There is a curious quote at Wikipedia:



The quote thus establishes a hierarchy:
1. Ottoman muskets
2. European muskets
3. Chinese firearms ("Since muskets have been transmitted to China, these weapons have lost their effectiveness")

Now, I am not aware that Chinese employed hand guns in any quantity in the field. In case of the siege of Zeelandia (1662), the Dutch commander specifically wrote that the Chinese pirates relied on bowmen. In the 7-year-war (1592-97) only the Japanese used muskets.

I find the quote also a bit too smooth to be believable.

1. I doubt that Ottoman muskets ever reached China in quantity.
2. I doubt Chinese could tell Europeans from Ottomans apart.
3. I wonder which Chinese manual could have been published the very same year the Ming dynasty fall? Too much turmoil IMHO.

What to make out it?

As I've already stated countlesstimes, the "Ming force" in Zeelandia was not regular, it was no more than a bunch of beaten pirates on the run. The Mongolian campaigns of Kang Xi saw the utilization of large quantities of musketeers, although composite bows were still the preference.

It wasn't even a "Ming force" technically speaking. They weren't professional soldiers.

Huh.

Muskets were transmitted TO China? Doesn't quite check out.

However, a comparison of the periods firearms by knowledgeable members would be appreciated too.

Source? The Ming army in Korea made widespread use of firearms. Including Arquebuses.

Some corrections

1) The Ming dynasty did not fall during 1644, the Ming captol fell during 1644. The Ming dynasty fell during 1664.

2) The 1644 published Chinese military document may be a typo(maybe), in that 1644 is a little too ahead of time, though not by much((the book is indeed published during the early half of the 17th century). I have seen Ming documents copied on Needham's page that described both Ottoman muskets and European muskets in detail, and I'm assuming what this "1644" document is.

3) The documents contained in Needham shows pictures of Ming vs Nurrachi battles. In this, I can say that according to the contemporary drawings, the Ming heavily depended on firearms(with most muskets on a two pronged rest), while the Qing did not(although it is shown that the Qing did use firearms, but not to the degree that most of its troops used it).



The Dutch commander never said that they "relied" on bowmen. However, on all his accounts he never mentioned the Chinese use of the musket when it comes to ranged weaponry, only cannons and arrows. I doubt the commander would have much reason to lie in this case, however, one must remember that these are merely pirates under Ming control, and cannot be considered a good example of the Ming military(although for that period it certainly can, considering that's all the soldiers the Ming had by that then).

The Chinese army that invaded Formosa in 1661 can hardly be called pirates.

Anyway, the question was about the muskets' differences. European ones were worse than the Ottoman because they were mass produced and only designed for massed drilled volley fire for which role they were perfect. One-on-one with an Ottoman they were no match, but really its like comparing apples and eggs.

BJ

The last Southern Ming emperor was killed in Burma in 1661. Whether we should consider the Southern Ming rulers to be legitimate successors to the Chongzhen emperor is essentially a technicality; traditionally they were not (except by Ming loyalists and anti-Qing rebels/revolutionaries) because the Mandate of Heaven doctrine had the Mandate passing to the Qing in 1644, upon the suicide of the Chongzhen emperor. However, since we in the 21st century are not bound by the Mandate doctrine, we can just as well consider the Ming to last from 1368 to 1661.



The quote in question comes from a manual written in 1598 by the Ming official Zhao Shizhen, entitled the Shenqi Pu (Manual on Marvellous Weaponry). I was fortunate to get an electronic version from Thomas Chen some time ago.

The Ming army used muskets (niaochong, 'fowling guns') in large numbers in the late 16th century and early 17th century, and these were largely foreign designs that supplanted the indigenous but less effective Chinese handguns that had been used since the Yuan period. The Ottoman musket was known to the Chinese as the Lumi chong, after the word 'Rumi' (the Turkish/Arabic version of 'Rome' - the region of Turkey continued to be called Rumi by the Muslims even after Constantinople fell in 1453). The Shenqi Pu mentions that the Ming military first encountered the Lumi chong in 1472, at Hami in the Tarim Basin. The kingdom of Turfan was attacking Hami, and a Ming army was sent to aid Hami because it was a Ming tributary. Turfan 'borrowed' muskets from the Ottomans (probably via Central Asia), and used them to defeat the Ming army. However, the technology behind the Lumi chong remained unknown to the Ming for more than a century.

In 1597, Zhao Shizhen, the writer of the Shenqi Pu, managed to acquire a Lumi chong from Dosima, a Turk who had settled down in Beijing. Dosima was formerly an arsenal official for the Ottoman state, and had apparently come to China with his brother Babuli on a tribute mission to present a lion to the Ming court. The Ming emperor had appointed them to positions in the imperial court rather than send them back to Turkey, and Babuli's sons Bachen and Bazhong passed the military examinations and joined the Ming army. Through his acquaintance with Bachen and Bazhong, Zhao Shizhen met Dosima, who gladly gave him a Lumi chong and taught him everything he knew about the weapon as repayment for the kindness that the Ming government had shown to this Turkish family.

