Just changed the whole site's look and feel. Whaddaya guys think of the rotating backgrounds and red/orange/black colour scheme?


ps. Yun, any comment on the Zhou King's catapult?

The scheme is good, but for the opening page with the background may i strongly suggest a less distracting background? People have to spend more effort reading your text because of it, and this might turn off some first-time visitors.

I would also like to suggest changing the text colour in your articles to a darker one. I find it too light given the white background and again not so easy on the eyes.

The site won't display?

ok. good points. Will change to bg and text colours.

Site won't display? hmmm... I'll check... who else can't view the site?

There may be some inaccuracy in this passage. I believe it is referring to a line from the now-lost "Fan Li's Art of War" (Fan Li being the famous advisor to King Goujian of Yue in the Spring-Autumn Period), which was cited by Zhang Yan in an annotation to the biography of General Gan Yanshou in the Han Shu. It reads, "A flying rock of 12 jin (about 3kg during the Western Han) when launched by a device (ji) can travel 200 paces." In the Shiji biography of General Wang Jian, Xu Guang cited this Han Shu annotation by Zhang Yan, but miswrote "200 paces" as "300 paces". This mistake was repeated by Needham in p. 206 of "Science and Civilisation in China" Volume 5 Part 6.

I have seen no source stating that the line is from a Zhou record, or that it is in a reference to a battle between the Zhou king and the Duke of Zheng.

When I have the chance, I'll pass you the relevant pages from Thomas' book if he hasn't done so already.

It's still intriguing enough to be worth mulling over.

Works for me.

Ok. I've edited all the pages with a darker font colour and decreased the contrast on the background images, just for you.

I'm working on some more custom backgrounds for the internal pages. Should get them up soon.

Whaddaya think now? Better?

Definitely better. I would like to suggest leaving background images for banners or a side image rather than for the main text. I much prefer a cleaner look and I think the majority of your target audience will appreciate it as well. The backgrounds and stuff can give the impression that your information seem amateurish.

If you must have background suggest you do it in monotone and low contrast.

okey dokey. I'll keep the rest clean with minimal background then.

Here it is. Whaddaya think?

Ok, altaica militarica tells me that the "Chongtong" is more likely Chinese than Korean.

You or AM have the source?

BTW, here's something interesting about a 20th century use of the catapult.

This is from Col. David H. Hackworth's book "About Face: The Odyssey of an American Warrior", 1989 Touchstone Books on Vietnam. In page 678 of the book, at a Fire Support Base in the Mekong Delta in 1969 he mentions the vietnamese Vietcong using a catapult against the Americans.

"...they packed about three hundred pounds of explosives into a box, put it on a catapult not unlike the ones used in medieval times to crash into a fortress, and in the middle of the night flung the ***** thing over our berm."

now thats unconventional!

What could I say?The merging of ancient technology with modern weaponry...

Just finished a massive update of the articles with a few new articles added based on new information.

Ok, did a final update before I leave on my holiday. Was rushing because I promised my cousin in London a copy of my latest draft. I've more or less grouped all the components that will go into the book as chapters, and posted what I've could in terms of images and text until I can follow up with proper articles and writings to fill these chapters.

Hope you like it.

Ming dynasty "great general" cannon - largest native design. This weapon highly impressed the Koreans, who imported it during the Imjin war.



Crouching tiger cannon.


Mortar. This is actually Korean, but Turnbulls writes that the design is Chinese.

Updated pages on non-chinese catapults, especially from new info provided by Duncan on the South Asian and pre-columbian American catapults.

Thanks Duncan!

Also put up pictures of portions of the Assyrian Wall Reliefs showing Assyrian siege towers/tanks and slings.

I've updated my writings especially the parts on the Handheld Rocket Launchers and the Huo Che (Hwacha).

What I initially called the Yiwofeng is actually just name for one type of Handheld Rocket Launcher. The early Ming dynasty Huo Ches (mobile rocket launchers) consist of 6 handheld launchers strapped to a simple wheelbarrow cart for a total of 320 rockets.

