Some pictures of han cross-bows..

I like this unsual reversed crossbow... but I'm pretty sure it's not Han dynasty.

Is the Western Han and Qin dynasties crossbow the same?...I mean the shape and characteristics;performance....

I think the Qin may have used a simpler mechanism (people say they didn't even have the best crossbows of the warring states period)

Something just struck me as I was writing a piece on the history of bows for DSL. Recalling something Thomas said when we were playing with my recurve bow at my place last weekend. He was suggesting I get a Han dynasty crossbow trigger, make a wood stock and mount the trigger with my recurve bow to make a hybrid modern/ancient crossbow. I laughed and said it would look ackward since my recurve is 1.68 metres long, waaaay longer than the typical crossbow stock would be.

The Europeans didn't have crossbows as early as the Chinese for one very important reason. East Asian adopted the recurve/composite bow from the Mesopotamians. The Europeans stayed with the self bow and even until today, traditional English longbows (the height of European bows?) are still made of only one material, the wood from Yew trees ie. non-composite self bows.

To get the drawstrengths of 200-250lbs for a crossbow, you need a very powerful bow that is short enough to fit horizontally. If you tried to get 200-250lbs using a self/non-composite bow as your crossbow, you'll be jabbing people to both sides of you all the time!

Europe only took to the crossbow later in their history, especially when they started using steel bows which could reach the same 200-250lbs or more drawstrength their traditional similar sized self bows couldn't.

I just noticed it. There's something seriously misleading with this crossbow trigger drawing. The corking lever (A) at the top looks like it's connected monolithically with the trigger lever © at the bottom. This isn't right. Instead, this top corking lever should be connected to the double bowstring hooks (B ). This whole assembly of cork lever and double hooks is known as the Tumbler.

When corking, the crossbowman would pull backward on the corking lever and rotate the whole Tumbler to raise the double hooks to catch and hold the bowstring. This action will also raise the Sear (D) to lock into the Trigger groove ready for firing.

In this drawing, the corking lever when pulled back looks like it will only pull the trigger lever forward but not raise the double hooks or the Sear! This drawing is doesn't look accurate.

Stephen Selby's reconstruction in 1999 of the Qin-Han crossbow:

http://www.atarn.org/letters/ltr_nov99.htm#han_xbow

A full sized crossbow mechanism from late Warring States or West Han, plus 2 minature corssbow mechanisms from Han ceramic tomb gaurdians (1/3 size aprox).
The minatures are in the same size range of the mechanisms recovered from the West Han tomb of JingDi, about 6cm in length. Of the 2 one is made to have moving representative parts, while the other has only a moving trigger. I purchased the finer minature one because it is not so precisely cast as a functional battlefield mechanism (see below) and so the parts aren't frozen, and I could remove the pins, this also shows what Jieming was meaning.

The ancient Chinese crossbow is a simple design in principle but the fine casting technology was beyond China's direct neighbour. Even the Romans ballistas and scorpions and 'crossbows' were fine weapons as field artillery but used a sheet metal & rivetted mechanism which is much larger.
It has been commented on that the nomadic enemies of China might capture crossbows, but could never produce them. It was an advantage over the other non-Chinese people that would come into conflict with them. A crossbow can have a much higher drawweight and piercing power than most bowman, and can be wielded by less skilled archers. It was not nessecary for the Chinese to grow up hunting and shooting a bow like the Xiongnu, and yet they could field large numbers of powerful missile weapons.
The fine casting here on the functional full sized version can be seen on the underside, and this is why even a little mineral patina buidlup freezes the device. The working parts fit together with great preciseness, and has a 'tolerance' (i.e gap between mating parts) that eluded those that might copy it.
Polish/abrasion marks are clear, from the initial clearign after removla from the mould. The pins securing it in place are modern looking hexagonal ended bolts, with a hole at each end for something liek a split pin. Removing the device from the wooden stock for repair would have been easy.

Behind the full size version in the minature mechanism in the 'fired' position, after the trigger is pulled back and the catch swings down to release the bolt.

(note; click for full size images)

Another feature of this crossbow which strikes me is the vivid colours on its patina. Blue (azurite), red (cuprite) & green (malachite). These all form over centuries from the metal alloy.
Also here is shown some of the traces of the original wooden stock, the ood grain is visible as horizontal traces held in the mineral after the rest has decayed.
Also below this are the traces of the artisan polish of the casing out of the mould, vertical lines from abrasion on a grindstone or sandstone block.

