Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Chinese Firearms and Cannons


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#46 Yun

Yun

    Sage-King

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 9,057 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Singapore/USA
  • Interests:Ancient Chinese history, with a focus on the Age of Fragmentation. Chinese ethnicities, religion, philosophy, music, and art and material culture. Military history in general.
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Three Kingdoms, Age of Fragmentation, Sui-Tang

Posted 20 December 2007 - 07:26 PM

Calvert's site claims:

The invention proceeded no further in China, beyond incendiaries, fire lances, and firecrackers. European gunpowder and cannon were reintroduced to China under the Ming dynasty by the Portuguese and others.


This is clearly mistaken. The Chinese used cannons and handguns during the period of Mongol rule, as seen from surviving late-13th and early-14th century examples. However, Chinese cannons and handguns did not undergo the same rapid improvements that European and Turkish ones did in the 1400s and 1500s, for various reasons - the most important one probably being that the Ming Empire mostly waged war with the Mongols and the hill tribes of southwestern China, neither of whom was equipped with firearms. When Ming armies began clashing with arquebus-armed pirates and culverin-armed Portuguese warships in the early 1500s, however, they quickly began arming their own forces with these weapons.

Given the enormous impact that firearms (cannon and small arms) had on warfare, I tend to be skeptical of claims of Chinese priority in the invention of these specific things.



The problem here is that cannon appear in Europe and in China at about the same time, i.e. the early 1300s. The point of origin and direction of the spread of cannon technology are difficult to establish in the absence of textual evidence, but the likelihood that the Mongol Empire played a major role in the spread is very high. The recently discovered Chinese/Mongol handgun of 1271 (mentioned earlier in this thread) seems to indicate that hand cannons were found in China not long after they are first attested in Egypt in 1260, even if one discounts (as some have) Joseph Needham's dating of a Chinese sculpture with a 'hand cannon' to the 1100s or doubts the identification of the object depicted as a 'hand cannon'.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia....ry_of_gunpowder
The dead have passed beyond our power to honour or dishonour them, but not beyond our ability to try and understand.

#47 Liang Jieming

Liang Jieming

    Ingénieur chinois de siège

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 7,251 posts
  • Location:in the distant past, changing your future...
  • Interests:Ancient History with emphasis on the sciences, technological and engineering achievements and milestones. Areas of interest include Mesopotamian, Chinese, Roman, English and Central American history.
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Ancient Chinese Arsenals
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Ancient Siege Weaponry

Posted 20 December 2007 - 09:53 PM

Calvert's site makes quite a few claims which are not substantiated. He hasn't listed any non-European sources and some of his claims like the story of Roman soldiers captured and sold into China have long since been disproved.

Read the chapters on guns and gunpowder here for a more balanced view;

Chinese Siege Warfare - Mechanical Artillery & Siege Weapons of Antiquity

One simply has to walk in the British Artillery Museum to view Chinese cannons and handguns dating from the 1300s.

Edited by Liang Jieming, 20 December 2007 - 09:55 PM.


#48 goodboy

goodboy

    Citizen (Shumin 庶民)

  • CHF Beginner
  • 4 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 24 December 2007 - 04:16 PM

Calvert's site makes quite a few claims which are not substantiated. He hasn't listed any non-European sources and some of his claims like the story of Roman soldiers captured and sold into China have long since been disproved.


This is the sort of c**p I would expect from white supremacists. If it has been disproved, cite the articles that did so.

Read the chapters on guns and gunpowder here for a more balanced view;

Chinese Siege Warfare - Mechanical Artillery & Siege Weapons of Antiquity


I went and looked that book and it is far from balanced and certainly not a scholarly treatment of the subject. It looks like propaganda to me, full of pictured designed for the easily fooled. While there is a bibliography, there are no specific cites in the material to books or articles and so forth.

One simply has to walk in the British Artillery Museum to view Chinese cannons and handguns dating from the 1300s.


That statement is the mark of a lazy person. I looked at this site Firepower Royal Artillery Museum Research Section and it says:

The Library consists of books, periodicals and other published works from the 16th century to the present day, covering artillery from the 13th century onwards.


To establish that things were created in the 1200s takes quite a bit of evidence.

I remain to be convinced.

#49 Yang Zongbao

Yang Zongbao

    General of the Yang Clan

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 2,758 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Ancient Chinese Arsenals
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese Weapons, Chinese Martial Arts

Posted 24 December 2007 - 08:19 PM

This is the sort of c**p I would expect from white supremacists. If it has been disproved, cite the articles that did so.