An interesting excerpt from Caesar: Gallic War, concerning the use of the Roman Ballista (Scorpion) during a siege and how deadly precise the weapon was. I thought it might be a worthwhile contribution to your ballista page (it is scoRpio btw). Unfortunately, the English translation I found didnt name the Scorpio explicitly, while Caesar in his commentaries did. So another translation may be more useful to you.

http://authors.history-forum.com/liang_jie...f-ballista.html



The English translation:

When the battle was going on in every direction, the rest of the night being now spent, and fresh hopes of victory always arose before the enemy: the more so on this account because they saw the coverings of our towers burnt away, and perceived, that we, being exposed, could not easily go to give assistance, and they themselves were always relieving the weary with fresh men, and considered that all the safety of Gaul rested on this crisis; there happened in my own view a circumstance which, having appeared to be worthy of record, we thought it ought not to be omitted. A certain Gaul before the gate of the town, who was casting into the fire opposite the turret guts of tallow and fire which were passed along to him, was pierced with a dart on the right side and fell dead. One of those next him stepped over him as he lay, and discharged the same office: when the second man was slain in the same manner by a wound from a cross-bow, a third succeeded him, and a fourth succeeded the third: nor was this post left vacant by the besieged, until, the fire of the mound having been extinguished, and the enemy repulsed in every direction, an end was put to the fighting.

http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.7.7.html


The Latin original (Book 7, 25):

Cum in omnibus locis consumpta iam reliqua parte noctis pugnaretur, semperque hostibus spes victoriae redintegraretur, eo magis, quod deustos pluteos turrium videbant nec facile adire apertos ad auxiliandum animadvertebant, semperque ipsi recentes defessis succederent omnemque Galliae salutem in illo vestigio temporis positam arbitrarentur, accidit inspectantibus nobis quod dignum memoria visum praetereundum non existimavimus. Quidam ante portam oppidi Gallus per manus sebi ac picis traditas glebas in ignem e regione turris proiciebat: scorpione ab latere dextro traiectus exanimatusque concidit. Hunc ex proximis unus iacentem transgressus eodem illo munere fungebatur; eadem ratione ictu scorpionis exanimato alteri successit tertius et tertio quartus, nec prius ille est a propugnatoribus vacuus relictus locus quam restincto aggere atque omni ex parte summotis hostibus finis est pugnandi factus.

http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/caesar/gall7.shtml

Thanks TL, very interesting. I'll try and find a better english translation with the specific mention of the scorpion in it from the library and add that in.

I am please to announce that these works will soon be available in print... I hope.

Title of publication: "Chinese Siege Warfare: Mechanical Artillery & Siege Weapons of Antiquity"
Edition: 1st
Vol/Issue no.: 120p
ISBN 981-05-5380-3

Which is better? Which would attract your attention on a bookshelf?







Vote count as of 10:00am, 16 March 2006 (+8 GMT)
Beige - 4
Black - 8
White - 2
Total - 14

I like the beige one best.

Another vote for the beige, with white a very close second.

No, according to 中国全史, 600 bu = 831.6 meters

Making 1 pace roughly 1.386 meters.



According to 中国科技史探索: “大弩射程竟达900 米” "The large crossbows can go up to 900 meters."

Altgough Yang Hong's 《中国古兵器论丛》 did doubt the range：“（战国时的弩）可射六百步，看来是不可能的”。

How interesting. Before this, Black was the only leading contender here with beige a non-player. Keep the votes and comments coming! I need the feedback to decide on the final scheme.

Number one, it looks like it'd be on bamboo, or old paper.

Oh yes, Liang, a little off topic- I'm writing about Chinese weaponry for a class report and presentation in my geography class. I plan to include a section on siege weaponry, and you're just the man for that. Do you mind if I quote your site for that?

Ah, another vote for beige. Ok, will add that to the poll.

Sure by all means, quote my site. That's what it's for. To be used.

Thanks mate. When your book gets out, oh how much I'll brag.

LJm,

Take the Black cover. Good guys prefer Black.

But the Beige does have a professional look

black cover beige inside i agree too

I really agree with ih8eurocentrix and Cardinal about black cover. ... ih8eurocentrix idea of beige inside is a great idea. ... I wonder if yo gonna have autographed copy for sale? ...