8 ancient Chinese bronze arrowheads & crossbow bolt heads. I would need to revise my dating I gave for some of these a year ago on the sword forum. http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.ph...&threadid=44476.
They are likely grouped around 700bc, 400bc & 200bc.
The grouping here is into 3 types, with the earliest on the left.
The form of the swallow tail is the earliest, and the centre one (cross section shown on sword forum link) is of a style that existed from late Shang to perhaps early East Zhou. I would still consider it aprox. West Zhou. For sake of illustration the swallow tails could reasonably be given a range of 700bc give or take a few centuries.
The Warring States period saw many changes, as the ZHou had for centuries basically just inherited a military system much like the Shang. The bloody period of East Zhou saw many new developments.
These triangular cross sectioned arrows were one of them, although my main revision woudl be on the dating of the slender 'bodkin-like' arrows (although much finer than the bodkin actually). I can now put the date I gave earlier at more particularily early Warring States, based on articles from the Marquis of Zhengs tomb. The arrows in there, the slender fine type where exactly tis stlye, and it dated from 433bc.
The last two are the more typical late East Zhou-Han stlye, the crossbo bolts having been cast in two pieces, the head and a long shaft..sometimes of iron. There is a variation between these 2 but the form is recognisable as the same as found in both the Qin buried army and the bronze West Han examples that are found alongside iron weapons.
The one on the right has fibre strands on the shaft, and the one at left a small trace of wood near the joint with the bolt head. (see sword forum link for picture of remains of fibre on the 'West Zhou' arrow shaft.)
These maintain the triangular armour piercing/deeper pentrating point of earlier examples, but simplify into a shorter chisel like point.
With the demonstration of the longbow bodkins tendency to buckle on metal armour the reason must be the same as a chisel point arrow on a longbow. It keeps the positives of the earlier fine triangular cross-sections and still has the slight barbs that would inconvinience anyone who had one in their bodies.

..on the idea of mounting an original mechanism on a new wooden stock with a bow attached, this is just as Stephen Selby had done.
The mechanism can be sound enough, but the ones with moving parts are move expensive.
Dealers also clean them to find Chinese characters which name the artisans (this was done in Qin to Han).
One good alternative is to get a frozen one in good order and use this, as suggested by Richard Nable;

Kenneth, do you mean that these 2,000+ year old artefacts can be fixed up to functional youth? Dang, that's cool.

and have there been significant changes in crossbow design throughout Chinese history? I know of stronger bows used requiring belt hooks, and some had foot 'stirrup' to pull from and such.

A;Yes

B;Yes

here is a site from ATARN with the QIn device, Han, and Warring States Chu device etc. all in one spot with good pictures of each.....answers your thread question basically.
http://www.atarn.org/chinese/bjng_xbow/bjng_xbow.htm

The link Yun gave above has another ATARN page with a functional crossbow using a bronze mechanism. Check it out too.

Plus, the diagram here from GZ is a Han mechanism, it has range sightings as increments on the mechanism, and is different again to all the others. That is later than my version here, the range/scale on the sights being remarked on as a Han deveopment, although exactly when I am unsure.
The Qin device is diffirent in that it lacks a seperate bronze casing, and is just pinned in the stock.
The ATARN site goes into more detail, even a safety catch on a Chu device.
Chu state was known for good weapons, but finer weapons alone do not win wars. Cleary Qin's crossbow was functionally just as lethal.

In efforts to get an idea of the capabilities of ancient crossbows I list here portions of various texts that are amongst those I consider reasonable. I hope others might list their own figures too...but it is worth being clear where sources of information come from and when they aren't identified by the authors.
Some of the figures repeated on this forum I am certainly are quite wildly inflated and at best irrelevant to the use on a battlefield.
CJ Peers in the Ancient Chinese armies series makes a number of points about crossbows. At his own admission his conclusion are subject to debate, and his text does not reference his sources of information.

