I think it is worth to point at a new piece of research which has previously escaped the attention of scholars: Unlike previously thought, the Mongols did not use Muslim catapults to bring the Song to their knees, but recently introduced military technology from Latin Europe. In other words, the so-called Muslim catapult of Chinese historiography (hui hui pao) which the Mongols used at their sieges of the Song fortresses Fancheng and Xiangyang in the 1270s was actually the European bricola! The bricola is the heaviest counterweight trebuchet and distinguished by other types by its single pole stand and two counterweights instead of one.

The whole story is interesting because it shows the rapid diffusion of military technology in the wake of the Mongol conquests - it took actually less than 30 years for the European bricola to make its way from Germany and southern Italy (1242) to China (1271).

The credit goes to the scholar Paul Chevedden who brought this new fact to light by a close study of Arab and Chinese sources.






SOURCE: Paul E. Chevedden, “Black Camels and Blazing Bolts: The Bolt-Projecting Trebuchet in the Mamluk Army,” Mamluk Studies Review Vol. 8/1, 2004, pp.232-233

DOWNLOAD as PDF: http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/arti...udiesreview.htm

The addendum shows contemporary various drawings of the European bricola which are very helpful to understand his comments above.

You have already went over this twice in the all empires forum. This was Omnipotence's reply

???

Read the excerpt. The number of counterweights is irrelevant. What's important is the shape of the frame. The similarity between the description of Zheng Sixiao of the heaviest catapults employed by the Mongols and the shape of the Bricola is nothing less but striking. Apart from the fact that Rashid al-Din identified the heaviest trebuchets at the sieges of Fancheng and Xiangyang as "European (Frankish) trebuchets" anyway.

I have seen pictures of both the bricola and the HuiHui pao. First of all, counterweights mean a lot. Second of all, the shape of the frame are different as well. The HuiHui Pao, since it has only one counterweight, has a beam that is angled such that the counterweight swings through the trebuchet when released. The bricola, on the other hand, does not allow this and its counterweight swings to the sides of the beams(which does not have an empty space like the huihuipao). Seriously, if they look like different trebuchets, and function like different trebuchets, then they are different trebuchets.



Interesting, I would like to see where you got this from. However, I would like to remind you that Rashid al-Din was not the engineers(Ismail and Ala al-Din) at Xiangyang, but a comrade traveling with Marco Polo(who termed that it was HE who helped the Mongols in the siege of XiangYang by inventing Frankish trebuchets, obviously false). This is not to mention the fact that Rashid's illustrations of the siege in his history book clearly shows counterweight trebuchets that differ in style than the bricolas.

...From the source above...?




I can't find evidence that al-Din ever travelled with Marco Polo. Hence, he should not connected easily with Polo's fairy tales.






Can you post them?

Can you post them?

Anyway, note that Zheng says that, "in the case of the largest ones, the wooden framework stood above a hole in the ground" (quoted in Needham and Yates, Science and Civilisation in China, 5:6:221). The pictures you saw of the hui hui pao could have been all kinds of hybrid or the counterweight trebuchet, neither of which the Chinese previously knew. That, however, does not contradict Chevedden's evidence that the LARGEST of those trebuchets was actually the European bricola.

Duh, but I want to read more. The "source above" says it's from Rashid al-din, but I want to know where he got that from. Need more sentences from Rashid, since a "European mangonel" does not equate to a bricola in the first place.




My bad, I meant Marco Polo supposedly copied a lot from Rashid's writings(in which the latter himself admited that he never traveled to China).


LiangJieMing have pictures of Rashid's works here. They are the ones with color. As one can see, the Hui Hui Pao is indeed different from the bricola.

http://authors.history-forum.com/liang_jie...sh16062006.html



First, what makes you think the pictures are hybrids(such a huge difference would obviously make it a completely different trebuchet than a mere hybrid). And second, what makes you think the largest trebuchets depicted are European? All Chevedden said is that it stood inside a hole. Very European chauvinist.

Jami‘ al-Tavarikh, 1:651; Successors of Genghis Khan, 290



I did not think that.



I did not say that.



Which is already very much, since only the Bricola fits this description..




Why so?

I'm talking about sentences, not that.



You stated this: The pictures you saw of the hui hui pao could have been all kinds of hybrid or the counterweight trebuchet, neither of which the Chinese previously knew. That, however, does not contradict Chevedden's evidence that the LARGEST of those trebuchets was actually the European bricola.