Autographed copies for sale? Hehehe, haven't thought that far ahead yet but why not? Maybe for members of CHF who buy a copy, have some of the proceeds go towards CHF site maintenance. GZ any comments on this?

Black cover will sell better in Western bookshops. I must admit I rather like the beige though.

The websites that quoted these ranges as 'typical/normal' were full of amateur errors and were wrongly used as authority on the forum for 'versus' point scoring, and depict this range as a simple Qin crossbow fired from horseback at 900m. Although there are references to Qin crossbow cavalry in both British musuem texts and others on the buried army Yang Hong also states these examples are arm loaded versions. The actual Qin ranges specifically commeted on are much shorter since this range is from an earlier period Sima Qian account of leg loaded crossbows.
The confusion with these upper ranges from Sima Qian is that this is a saturation fire range or a maximum if at all, and yet centuries later with clearly more powerful crossbows and improved mechansim sights the leg loaded crossbows of Han which are even better described in terms of precise draw-weights and ranges in primary records give 260m as the range a typical 6 dan leg loaded crossbow fire.
This is why people quoting these 800m plus ranges as an ancient ''Chinese crossbow'' on the battlefield are neither including evidence to the contrary or qualifying whether the records of the 100 arrows volleys at this range were a maximum flight or an actual effective range. The answer seems pretty clear if you look at other Chinese sources.
This constant production of the upper limits of this quote does not mean they are the most relevant to the battlefield. i.e A weapon that shoots on the battlefield to 200 yards with effect we know can fire over 400 yards but that is academic....therefore do we start using 400 yards as a range when talking about longbows just because it is the maximum? It would suit a versus thread competion well to use this upper figure.
No. (to use your favourite turn of phrase). I had already figured out the ranges of the pace that were much like yours and so realise the maximum could be in the area of 800m (or more with later devices). I even commented that the populations of East ZHou in terms of wrist bracelets and size of hilts on swords show a smaller people I speculated that the ancient pace may be under 1.5m. The calculated range is no surprise, but given the comments that Qin crossbows fired more like 200m, {often given in a variety of texts on the buried army as 'an advantage over the Xiongnu'}, means the distinction between maximum flight and maximum effective range is more important & must be made.
This was discussed in some depth by a number of members in mid-2005 around the time of my comments you are now belatedly replying to.
Note that a winch loaded crossbow of Tang barely fires this far, nor does a later ''ambush crossbow'' designed for longer ranges effectively fire this far. The infantry and cavalry crossbow ranges given in other sources for effective ranges are more closer (almost the same) as the excavated Han bamboo slip commentary at 260m. This seems far more consistent the more sources are compared.
I suggest people who wonder if 800m is the effective range, and relevant to lethality with ammunition, both consider that even modern firearms effective ranges are often below this...that Han crossbows are sited for a flat trajectory...that there is limited ammunition in a quiver...commentary of fire in ancient times elsewhere for effect is most consistently from 60m to 200m {hence the Qin and the Han weapons are great enough without this 800m confusion}....and finally, get yourself a bow and fire at the different ranges even if just to get the idea of how far it actually is. i.e...I shoot at 60m or out to 120m. If using the maximum in an arc the lower penetration when dropping from an arc can be seen on the target even if we times the range by several times for heavier weapons the greater effect on the battlefield at flatter trajectories and greater accuracy is clear.
As a bronze age reconstruction bowyer pointed to me on this topic years ago even past 200m making out the face of a person is difficult. Volley fire at 200m is an impressive range...measure it out on a field like I did.
Whether people want to use the upper limits of a visiting scholars impressed commentary that seems to be talking about maximum flights rather than military manuals when taken in conjunction with other sources on the same weapons ranges is their call. It has all been said before. I feel enough pieces fall into place to suggest that like a Turkish bow firing out beyond 1km that there are more relevant aspects to range. Note; the Turkish bow of this type is not used in war. Maximum flight does not translate into lethality even if scholars use this figure in that instance.
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...opic=4470&st=15


sources on thread, this figure has been mentioned in a number of texts.
Y. Hong.

