong on this then.

His work on chinese missiles and siege being out of date on aspects of modern discoveries like has been said elsewehere....no real surprise there. Nobody is immune to that, as I gave Donald Wagner as an example. Even how he -allegedly- deduces ranges of East-Zhou/Han arcuballista is still odd, since as I said, no device has ever been found and there is only a basic idea of the form it took based of the Mozi alone and little else. How he figured out an arcuballista in ancient China had a range of 500 yards, I don't know, but Warhead claims he did. "...The Balistae of the Greek and Romans had an average range up to 410 yards while that of the central plains of the same period launch its arcuballista at over 500 yards....." Maybe in this last point alone Warhead was misusing sources to claim the standard 'superiority' in the 'Rome" thread when Needham was refering to later devices? I don't know. This last point is possibly not Needhams error then.
You can think my comments on Needham are terribly unfair...but they are far from slanderous and East/West does not come into it. Like I said, his comments are 'used' to claim superiority. I didn't accuse Needham of anything. Far from it.

Read what I said instead of reading into what I said.
Relax. Historical and archaeoloical knowledge is always updated and modified.
Your analogy about animal farm is getting rather off topic. Is this seriously a response to me? Needham is just an author & academic like any other.
It is yourself that bought up Needham in the context of an East/West 'versus' mentality, if you refer back.
My own feelings do not go any further than accepting his human falliablity.

[Mei Houwang]

I never stated that Needham's works wouldn't be "untouched" by time(Heck, his works can be considered antiques by now), but I did mention that Needham rarely ever puts his thumb down on anything. He introduced a lot of probabilities, but I have a feeling he keeps his opinions to himself. A lot of "might ofs", not many "ayes or nays". And from the same sight you introduced...

Thomas Chen: Guys, I need to make things clear: Needham had put in the stone engraving pic to reference some other points.... He DID NOT highlight or mention the stirrup in this stone engraving anywhere in his book.

As for the part of the ranges, Needham ACTUALLY said that the range of the arcuballista is btw 270 to 500 yards, while that of the European one is 330 to 410 yards. Catapults were said to be around 190 yards with pounds of 165(but mentioned that Galway's reconstruction sent things flying as long as 300 yards while Napoleon's experiment only sent 50 lb stones as far as 200 yards), while the trebuchet(without counters) have the maximum missile weight of 275lbs and have a range from 80 to 190 yards.

there are plenty of side notes that each of the above ranges were exceeded. The 270 yards is very in line with Yang Hong's 260 meters for the 6 dan(for Needham it's "tan") crossbow(note Needham is vague in this part for he says a "chinese" crossbow, not a "Zhou/Han" one). Needham labeled a 10 tan as 286 kilos(for the Han period), I believe, which is slightly heavier than the one Yang Hong recorded for a dan(I should note that Needham later labeled the tan as a massive 120 lbs, which I believe is a major typo).

And ho ho ho is the irony. I merely told you to read Needham yourself, not read what others quoted on him(as you mentioned the Roman/Chinese ballista ranges). Needham brought up by me? Huh, you must be only reading my posts. Needham wasn't first brought up by me(instead the first time it's used in this thread is by the first post), but is used in very wierd ways(although fitting for his current reputation), and it was already brought up numerous times in other threads of this forum for quite a while now, most of the times used wrongly to boot(and thus my point). Is there anything wrong with accusing him? Of course not. Should we stick his name in every situation of "here's my proof of yadda yadda yadda, that means the Needham team lost". That doesn't make sense! What Needham team?

[Kenneth]

You needn't tell me to read anything, let alone books that I also consider antiques.
I have my own interests and reading to do, thankyou.

Since this psychology tangient seems to be misdirected at me I suggest you return to picking at Tibet Libres topic & presumably his motivation. Whether Needham is misused or abused by others on the internet I have no real interest to consider him further.
My part in this thread is over.

Edited by Kenneth, 18 April 2007 - 04:52 AM.

[Mei Houwang]

Hey, I merely pointed out the misquoted parts of Needham. You later asked yourself and I provided. There's no "picking" involved, unless you want to point that out to me.

[DaMo]

Let's not forget the ceramic bombs (some of them including shrapnel) on Yuan ships in 1281:http://www.archaeolo...c/kamikaze.html

...

The weapons recovered from the site include bundles of iron arrow tips or crossbow bolts, spearheads, and more than 80 swords and sabers. During one dive, I saw a Mongol helmet upright on the bottom, fish swimming in and out of its projecting brow. Close to the helmet was perhaps the most amazing discovery yet made--tetsuhau or ceramic projectile bomb. KOSUWA has recovered six of these from the wreck. They are the world's earliest known exploding projectiles and the earliest direct archaeological evidence of seagoing ordnance.

...

In his recent book In Little Need of Divine Intervention, which analyzes two Japanese scrolls that depict the Mongol invasion, Bowdoin College historian Thomas Conlan suggests that a scene showing a samurai falling from his horse as a bomb explodes over him was a later addition.

...