OK, fine, you stated that Chevedden stated that the largest trebuchets are the European bricola. What's the difference?



Because the trebuchet is in a hole, only the bricola can fit that description... I believe Omnipotence in AE already posted on that in which it's common sense that any trebuchet can fit in a hole as long as the hole is "big enough".



Because pictorial evidence states otherwise, not to mention that his only evidence is that the trebuchet are within a hole, and somehow claimed that this just HAS to be a bricola. That's just a Red Herring to me.

That's a primary source.




It is possible that the Chinese designated all kinds of catapults which they did not know as hui hui pao. That is they used hui hui pao as a generic term. Hence, the presence of various trebs in the pics does not prove the absence of a bricola at the siege.




Wrong. I stated that Chevedden stated that Rashid al-Din stated that the Mongols used European trebuchets at the sieges of the twin fortress.



I don't think that you, who blames Chevedden as European chauvinistic for pointing out that the Bricola stood inside a hole, are in any position to propagate common sense.



It actually does not matter whether you recognize it or not. All that matters is evidence to the contrary and yours was pretty slim.

Lol, I know that. But what does that have to do with my statement you replied to? I want "sentences" on the primary source.



It is shown as a counterweight trebuchet. No signs of the bricola. Of course, there COULD be sings of the bricola, but so far no evidence exists.


European trebuchets is pretty broad. What proof is there that this has to be a bricola?



I am in perfect position, because Chevedden uses evidences that have nothing to do with the point to make up facts. If you don't like that idea, then attack the idea. What are you attacking me for?



On the contrary, I don't need evidence to prove that something weren't there. You do, for you are trying to prove that something is there. Because it is you that is arguing for the existence of the bricola in the siege of XiangYang, and so far the only evidence is that the trebuchet is in a hole. That's "slim" evidence.

I would like to point a couple of things.

I wrote an article about the siege of Xiangyang and Fan ch'eng. During my research I was not able to find any depictions of the hui hui pao. None, even after contacting various professor's and Lieng, as well as a gentleman in Switzerland (who has done quite a bit of studying on trebuchets), no one has a picture of the hui hui pao, only limited descriptions.

There are a couple of sources, for example Osprey Publishing & Lieng's book, that give a modern depiction of the hui hui pao. I have no idea where Osprey came up with theirs. I can't remember where Lieng came up with his. Maybe he will let us know, however, I believe Lieng's is the closest.

Here is what I think it looked like, or better yet, what is may have looked liked. There are various depictions of counter weight trebuchets used by the Il-khans. One example of this is Rashid al-din's literature. Another nice picture is on the cover of a book on the Mongols by J.J. Saunders. Next, the 2 gentlemen who were sent to China, at the request of Khublai, came from the Il-khans territory. There names are mentioned above. Putting 2 and 2 together the most probable answer as to what the hui hui pao looked like would be the depictions of trebuchets used by the Il-khans. Granted there may have been some slight changes made, but probably not a whole lot. I have been in touch with Lieng regarding this and I believe he has a similar opinion.

Therefore the comment made above that a picture of the hui hui pao has been seen is not accurate. No one has a depiction, at least none that is public. If there is a picture please prove me wrong and post it. Many would like to see it.

Chris

So far as I can determine, no picture exists. Don't know where osprey got it's picture from. Neither do I know where the Beijing Military museum got the design for its model from but it's been reproduced all over the place ever since. I know the Beijing Military museum is not always accurate. Anyone who's followed my discussions on the sangong chuangzi nu and the model of it at the museum will know that no illustrations exists as far as I know, to match the configuration shown in the museum replica which from an engineering angle, wouldn't work efficiently.

Shurite is right. The best guess would be the depictions from middle eastern sources of mongol sieges there. They two middle easterners who were brought up to build catapults at xiangyang would have built middle eastern catapult designs.

Stephen Turnbull made it clear in his caption for the plate:

"As pictorial sources for these machines in China are almost non-existent, an attempt has been made to reconstruct their likely appearance using contemporary descriptions of machines at the siege of Xiangyang, a Song dynasty drawing of a mobile counterweight trebuchet, and several existing drawings of Mongol trebuchets in the Middle East and Central Asia, most of which agree surprisingly well on the main features. As the Muslims were the recognized expertsd in trebuchet manufacture in the thirteenth century it has also seemed reasonable to take details from the reliable near-contemporary European sources which have provided the basis for successful modern reconstructions of full-sized weapons."