&

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
(i. comparible to the ranges of the Han military for hand held crossbows and the actaul ranges are consistent for hand held devices)
&

see thread for sources of quotations.

The source I use isn't from any websites, but publication from schoarly Taiwanese and Mainland texts. The Shi Ji records 600 paces for the Han crossbows, and that translate into 831.6 meters. And this was never intended for vs. score points, because they are the maximum, not the effective range, and their use for infantry battlefield is questionable. But that doesn't change the fact that 900 meter range crossobws during the warring state is possible. Yang Hong is only one person who doubts the 600 pace crossbows. There are many others that does not.




I don't think anyone considered these 800 meter crossbow a common infantry battlefield weapon or the effective range. Su Qin never mentioned what they are used for，all he said was that Xi Zi Nu and Shao Fu's crossbow strength can go beyond 600 paces. Beyond 600 paces is between 800-900 meters. Of course, Su Qin is known for exaggeration, as were his comments about the size of armies of the different kingdoms for his political purposes, but the lack of information regarding the type of crossbow(as even large engines can be called Nu), we have no verification what these crossbows are.


I have read Sun Bin's art of war, what it mentioned is "何以知弓弩之为势也？发之肩膺之间，杀人于百步之外", bai bu or one hundred pace in classical Chinese seem to be no more than a rhetorical comment on range, or a metaphor meaning a fairly long range of distance for a bow. And the correct translation is beyond 100 paces, not the equivalent of. Furthermore, Sun Bin mention this crossbow as hand powered, not leg drawn.



You seem to always bring up versus threads, however, this is not the intention at all. In fact I stressed the fact that they are not the effective range. The point is merely to say that ancient records mention over 800 meter range crossbows, thats all there is to it.
No one used the 800 meter crossbow as an indicator of strength, you are the one that seem to be obssessed with their use in the battlefields.




Qin Chi isn't necessary the same as that of Han or the warring states. Those given for Han in warring states is 1 bu = 1.386 meter, for Tang its 1 bu = 1.56 meter.

Vote count as of 12:00pm, 17 March 2006 (+8 GMT)
Beige - 4
Black - 8.5
White - 2.5
Total - 15

An interesting test concerning the penetrating power of the longbow:

http://heute.de/ZDFde/inhalt/18/0,1872,2117394,00.html

Click for "Video" or "Bilder Galerie" (sequence of pictures) at the right.

They say the arrow penetrated a 1,5 mm steel plate at a distance of 80 m. The video shows how the arrow pierced the plate moving like an eel.

1.5mm for steel is very thin. Depending on the steel, high tensile fy=460 or low tensile fy=275 steel, even a man with an ice-pick could puncture 1.5mm.

1.5mm sounds reasonable, though I am not entirely sure whether plate armour of the 14th C. is of this thickness.

A couple of points:

How much of the force of the arrow is absorbed by the armour before it is pierced? Likely a bodkin head was used which means it actually is not the best one for cutting deep into the flesh.

14th C. chainmail was still worn under plate. The chainmail probably weighed as much as the plate (depending on the amount of plate) and would have provided a second layer of protection.A padded undercoat would have provided the third.

Here we see the arrow hitting the steel plate almost straight on. Had the plate been angled or curved the results may be quite different.

At a fast gallop, a horse can cover 80m in a few seconds. Of course the question comes in as to exactly how much of the romantified glorious charge of knights is realistic? But assuming they did, how many volleys can be sent after the horsemen before contact?

I would be surprised if a medieval crossbow could not have the same penetrating power as a longbow at the same distance.

I personally think the rate of 'fire' of the longbow is the main tacitcal differentiator.

Vote count as of 1:10pm, 19 March 2006 (+8 GMT)
Beige - 4
Black - 9.5
White - 2.5
Total - 16

Hehehe, no prizes for guessing which one I'm going with now, not unless we get a resurgence of beige votes. Most of the votes for black are coming from ShadowedRealm which has predominately North Am members. Well, keep the votes coming in. Might as well see how far this goes. I don't need to confirm the colour till mid-April.