Zhao Shizhen found the Lumi chong to be far superior to the 'Japanese musket' (Wo chong - in other words, the Portuguese muskets copied by the Japanese) in ease of use, range, and power. He realized that the Ming army could use these new muskets to great effect against the Japanese in Korea - the Imjin War was then in its penultimate year. So he had the imperial arsenal produce copies of the Lumi chong, which Dosima inspected and declared to be satisfactory.

The Shenqi Pu has a detailed diagram of the Lumi chong, along with explanations and technical specifications. One distinctive addition that the Ming arsenal seems to have made to the Lumi chong is putting a blade at the end of the butt so that the musket could be used as a 'zhanmadao' (i.e. anti-cavalry sword) at close quarters.

Since the Imjin War ended in late 1598, some 8 months after the Shenqi Pu was published, it is unclear whether the Lumi chong was ever used by Ming units in Korea. I have also not seen any record of the Lumi chong being used against the Manchus, but if anyone has such information I would much appreciate a tip-off.

Here is Shenqi Pu's diagram of the Lumi chong:



BTW, I am always learning something new from answering questions here on CHF. I had the Shenqi Pu for more than a year, but never read the text carefully and noticed the Dosima/Babuli story until today.

http://www.chinese-gun.freewebspace.com/photo.html

This is very interesting information. Is the attachment just tucked away at the rearend to be stuck in the front with a plug or was it supposed to be used from the rear end - the Chinese text isn't entirely clear on this but the former is likely.

Also can anyone confirm that this was a Ming innovation? Or could the idea have come from Portuguese etc.?

Supposedly the Ottomans themselves did not encounter the use of plug bayonets until 1686 at the siege of Buda [Elgood's text has Bada], so just under a hundred years later, at a time when Europeans were beginning to switch over to socket/ring bayonets [Source: Robert Elgood, Firearms of the Islamic World, p. 48.]

Are there representations of the plug bayonet zhanmadao being used? The image shown by Thomas still the Ming musketeers screened by Tengpai troops (rattan shields) sporting daos.

But technically they were pirates...

Just because they were pirates doesn't mean they were not effective in war. What is more implied by their status is the fact that they do not possess regular equipment, such as muskets.

Yet in those days muskets do not necessarily hold a concrete tactical advantage over very good bows in many situations.

Don't forget the 倭寇 that terrorised the Chinese coastal areas during the late Ming also consisted of Japanese and Chinese pirates...

No, 'technically' pirates are seafaring robbers attacking ships (look it up), or the (few) ships used by them. Armies of 25,000 men performing well planned invasions of foreign countries are way beyond that. Not that this has much to do with muskets, but just to set the record straight.

Not sure who was the first to use bayonets, in Europe there was no need for it for a long time as the 'shooters' and the 'fighters' were traditionally seperated (bows and pikes). Stakes etc could be carried by the shooters though. By the middle of the 17th century the change from pike to bayonet was in full swing.

From the moment that firearms were introduced, many people designed pretty advanced weapons, but most of those were too advanced or not needed. For example, a breechloading buckler-pistol (small combat shield) was invented back in ... 1547! If you browse the books, there seems to be no end to man's ingenuity when it comes to finding new ways to kill and maim.

BJ

Ok then, how bout they WERE pirates, but then later on they became official Ming soldiers. But then again, their attack on the Dutch weren't very well coordinated, considering that they went to Taiwan with almost no logistical coordination. If the attack was well coordinated, the Ming would have had overwhelmed the Dutch considering that they had more men than the Dutch had bullets. However, due to the lack of supplies, it went into a nine month siege. But, looking at it in another angle, much of the Ming troops were sent to Taiwan itself rather than fighting at islands the Dutch protected.

Those men mostly came from pirate backgrounds, they were clearly not professional government-sponsored troops of the Ming state.

In East Asia the scale of "pirating" was often much larger than it was in Europe. The 倭寇 (Japanese and Chinese pirates that terrorised the coastal areas of China during the late Ming) were often very numerous and organised as well, even the professional army of the Ming state were sometimes thrashed by them.

I have a hard time imagining anything 'much larger' than the institutionalized piracy of north west Africa in the 16-18 th century. That even involved several states and also amphibious operations, though never 25,000+ strong invasions. Add to that the privateering going on, plus all similar activity in the Caribbean and Brazil (including sieges of cities) and you have a pretty large scale of piracy. Anything much larger is beyond that and just flat out war between countries, in my book at least.
Besides, the object of piracy is to collect plunder, then leave for home. That was not the case here either. These troops were hired and organized by a man who claimed to be fighting for the Ming (probably the last to successfully do so) whose sole purpose was to take over the then 'state' on Formosa to become 'king' himself.

Anyway, let's agree to disagree then, as this discussion is about muskets.