East Zhou;
4th-3rd centuries;


(In the section on Qin I see that although cavalry are called bowmen in some texts or mounted crossbowmen in other he mentions "....{Qin} cavalry, whose armament is unknown."
Given the accounts of the weapons taken from the buried army during the fall of Qin I assume there isn't evidence either way for armament. The idea that the more powerful type crossbows were carried by cavalry seem unlikely. Reconstructions of the QIn crossbows are shown as very large arched devices unlike typical portable cavalry weapons. In the instance of Qin mounted cavalry 'crossbowmen' I remain unconvinced without a specific archaeological evidence or literary record.
With so many weapons removed from the buried army in ancient times further excavation is needed, and the work is still far from finished.
Yang Hong in 1992 says; ''according to incomplete statistics, the weapons unearthed were 14..bronze swords, 5 bronze spear heads, 2 curved bronze swords, 1 bronze battle axe (ge?), 30 bronze shu...1 javelin, over 8,000 bronze arrow heads and some wooden(?) crossbows with bronze trigger mechanism'')

Han
*probably 'Jue Zhang' in Pinyin, i.e foot drawn.Yang Hong uses this term when noting foot drawn weapons were the principal weapons in Han.


The buried army of Qin ShiHuang; Auckland city art gallery

{this is also the figure given in 'Gilded Dragons' published by the British museum, and also in the range of the Qin crossbow as described by Jessica Rawson in 'Art & Archaeology in Ancient China'. 200m seems the consistent range referred to for the Qin devices. This is likely a maximum effective combat range rather than a true maximum range.}

Yang Hong; Weapons in ancient China
East Zhou
**I feel the pace here is likely to be close to a single pace, i.e roughly 75cm in 'modern' times. There is a possibility it is the double pace, i.e 1.5m. Until what the text refers to is identified clearly I would not make a conclusion based on a modern conversion or what is taught in schools today.
At 75cm this puts the 100 paces at close or just over a standard lethal range for bowfire(75m), and the 600 paces at a very impressive effective maximum range (400m).
At 1.5m this puts the 100 paces at an general effective bowfire maximum of 150m, again adequate, and the 600 paces at a confusing 900m.
900m could only be by pointing the crossbow into the sky for a long range maximum flight. It could be possible as an absolute maximum, and beyond an effective range, but doesn't have relevance to the crossbows penetrating power and probable flat trajectory fire on a battlefield. This longest arc would be irrelevant to warfare.
For those interested I really recommend measuring out 50, 100, 200etc. metres and such ranges to get an idea of what they look like and if possible fire a normal bow to long ranges. It shows the Han era weapons at 260m to be remarkable for being able to engage with effectiveness when individual targeting wouldn't be possible.
My final comment about any confusion over the 'pace' is that modern populations are larger in stature than ancient ones. A single or double pace is unlikely to be either of the two modern 'paces' listed above...evidence for smaller stature is both implied by the increase in average heights since industrialization with increased nutrition in modern times and the artefacts I have handled such as swords and bangles from Zhou to Han suggesting a smaller sized adult population.
The only certainty to be taken from the Sima Qian account is the use of leg-drawn crossbows at that time and the greatly increased range and lethality over arm-drawn examples.


Han
{Yang Hong notes the increased strength of Han era crossbows(Qiang Nu/strong crossbow) & the addition of the scaled sight for increased accuracy.} &


He also has a reference to records found on Han era slips at Pochenji recording repairs to weapons at a watch/beacon station. They include a crossbow of 5-pical (250kg) and 6-pical (300kg). Both of these in excess of infantry crossbows listed so without any other explanation I can only assume these are static crossbows at the watchtowers and perhaps one reference to the elusive Han-era arcuballistas.
Yang Hong in referring to the Wei & Jin and a specific mechanism says 'They are similar to those of the Han dynasty in both form and in structure. The strength of the crossbow is given as 10 dan...(268.3 kilos).
The figures seem to become a bit wild beyond here with reference to General Ma Ling recruiting new soldiers and only admitting those that 'could bend a crossbow of 36-jun with his waist...One jun is 15 kilograms and the figure above leads to the conclusion that the crossbow was bent using both arms and the waist, having a strength of 500kgs''. (?!)
He mentions winch loaded crossbows specifically such as Shen Nu/magic crossbow and it is said to be 10,000 jun. He acknowledges this must be an exaggeration....or else perhaps something is wrong with both these accounts. Precisely how a crossbow is 'waist bent' (with a belt hook?) and how many people are humanly capable to work with such weights (500kg) leads me to conclude that despite the reasonable figures up until this point, and the clear referencing of all of his sources, that both figures can be discounted in this case. This is the only part of Yang Hongs book which didn't sit right with me, and the rest of it is quite excellent.
He does however have information on very large crossbow mechanisms which are certainly proof of very heavy ballista-like devices at this time (between Han & Tang). Again the Han must have been capable of producing such devices....
{edit; if the soldiers could lift wieghts like Olympic athletes such 500kg figures might just be in the realm of international lifters...the heavier devices are certainly winch loaded when getting into fantastic realms. Song era crossbows for siege were true war machine crewed by a team of operators for example.}

This is 3 times the size of a typical mechanism and obviously from a war machine.
The mechanism are pictured in his book, and Jieming e-mailed me a picture of one of these a fortnight ago. In time devices like this should be found in a Han or East Zhou context...assuming they haven't already.