I would consider this a rather serious accusation to make of someone, and potentially even an offensive flame. Consider this a verbal warning; you would be ill-advised to continue such a character assault. I would also argue that the comparison to white supremacists saying "It's not true, they use only Jewish sources" is also not applicable. This is bias used by racists with increasingly untenable ground to debunk anything that doesn't agree with them. However, Jieming's critique that Calvert's sourcing is too Eurocentric is a legitimate concern in academia, as it renders one's research susceptible to imbalance.

I went and looked that book and it is far from balanced and certainly not a scholarly treatment of the subject. It looks like propaganda to me, full of pictured designed for the easily fooled. While there is a bibliography, there are no specific cites in the material to books or articles and so forth.


What about the writing makes it sound like propaganda? I was never under the impression that that Mr. Liang was pushing any sort of political agenda within his text (though feel free to quote his subliminal agenda). And how are the pictures designed for "the easily fooled"? There are some of his own illustrations, that is true, but these do not make up a majority. The majority of illustrations came from well known military manuals such as the Wu Jing Zong Yao (dating to 1044 and showing early firearms) of the Song dynasty and the Wu Bei Zhi of the Ming dynasty. I do not see how either of these manuals are somehow fakes to deceive people, and to believe that somehow these sources are not necessary to the research on firearms history displays a certain sort of Eurocentric chauvinism. Also, are you really sure it is courteous to lambast a book before the eyes of its author in such a manner?


That statement is the mark of a lazy person. I looked at this site Firepower Royal Artillery Museum Research Section and it says:



To establish that things were created in the 1200s takes quite a bit of evidence.


The 1200s are the 13th century, no? Anyways, I believe that there have been excavations of early guns in China dating to the 1200s.
Posted Image

#50 Yun

Yun

    Sage-King

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 9,057 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Singapore/USA
  • Interests:Ancient Chinese history, with a focus on the Age of Fragmentation. Chinese ethnicities, religion, philosophy, music, and art and material culture. Military history in general.
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Three Kingdoms, Age of Fragmentation, Sui-Tang

Posted 24 December 2007 - 11:10 PM

If it has been disproved, cite the articles that did so.


It has not exactly been disproved - the theory is still enthusiastically cited in numerous books by non-specialists in Han history, and a village in northwest China has started claiming to be descended from Roman soldiers.

What has happened is more that historians examining the evidence raised by Homer Dubs (the originator of the theory) found it to be so inconclusive and ambiguous that the theory can only be presented as hypothesis or conjecture, and not as proven fact. In other words, it could have happened, but there is at present no good evidence that it did.

For background reading on the theory and its detractors see http://semperegoaudi...s_in_china.html

Also Ethan Gruber's recent article at http://people.virgin...an_li-chien.pdf

I went and looked that book and it is far from balanced and certainly not a scholarly treatment of the subject. It looks like propaganda to me, full of pictured designed for the easily fooled. While there is a bibliography, there are no specific cites in the material to books or articles and so forth.


The author of that book is not a professional scholar, but is a competent researcher. However the focus of his book is not on firearms. If you really want someone to disagree with, you'd have to start with Joseph Needham's 'Gunpowder Epic' volume in the series Science and Civilization in China , which was Leong Kit Meng's main source on early Chinese firearms. Needham was the one who dated a depiction of a 'hand cannon' in a Chinese sculpture to the 1120s, and thereby made a claim to the invention of the cannon by the Chinese. A more recent book (in Chinese) by the Chinese historian Liu Xu disputes Needham's theory, arguing that the hand cannon in question is actually a bellows held by the wind god. But Liu Xu then proposes another theory that also traces the invention of the cannon to China in the early 1130s: namely, he argues that the 'fire-lances' (huoqiang) mentioned in the Shoucheng Lu were bamboo tubes containing gunpowder, which was ignited to propel a projectile. See my earlier post in this thread: http://www.chinahist...p...t&p=4743788

There is also a Chinese record of pellet-propelling handguns known as Tuhuoqiang being used in 1259, and (as mentioned earlier) a similar record of Mamluk handguns at Ain Jalut in 1260, but it is not possible at present to establish a line of development from such hand cannons to the large cannons that appeared in China, Europe, and the Middle East in the early 1300s. The 'missing link' has not yet been found.
The dead have passed beyond our power to honour or dishonour them, but not beyond our ability to try and understand.

#51 Non-Han Nan Ban

Non-Han Nan Ban

    Prime Minister (Situ/Chengxiang 司徒/丞相)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 1,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairfax, Virginia
  • Interests:All of Chinese history. Seriously.
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    History of Chinese Science and Technology

Posted 17 September 2008 - 08:22 AM

To establish that things were created in the 1200s takes quite a bit of evidence.