BJ

In 'Man zhou shi lu' or 'manchu veritable records' there is many draws of Ming soldiers using tripod mounted triple barrel guns, I have always wondered what they were called and how effective they were since the Qing army seem to have never adopted the weapon.

Well, they may not have reached China in quantity, but I think it quite possible that at least some specimens did reach - via the sea trade with India, for example (Ottoman weapons should have been well-known in India at this time). Maybe one of them just found its way into the hands of the author of this treatise. BTW, some of them really could be superior to the run-of-the-mill European musket - the Ottomans preferred very long-barreled pieces of good craftsmanship, which often had a longer range and greater precision than an average European gun.



Well, they did tell different kinds of Europeans apart, didn't they?

As this passage I earlier wrote explains, the author made it clear how he managed to get his hands on an Ottoman musket. There were Turks living in Beijing, and some had even served in the Ming government and military. This may seem surprising to those who assume that Ming China was purely isolationist.

Well, that doesn't surprise me on part of the Ming, but it does surprise me on part of the Ottomans. I didn't know about them sending embassies to Beijing. Yes, at one point that had a keen interest in India, but China? That's amazing.

Impressive, but not amazing, I would say. This is in consideration of the fact that Islam was first recorded and sponsored in China by the Tang Dynasty Emperor Gaozong in 650 AD (along with Judaism and Nestorian Christianity), when a fellow member of the prophet Muhammad's Quraysh Tribe, Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas, was sent as an official envoy to China. It was under Gaozong that the first Islamic mosque was built in China, the Great Mosque of Xian being the oldest mosque in China (yet there are many other old mosques with Chinese style architecture, such as the Niujie Mosque in Beijing, or the Great Mosque of Tongxin, Ningxia, whereas others with more Middle-Eastern style are the Id Kah Mosque in modern-day Xinjiang Province). Although the Great Mosque of Xian was built first in the Tang Dynasty (618 - 907 AD), it was renovated and expanded to a large extent under the first Ming emperor, Hongwu (r. 1368 - 1398 AD).

The Southern Song Dynasty (1127 - 1279 AD) navy and merchant fleets even competed with the Arabs for dominance of sea trading routes throughout the Indian Ocean, and China boasted a large Muslim population in places like Quanzhou. For a list of prominent Muslim Chinese throughout China's history, scroll to the bottom of this web page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_China

Also, Yun, your explanation of the Turkish envoys in China and the lumi chong was excellent. Thanks!

Eric

One should not forget that the Chinese author was actually comparing an Ottoman musket from the 1590s with a European arquebus of the 1540s, since the Japanese had acquired at that time the technology from the Portuguese. That a time gap of half a century. In Europe, however, the development had continued in the meantime, so the comparison is anyway asymmetrical.

We need to know how much fire arm technology had progressed in Europe in the meantime, and what types then were used on the battlefield to come to more meaningful comparisons.

That need not be completely true, since Dosima probably came to China nearly three decades before 1597, and his
musket would date from that time.

The Shenqi Pu states that it was huangzu, "the ancestral emperor" (i.e. the Wanli emperor's father) who received the embassy of Babuli and Dosima and kept them in Beijing. This would be the Longqing emperor, who reigned 1567-1572.

So there would have been no more than a 30 year difference between the 1540s Portuguese model arquebus and Dosima's Ottoman musket.

This essay implies that the matchlocks introduced in Japan in 1542 (unfortunately the author does not cite the correct date) and later investigated in China were already superseded in Europe by the 1550s. That would mean that the Portuguese arquebus was at an disadvantage not only for being 30 years older than the Ottoman musket, but also for belonging to an earlier technology cycle. Therefore, if true, the comparison is certainly flawed.

Actually, come to think of it, the Ottomans introduced handguns only in the 1420 to 1440s (via the Balkans), that is at least a century later than in Europe, so it would have been kind of hard to believe how they could have caught up so quickly with the Europeans which were at the same time making great strides themselves.



The author is by the way critical of two other aspects often quoted uncritically in histories on Chinese firearms:

The 'first gunpowder recipe' a later interpolation?



Authenticity of the 1288 disputed:



http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~dispater/handgonnes.htm

Koxinga's army did have muskets but mostly the Black Slaves used them. So they did reply mostly on arrows.

How about when the Ming army engaged the Dutch the first couple of times? In 1622 Dutch forces led by Cornelis Reyrsz after failing to besiege Macao with thei Britsh Allies, took the undefended Pescadores (Penghu). Ming government only began to take action after 2 years. Neither sources mentioned about Ming's muskets. Instead their usage of shield make of stones in net to block canon balls and musket fire from the Dutch fort was mentioned.

lol, interesting, I thought Chinese invent the first gun and ues them in some combats, as seen in the show in the History Channel. Now that it said gun transmitt into China, got me confuse a bit... did gun powder export out into Europe then gun come in China, or something else?