Tang;

Nice sum up.

btw, typo at 6th quote. 160m isn't 1/4th of a kilometer.

If the Qin calvary had crossbows of that size, then it's probably not used to shoot on horseback. The units were probably used to move from one place to the next faster. When fighting they probably shot dismounted. Happened to the melee guys, so why not the crossbow guys? Just my opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong.

How can the crossbow contribute to the decline of the chariot? I thought it would make the chariot more important.

infantry crossbowmen could destroy chariots/horses/riders with crossbow fire.

I think it's a combination of that, plus advent of horse-riders.

I spotted the errors just now but of course somebody else saw them first!
D**n. I typed that out during a day off work with the flu...and it was a real drag.
I edited in the proper range (260m)...but you might recall this is the range I bought up in other threads when discussing Yang Hongs sources.

Note on ranges from Tang records;

In the Qin dynasty, 1 chi was 23.1 cm.
1 bu was 5 chi in the Qin.
This would make 1 bu = 115.5 cm = 1.155m

modern bu;
1 chi = 33.3333 centimetres
1 bu (步) = 5 chi

Any info on Tang Bu is appreciated, but it will likely be roughly similar to the above.
This again suggests the ranges of crossbows in East Zhou being put at 800-900m must be irrelevant when the improved later dynasty devices are still in the range of a few hundred metres by consistent accounts.

If I recall correctly, a Tang pace is 1.55 meters. I got it from yexu in china defense. His quote.



If true, then the Tang pace and the Song pace would be the same. Don't know.

Edit: With the advent of crossbows, won't chariots become more powerful since the chariot would be able to contain crossbowmen(who can load crossbows easier on a chariot, rather than on a horse). It's pretty given there were crossbowmen on chariots by the Warring States.

Chariots went out of fashion for several possible reasons...and probably not only just one of them needs to be chosen.
They were not wonderful military weapons it seems...more a display of power and a relic of the earlier periods of ancient warfare.
As warfare became a more serious and brutal affair the focus switched to lethality, numbers and functionality.
In anything other than ideal terrain the chariot is cumbersome...and in the southern warring states would be of little use.
They are expensive investments, and up untill East ZHou were fitted out with many stunning but unnessecary fittings for display (gold and decorated bronze)
Cavalry can perform the same function with greater versatily...even if they werent quite as good missile platforms.
It appears that Chinese chariots were not routinely fitted out for actual close combat (i.e wheel blades or cutting baldes on the halter).
My own feeling is that the improvement of Chinese horse stocks from the smaller Mongolian breed...which could have produced tens of thousands of larger mounts after the Ferghana wars in Han...meant that cavalry could outperform chariots in everyway once strong and swift mounts came availble in numbers.
This is the same way that iron existed before Han but not untill the scale is large enough can it replace bronze fully.
The huge size of armies in East ZHou meant the chariot was not going to win any wars against masses of disiplined infantry with ranks of crossbowmen.
It really was a relic.
CJ Peers has his own thoughts, but he rightly calls it a 'contribution'.
There doesnt have to be any one reason.
Economics. effectiveness, terrain, alternatives, weaknesses...all of these would have made them a burden on the battlefield.
Chariots were still riden by the nobility off the battlefield, but sometime in mid-West Han the war chariot fades out of use.

Here's the Qin era mounts again. Not built for speed to my discerning eyes!
(These horses could walk under the archers arm pit after all.)

Chariots functioned very poorly in most terrain. The Sunzi pingfa lists a whole bunch of terrains where it would be lethal for commanders to bring chariots.

Hello,

Just like Stephen SELBY, I had a Han dynasty crossbow reconstructed around an old mechanism.

I posted it on a thread on Atarn as follows :

http://198.66.52.119/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=17

I've heard that the Ming dynasty used bone or horn for crossbow trigger mechanisms, is this true?