That's true. But you have any idea where the Beijing Military Museum got it's ideas on the hui hui pao from?

My impression of the Military Museum's models is that they are largely based on mere guesswork.

I think the best approach would be to see whether Rashid al-Din gave in his account more technological details on the Frankish trebuchets. And to follow up Chevedden's other literary references:



Good to see that we have a discussion again.

More from Paul E. Chevedden, “The Invention of the Counterweight Trebuchet: A Study in Cultural Diffusion,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, No. 54 (2000), pp.71-116


On Latin European Uses of the bricola:




On Muslim trebuchet denotations:





On Muslim uses of the manjanı¯q ifranjı¯ (the Frankish or European trebuchet)

On Chinese accounts of the hui hui pao:




On illustrations of the bricola:




Chevedden: bricola = manjanı¯q ifranjı¯ (the Frankish or European trebuchet) = hui hui pao (Muslim trebuchet)

It was only natural for the Chinese to denote the European catapult as a Muslim catapult, for the very same reasons the Europeans called the Hindu numerals Arabic numerals. You name things after the people you directly got it from, and people rarely had the ability to look at the neighbour of their neighbour.

How did you get that equation on the last part? Rashid in his "collection of histories" said there is no "counterweight trebuchets (kumgha manjaniq) of largest size" in China before the arival of the Islamic engineers(Needleham). Looks like somebody did a translation error.

Some minor points -.
Rashid's history only mentions that the the catapults were sent by the IlKhan, not what kind they were.
The illustrations from Rashid's book normally mean those from the copy in Edinburgh painted in 1314 in Cairo (eg see http://www.ed.ac.uk/news/050228worldhistory.html for a trebuchet).

Yes, it does. I contacted Mr. Chevedden and he was so kind to immediate provide his primary source:



From this it becomes clear that
a. Frankish trebuchets were previously unknown in China
b. that the Muslim engineers employed Frankish trebuchets at the siege of Xiangfan

Since Muslim terminology designated invariably the Bricola as "Frankish trebuchet", there is no doubt, as far as al-Rashid's account is concerned, that the Mongols employed European bricolas against the walls of the Song fortress.

Additional proof comes furthermore from the account of the Chinese scholar Cheng Ssu-Hsiao, where he says that "in the case of the largest [Muslim trebuchets] , the wooden framework stood above a hole in the ground", which is a description which only can fit to the Bricola, since it was the only counterweight piece of artillery that had a framework capable of being mounted in a hole in the ground and was commonly set up in this fashion.

All in all, a fairly clear case.

Looks like you espoused your opinion on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Xiangyang

People have said this over and over.

Why is there such defensiveness to this idea? Why is to suggest it then 'chauvanism?'
Can I hear a cry of 'Sinophobia' next? That smacks of serious insecurity over a purely intellectual & academic matter.

I think it makes a very interesting idea, and the evidence as so far presented makes a pretty outwardly credible and functional case to consider about a spread of a particular military technology.
That a new Muslim catapult design was introduced into China is accepted, but to suggest, as seems clear, that European designs influenced the Muslim designs......"Blasphemy"!

There isn't a 100% final answer, but it makes a very good case......and simply being defensive or offended by it does not do any good.
In the end, why not a certain European design being bought in by Near Eastern siege engineers?
The flow and fount of all technology/innovation and wisdom does not always have to empower Chinese sensibilites all of the time.
It seems to have a better case than the Chinese invention of soccer and pizza. etc etc.


Edit;
ImSoCool (above) seems to be using his own rather more strange logic to change a Chinese scholars "the framework stood above a hole'' into a trench warfare situation.
What doesnt make sense either is only the largest trebuchet had this, while other devices must have lacked it.
Why would smaller siege devices not be protected by 'trenches' (or dug-outs) from the defenders fire? It is clearly noted as under one largest machine alone.
The Chinese account should be taken literally as a 'HOLE' below the 'frame' instead of being whimsically turned into something else entirely different, like a defensive trench or earthwork.

If that trench warfare idea is the best ''evidence'' to the contrary then it doesn't really remove the common sense notion that some Frankish designs would have been bought from the Near East (i.e the manjanı¯q firanjı¯ or manjanı¯q ifranjı¯).
Why would a successful Frankish design adopted & used in several siege battles by Muslim forces be neglected in China?

"All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Ok, firstly, I've resisted getting into this argument as I completely agree with Kenneth. Let's keep this discussion intellectual and not get sensibilities all ruffled up just because of nationalistic egoism. Secondly, I'm staying away from CHF on the whole out of dislike for the direction it's taken.