Vote count as of 12:40am, 20 March 2006 (+8 GMT)
Beige - 4
Black - 10.5
White - 2.5
Total - 17

Vote count as of 10:25am, 20 March 2006 (+8 GMT)
Beige - 4
Black - 11.5
White - 2.5
Total - 18

Black...bold and sinister. It has my vote.

Re:piercing metal.
These tests have been done dozens of times. It isn't comparing apples with apples however.
When actual proffesional armourers make an armour plate with even a slight curve, and to what must be a proper thickness, then the shaft of the arrow often shatters when metal meets metal and the arrow point buckles.
A short squat point can pierce a steel sheet comparible to a breast plate at point blank range (i.e inside 30m) at an optimum angle fired from a war bow. By that time though the archer is about to be overrun.
When the metal plate, like at the throat, is in a V shape & sloping armour the arrow is even more easily turned. It is good proof the thin bodkin is not for piercing plate, although chain is a possibility. Even chain seems surprisingly proof against arrows when of quality and with a good backing material.
Tests show it is only the 2 together that stop arrows and chain itself can be pierced just like the backing material can be pierced. Just the same the shape of the steel plate counts too, so piercing of flat sheets of metal (1.5mm seems too thin) is dubious when sloping armour benefits were known.
These tests of a flat sheet of thin steel up against a haybail being pierced by an arrow are not conclusive or relevant when better tests have been made. The longbow is a decisive weapon but it isnt for piercing plate as such.
Those lucky enough to wear plate were safe enough from all but the long hafted and heavy weapons designed to penetrate it.

Q: Are the North Am members from the Shadowed Realm?
A: Not in Sunny California.

Q: Can you feel the Yang from California?

@ the end, Good guys prefer Black.

Hi Liang Jieming,

I took a closer look at your quality web-site and I have a few questions left.

1. Take a look at your shoutbox.

2. Did the ancient Chinese develop torsion-powered arcuballista?

3. Why did Greek engineers soon switch from tension-powered (Gastraphetes, 399 BC) to torsion-powered arcuballista (late 4th century)? Did torsion-powered arrows have a longer range and more penetrating power? If so, did the Roman arcuballista outrange the Chinese? And can we view the unique Chinese double- and triple bow arcuballista as an attempt by Chinese engineers to overcome the limits of the tension principle?

4. Did the ancient Chinese develop a multi-shot arcuballista (like the proto-type of Dionysios of Alexandria)?

5. Did the Romans use multi-bolt arcuballista (like The Lian Nu)?

6. When were catapults and ballistas introduced to the battle-field in China and how frequent was their use? Did ancient Chinese armies had a mobile field artillery with ballistas and catapults mounted on carts?

7. Take a look here

8. Where can I buy your book? And can I get a free copy for my uncle, mum, and sister?


Tibet Libre

I would like to ask Tibet Libre's Question number 10 too.

Nope.
Yes, probably because they couldn't increase the power of their single-bow gastraphetes. Torsion power allowed for higher powers.

The Chinese had two innovations which allowed them to continue using non-torsion bows, the composite bow construction, and the multi-bow arrangement of opposing bows.

The Greco-Romans never discovered this multi-bow arrangement and went the torsion way instead.

Debatable which was better. Both served the same purpose and because both were from very different principles, comparing them other than a simple superficial comparison of ranges and projectile weight, would be like comparing apples to oranges. Both have their advantages, and their disadvantages as described in my book.

Nothing like the Dionysios proto-type but they did have the Lian Nu and the Zhuge Nu and Ma Chun's proto-type ferris-wheel catapult.


Not that I'm aware of.

Still researching this but the earliest records point to Qin/Han, although I really can't imagine why not in the Warring States period since they already had them on city walls.

The Han had mobile arcuballistas used with their field armies against the Xiong Nu and something called the Ji Che which might have been a mobile traction catapult but no mention of it outside of fortifications.


The picture is a roman scorpio. The romans actually had non-torsion handheld crossbows but they dropped it. Not sure why but again IMO, it could have been the lack of composite technology which stunted the power of the roman crossbow.

Hehehehe, soon... very soon. I'm waiting for some reviews to come back before I dump the whole mess with the printers.