BTW, nice stuff Romain.

Qin Dynasty bronze replica crossbow found in the tomb of the First Emperor...

tomb that hasnt been openeed yet?

Sorry, not the actual tomb, what I meant was the terracotta pits where his half-scale bronze personal carriage and escort chariot were excavated... where this crossbow replica made entirely of bronze was recovered...

Thanks Conan.

With lighter quarrel (aluminum) and lighter string (dacron) I got a speed record of 165 fps. Which is not bad for a 55 pounds weapon without any modern component.

Yes, unusual looking indeed. Looks better suited for shooting oneself with

Thank you Very much for these pictures, They have answered many questions i had about the CHinese crossbow. I am Reading Selbys book right now and am trying to learn the chinese techniques for archery as well as crossbowmanship.

After staring at that picture for awhile, the second string is pretty ingenious come to think of it. It does 2 (maybe 3) things.

1. It takes some tension off the main bowstring in the undrawn position thus extending the main bowstring's usage life.

2. During firing, it prevents the bow arms from damage as it halts (and if it were even slighly elastic, it will slow down) the bowarms to rest position before it whips into the opposite direction and start cracking the laminate.

(possibly 3. When fully drawn, the second string might actually be in tension as well, helping the bowarms to pull back forward and hence getting just that little bit more acceleration on the bolt.)

Excellent observations, LJ

Although I think #3 is unlikely, as the second string would relax upon drawing the bow. It might work, though, if the base of the second string were mounted ahead of the prod.

Yeah, I'm not too sure of #3 myself, but I could imagine if how if you draw back far enough, it would start to pull on the second string, putting it into tension. Can't say for sure if the draw is actually far enough back for that to happen. Probably not since the bow arms come closer together instead of further away.

Good job Liang, I didn't even notice the crossbow had two strings. But how rare/commonplace do you think this is in Qin crossbows?

Do any of you fine fellows have measurements for the MEchanism? my Uncle and I are trying to build one.

Here is a picture I was sent of a silver inlaid crossbow mechanism amongst the many artefacts for sale in Zhengzhou markets, China. This is a real work of art.



The sighting scale is clearly shown here, with increments for range. This should mean this is an example of a Han period improvement over the Warring States period devices.



Also worth adding is this silver inlaid example from the Richard Nable collection, currently in the Young Museum, Texas.
http://www.youngmuseum.com/the_richard_nable_collection.htm

Kenneth, what are the penalties if you get caught bringing one of these things out of China?

That's not authentic is it? It's shining and all, with all the details layed out clearly. It'll be a very well preserved piece if it is authentic.

The Nable piece should be authentic. He's one of the best appraisers of ancient arms and armour out there.

The second string would make draw harder by feet, one must carefuly put the feet between the second string and the bow.

Jail for smuggling I expect. It is not anything a tourist would try & I doubt he even considered it.
i.e "In February 2002, local dealer Wang Cangyan was arrested having shipped the 32 figurines to Hong Kong, hidden in trucks of modern ceramics. He is currently serving a reduced jail sentence for co-operating with authorities, while the figurines were returned from a Hong Kong dealer in return for keeping his identity secret."
The actual tomb robbers do recieve death sentences and jail terms, but the very wierd thing is that the actual sale and trade in the artefacts in markets in China, such as the pictures you recieved in e-mail, are open and legal.
Foreign collectors who make purchases make them via Hong Kong where it is legal and lawful to export items, unlike the PRC mainland. These antiques are also sold openly at places like Hollywood road HK although I never saw the quantities & variation of items as I have seen displayed at internal China markets in shop for shop comparisons.
The strange paradox is that looters (many of them rural folk who recieve a tiny sum) potentially face capital charges, demand is said to drive this looting, but the artefacts markets in places like Zhengzhou, Xian, Beijing etc. suggest the open internal market in China (closed to foreigners) are more than enough to drive the looting by these lower income people.



It is quite authentic, there is nothing to suggest otherwise. The shine is from either overhead lights or the flash from the camera.
Most bronze tends to 'preserve' well, but this version is also quite clear of a mineral patina.
The guy who took the photos would be pretty aware of fakery since he has handled authentic bronzes before. He did send pictures of other items that were fakes (as in a shop of fakes), but the vast majority on offer he photographed are all ancient Shang-Han bronzes.