But his suggestion that the exploding bomb is an anachronism has now been demolished by solid archaeological evidence. Moreover, when the Japanese x-rayed two intact bombs, they found that one was filled just with gunpowder while the other was packed with gunpowder and more than a dozen square pieces of iron shrapnel intended to cut down the enemy.



Ceramic bombs found on the 1281 shipwreck, left, prove the existence of these early explosive shells. Some historians had speculated that their depiction on scrolls recording the invasions was a later addition. (KOSUWA)

...

[naruwan]

Let's not forget the ceramic bombs (some of them including shrapnel) on Yuan ships in 1281:http://www.archaeolo...c/kamikaze.html

Let's seperate gun powder and cannon for now.

So when was the solid proof or recording (meaning accurate % of mixture) of gun powder for the Arabians? So far I see 1280

So when was the solid proof or recording of cannon or guns (not including firelance which was more of a flame thrower) for the Arabians?

then list the proof from the Chinese part.

By the time of Damo's shipwreck the Mongolians have already brought cannon of Khwārazm, so we probably need earlier proof than this.

[Tibet Libre]

The crucial point in the investigation in the origin of true black powder and the first propelling weapons is that before the first reliable instance there are always other possible instances. The earlier the reference, the more unreliable, as a thumb rule. This just lies in the nature of looking into origins, as things do not come ready-made on earth, but evolve evolutionary. With that mind:

So when was the solid proof or recording (meaning accurate % of mixture) of gun powder for the Arabians? So far I see 1280

Arabs:
Al-Hassan: 1270 - 1280 in the book of al-Rammah, whereby his introduction suggests that the black powder formulas may be well older.

So when was the solid proof or recording of cannon or guns (not including firelance which was more of a flame thrower) for the Arabians?

Arabs:
Al-Hassan: 1274 according to Ibn-Khaldun (fl. 14th century). That date was given by me above as first date, as I personally and subjectively view that as reliable, since the author is credible and near-contemporary and the description of cannon is explicit.

However, al-Hassan also writes "In 660 / 1262, King Alfonso X of Castile succeeded in conquering the city of Niebla. The siege was not easy either for the besiegers or for the Muslim inhabitants due to the strength of the town’s defences, so the siege lasted nine months and a half. It is reported that Almohads in defending the city used machines that resembled cannon, which projected stones and fire accompanied by thundering noises. Some Spanish histories consider that this was the first time that gunpowder had been used in warfare in Spain."

Still earlier: "Four Arabic treatises describe or mention small portable cannon. All these treatises report that cannon were used in the battle of `Ayn Jalut in Palestine in 1260 between the Arab Army and the Mongols, in which the latter were defeated".

The earliest, "Peter, Bishop of Leon, reported the use of cannon by the Arabs while defending Seville in 646 AH/ 1248 AD."

[naruwan]

so basically any solid chinese evidence before 1200 would do.

by the rule of thumb it sounds easy. any takers?

I think gun powder like mixture have been in use since Tang dyansty for fire crackers. But what about accurate mixture?

The cannon/gun powder propelled projectiles is the one that sounds difficult to find proof off top of my head.

[Intranetusa]

The crucial point in the investigation in the origin of true black powder and the first propelling weapons is that before the first reliable instance there are always other possible instances. The earlier the reference, the more unreliable, as a thumb rule. This just lies in the nature of looking into origins, as things do not come ready-made on earth, but evolve evolutionary.

Lol, mankind intelligently designing cannons & gunpowder is very different from natural biological evolution.

"Arabs:Al-Hassan: 1270 - 1280 in the book of al-Rammah, whereby his introduction suggests that the black powder formulas may be well older. Arabs: Al-Hassan: 1274 according to Ibn-Khaldun (fl. 14th century). That date was given by me above as first date, as I personally and subjectively view that as reliable, since the author is credible and near-contemporary and the description of cannon is explicit."


Gunpowder was first used in Spain by Moorish cannon at the siege of Seville in 1248, and the siege of Niebla in 1262.
Roger Bacon already had references to "true gunpowder" in England by 1234. In 1248, Bacon's "Opus Maior" a cannon and gunpowder. Both of these dates predate your events. It's not suprising that they had cannons by the 13th cent.
Bacon however, does not claim to have invented gunpowder. The sources for the Far Eastern gunpowder dates all the way back to the Tang & Song dynasty, while written records for non-gunpowder saltpeter explosives date back to 300 CE.

[Tibet Libre]

Roger Bacon already had references to "true gunpowder" in England by 1234. In 1248, Bacon's "Opus Maior" a cannon and gunpowder.

According to my sources, simply not true. Bacon's first recipe was coded (still undeciphered), and the second contained a slow burning mixture - just as the one from the 1044 Chinese military treatise in its 15th century edition.

The sources for the Far Eastern gunpowder dates all the way back to the Tang & Song dynasty, while written records for non-gunpowder saltpeter explosives date back to 300 CE.

Please see the intial posting for my definitions. These sources you cite do not conform with the definitions.