Anyway, going back to TL's post. Most historians believe that the intepretation of the phrase "wooden framework stood above a hole in the ground" is simple that of the framework standing above a hole in the ground to accomodate the swinging counterweight and not that of a central pole anchored by a hole in the ground. It's simpler and more stable to dig a hole/trench than to build the frame higher just so the counterweight wouldn't touch the ground. Many European trebuchets also straddled central trenches.

The bricola is not a stable construct and difficult at best to construct in the field since alignments would have been a pain in the a*** to get right. Don't believe me? Take two large equal flour sacks with both your arms and swing them into a high arc before letting them drop. Try your best to keep both sacks falling equally as you stand vertically still with both feet together (not spread). I'd dare say you'd be feeling yourself tugged left and right due to the minor movements of the C.G. which would keep swinging out of the small footprint of your base (the area formed by the outermost perimeter of your two feet). Don't forget that you don't even have the long throwarm and swinging projectile on a loose sling to worry about here. If you're thinking, "bah, the projectile is too small to worry about", remember that the Moment (force) generated by the small projectile is amplified by the long lever arm and that translates to quite a Moment generated on the central pole. There are actually very, very few drawings of the bricola even in European accounts.

[Some posts discussing the exam system have been moved to a new thread on the Imperial Exam forum.]

probably in part because Tibet Libre started the thread, and most are used to arguing with him/defending China against him.

And let's just say Anthro and TL have a 'history'.

However, I fear the theory has much potential to be misused to make a European-pride ideological point that "hey, medieval Europe doesn't owe all its best technology to Song China... after all, our catapults pwned your fortress."

We can only hope the historians here don't stoop to such childishness.

Kenneth, where in the world did you ever get this idea?! First of all, as Tibet Libre mentioned, the bricola was one of the bigger and more powerful counterweight trebuchets. I didn't disagree with him on that, no one did. Thus me arguing against the idea that the bricola spread to China would only mean that Xiangyang would be able to be taken down with counterweight trebuchets that are both smaller and weaker. On the other hand, having bricolas in the siege of xiangyang would hint that the smaller ones can't do the job. Sheesh, what's up with all this accusation on being sinochauvinist? I was expecting people accusing me of the other being Eurochauvinist, if anything. You don't see me accusing of overdefensiveness when someone starts talking about how Europeans invented gunpowder on their own instead of being transmitted from China. Nor do you see me accusing people when they said that China's manned kite shouldn't be a flying machine. In fact I openly brought up the idea of the former several times before. And saying that the Chinese HuiHuiPao wasn't a bricola even takes credit away from China, not the other way around. Yes, I'm taking more time here to prove this case, but that's because I have someone to argue with. That's not the case when I stated that Europe invented gunpowder independently from China. I don't think that's defensive, that's natural. I can't nearly go on and on about the latter case when there's no sentence for me to counter. Yes, you know what, I do indeed think sinophobia is taking a wierd pattern. Looks like somebody did bring up sinophobia after all. Seriously, I can't believe you guys are looking at this type of angle.

And even if saying the idea that the bricola==HuiHuiPao was not to China's credit(a very awkward idea), what's wrong with that? If I have the evidence to prove the contrary, then I have the right to do so.



Yes, ImSoCool(or myself) have already mentioned about the simplest solution, if you read him(me) in detail. First of all Mr. Paul Chevedden says that the bricola is used by putting it into a hole into the ground based on a 15th century picture of the bricola. ImSoCool(or me) has already mentioned that this is clearly not the case. If I say that a spear is in a whole in the ground, then I would imagine that there's a hole with a spear laying within it, perhaps with room for even more spears to be layed within the hole. The 15th century picture shows that the pole of the Bricola is staked into the ground, which Chevedden translated it as being a hole. That would mean that if I say a spear is within a hole in the ground, that would mean people would think that the spear is vertically pushed into the ground. Obviously English does not work like that. Nor would Chinese work like that either. Thus I do not see what you are getting at. ImSoCool's(or my) logic is not wierd, it merely applied the simplest explanation for a "hole". On the other hand, thinking that a hole means that something is staked into the ground much like how the pole of a flag is staked into the ground would be wierd logic, something that clearly doesn't apply with Occam's razor. This has already been mentioned numerous times. The closest it gets is if the spear(or bricola) is staked at the center of a hole, but that's way not the same as just being staked without a hole(which is what the 15th century picture shows) And why else would they put a hole in the ground if it isn't for protection(which means trench warfare) then? You answer me.