Well, the earliest known specimens of bronze-tube hand cannons were found in a Yuan Dynasty excavated site in Heilongjiang, dated roughly to 1288 AD. This is the same year that a Christian Mongol prince Nayan led a rebellion against Kublai, but was put down by a Jurchen officer named Li Ting, who was employed by the Yuan court.

Eric (En Rui)
Posted Image
"Wait for the wisest of all counselors...Time"
- Pericles, 5th century BC Athenian statesman and strategos

#52 Incitatus

Incitatus

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • CHF Beginner
  • 10 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Arms and armor

Posted 17 September 2008 - 08:39 AM

Well, the earliest known specimens of bronze-tube hand cannons were found in a Yuan Dynasty excavated site in Heilongjiang, dated roughly to 1288 AD. This is the same year that a Christian Mongol prince Nayan led a rebellion against Kublai, but was put down by a Jurchen officer named Li Ting, who was employed by the Yuan court.

Eric (En Rui)



Do you have a reference that contains pictures? Are you aware of early handguns made of iron?

#53 Non-Han Nan Ban

Non-Han Nan Ban

    Prime Minister (Situ/Chengxiang 司徒/丞相)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 1,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairfax, Virginia
  • Interests:All of Chinese history. Seriously.
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    History of Chinese Science and Technology

Posted 17 September 2008 - 10:44 AM

Do you have a reference that contains pictures? Are you aware of early handguns made of iron?


Books by either Joseph Needham or Robert Temple I believe. I've read and seen pictures of this a while back. Maybe I could hunt it down for you. I'm sure if you do a little searching online you can find something on your own as well.

Um yes, I am aware of handguns made of iron. I was merely pointing to the fact that the oldest hand cannons found were made of bronze.
Posted Image
"Wait for the wisest of all counselors...Time"
- Pericles, 5th century BC Athenian statesman and strategos

#54 Incitatus

Incitatus

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • CHF Beginner
  • 10 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Arms and armor

Posted 18 September 2008 - 07:21 AM

Books by either Joseph Needham or Robert Temple I believe. I've read and seen pictures of this a while back. Maybe I could hunt it down for you. I'm sure if you do a little searching online you can find something on your own as well.

Um yes, I am aware of handguns made of iron. I was merely pointing to the fact that the oldest hand cannons found were made of bronze.



I don't mean "are you aware" as in "Gotcha" I mean that conventional wisdom in some circles is that early Chinese handguns were only made of bronze. I personally have my doubts and was looking for confirmatory evidence.

#55 milbrat

milbrat

    Citizen (Shumin 庶民)

  • CHF Beginner
  • 1 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Art of War
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 22 August 2009 - 09:03 PM

Regarding the post and picture:
"Triple Barrel Chinese Hand/Pole Cannon
A Fantastic and unique iron Chinese Handgonne Pole cannon in pristine condition! This rare find is 13.75 inches long (35 cm). The weight is 6 lbs. and the bore sizes are 17/18 mm. This cannon was in use for 3 - 400 years as it was refitted in the distant past for use with percussion caps! Originally these were fired by inserting a red hot wire in the touch hole and were called a "San Yan Tong"!

I have seen a very similar item. Do you know how many still exist ? Do any museums or collectors have a value on it ?

#56 RollingWave

RollingWave

    State Undersecretary (Shangshu Lang 尚书郎)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 606 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Song dynasty history, ROC history

Posted 26 October 2009 - 10:20 PM

Regarding the post and picture:
"Triple Barrel Chinese Hand/Pole Cannon
A Fantastic and unique iron Chinese Handgonne Pole cannon in pristine condition! This rare find is 13.75 inches long (35 cm). The weight is 6 lbs. and the bore sizes are 17/18 mm. This cannon was in use for 3 - 400 years as it was refitted in the distant past for use with percussion caps! Originally these were fired by inserting a red hot wire in the touch hole and were called a "San Yan Tong"!

I have seen a very similar item. Do you know how many still exist ? Do any museums or collectors have a value on it ?



A lot of them exist, they were made in very large numbers and was one of the most preferred fire arms of the Late ming military (because it's basically a shot gun that double as a mace, very practical for close quoter engagement). even today, some peasant families in more remote areas have one of these around and some use it for hunting (though the accuracy is pretty terrible, so you have to use it as a shotgun, which was how they were used in war anyway)

So the chances of finding a real one is pretty high, and thus the collector / museum value is fairly low, because it is hardly rare.
無盡黑夜無盡愁, 但盼黎明破曉時




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users