I'll answer you then.
I didnt call you any of the adjectives you just used yourself (Sinochauvanist! A new one and a good one!)but you did say earlier;

It may be right or wrong but there is no reason to see an agenda on ethnic grounds.
This is why I took except to the back and forth bickering, and I suspect this was some of the basis for a basic opposition to the idea.
It was you who bought up these charges.

About the 'hole' & Imsocool. Yes, exactly. It doesn't mean a stake in the ground and it doesn't mean a trench warfare defensive work.
It means built above a hole. maybe this helps for a longer swinging arm? I don't know. Jieming might have an idea of how this could work.
It isn't proof either way but it sounds nothing like trench warfare. It's a hole. The trench idea seems like a whimsical interpretation.

I don't take much interest in the twisting of that description either way (for or against). I don't know or really care that the device was there but it is interesting the Muslim engineers took some pointers from Frankish designs, and hence it is possible such designs made it to China. Maybe.
The evidence Muslims used these Frankish weapons elsewhere is all I take for certain from this thread, whether they built these and used them in China too I dont know.....but it doesn't really change anything beyond a sidenote to the hisotrical events.

...but there is no point getting all worked up about it. I won't be losing much sleep either way.

There seems to be a misconception that one can't be both sinochauvinist and Eurochauvinist. One can. And the only reason for that accusation was due to that I was forced to repeat my counter about ten times, since my arguer kept repeating his statements over about ten times even though I brought up a counterpoint in which it is ignored. When something like that happens, obviously the guy can't do additional research but is trying to win the argument by bringing up already countered information over and over. That has to be something-chauvanist. And since the guy don't get the idea that the Chinese didn't lump all counterweight trebuchets into just the HuiHuiPao even after that idea was dissaproven to him once before, I doubt he's a sinochauvanist, considering the lack of knowledge in that certain area.

This has nothing to do with ethnicity, as I mentioned earlier. When the arguer does something repetitive, it's always amusing to be repetitive as well and see what happens.



I can imagine if they built a hole behind the trebuchet, but I can't imagine how a hole would help the swinging arm otherwise.

And no, I myself did not invent the word "sinochauvanist", others used it far before this thread even appeared.

And yes, there is a possibility the bricola made it to the siege of Xiangyang. There's always a possibility. There's also a possibility that Byzantium had 5 walls instead of three. However, as mentioned before, the evidence goes against it.

Guys, read my last post dated Nov 23.

Most historians intepret this to mean a hole under the 4 legs to accomodate the swinging counterweight. This "hole-in-ground" is seen in European catapults too. Makes for a longer throwarm without having to build a higher catapult frame.

Given that I seem to have stepped in between two members who have some sort of history of disagreeing I should add my that my comments are based on my own recent experiences on CHF too.
I am aware, Anthro, that you are level headed and moderate enough to not be a fair target of criticism over any bias but to see a ("insert blank") label applied to members is something I am especially irritated about at present.
There seems to be too much of a tendency to declare a person or their argument 'phobic'-this or 'basher'-that. Maybe in the posts previous you might have formed such an opinion but taking this thread on its own merits I found it to be unconstructive and a little to close to the spirit of denouncement which lowered recent discussions.

MY geusswork about a literal hole is not any conclusion either. I was imagining, on my own fancy, that a frame built above a hole allows a weight to be slung from an arm and drop a greater height than the frame needs to be built up, i.e means the structure need not be so tall, and a load bearing arm could drop into a hole the device is suspended over. I dunno. I won't be rewritting history based on that.
I don't think this ''hole below'' implies piles or shafts driven into the earth anyway (since there is clearly no hole below of course) but neither would a 'hole' be an accurate or fair way to label a defensive work, earth redoubt, ditch and parapet, or constructed crew shelter or some sort.
Whatever it was there is no cause for flights of fancy, my own included, to base any conclusions on.

Its interesting to know that Muslim engineers, who seem to be at a high level in siege technology at that time, might recognise the worth of a European design but whether these designs were used against Chinese forces or not does not really change that fact beyond an extra piece of trivia in the list of battles they used them in.
My own passion for the subject of this bricola does not extend beyond that, so if I offended you in my outburst against 'chauvo-phobo-basho'-labelling I apologise.



Edit; Jiemings diagram turned up as I was typing.....yeah. I was imagining something like that.