Repeating Crossbow: http://www.atarn.org/chinese/rept_xbow.htm
Crossbow Mechanisms: http://www.atarn.org/chinese/bjng_xbow/bjng_xbow.htm
Exquisitely preserved Warring States Crossbow: http://www.atarn.org/letters/ltr_dec00.htm
Click on links to see other related information.
Full Version: Chinese Crossbows
Very nice info.. :P
Hmmm doesn't seem to find any info on how effective it acturally was though. ... (range and piercing power wise...)
but still that was some d**** nice pic :)
but still that was some d**** nice pic :)
RollingWave, for a VERY detailed and fascinating discussion of the range and piercing power of the crossbow and repeating crossbow, may I refer you to this thread on the AE forum: http://mojtaba.proboards7.com/index.cgi?bo...display&start=0
There's also some interesting stuff about the hoplite phalanx and Macedonian phalanx thrown in at the start. Be warned about two things in that thread:
1. Warhead and Hyarmendacil (a boy genius from Indonesia) get VERY technical about crossbows.
2. Warhead and Rebelsoul (the guy who started the thread) get VERY angry with each other over the Han vs. Rome question. :unsure:
There's also some interesting stuff about the hoplite phalanx and Macedonian phalanx thrown in at the start. Be warned about two things in that thread:
1. Warhead and Hyarmendacil (a boy genius from Indonesia) get VERY technical about crossbows.
2. Warhead and Rebelsoul (the guy who started the thread) get VERY angry with each other over the Han vs. Rome question. :unsure:
In many game interpertations and common interpertations seem to suggest that crossbows can not be effectively used in a arc shot...... it have to be used in a more direct path like muskets........
However is this true? from all the numbers i'm reading crossbows clearly had superior range to most bows... which would be almost impossible if the bows can be shot in a 45 degree angle while the crossbow have to shoot strait....
From my book on ancient chinese weapons I did pick up something on that crossbow bolts had a harder time attaching feather to the end... thus effecting flight stability in a arc.... but from the numbers i'm seeing most of the well built crossbows had a range of well over half a mile... which is definately not possible without firing in a arc as far as i can see....
So can any weapon experts fill me in on this?
However is this true? from all the numbers i'm reading crossbows clearly had superior range to most bows... which would be almost impossible if the bows can be shot in a 45 degree angle while the crossbow have to shoot strait....
From my book on ancient chinese weapons I did pick up something on that crossbow bolts had a harder time attaching feather to the end... thus effecting flight stability in a arc.... but from the numbers i'm seeing most of the well built crossbows had a range of well over half a mile... which is definately not possible without firing in a arc as far as i can see....
So can any weapon experts fill me in on this?
RollingWave, read the link to the AE thread provided in this thread:
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=278
It will answer most of your questions, and maybe give some more questions to ponder about
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=278
It will answer most of your questions, and maybe give some more questions to ponder about
nice info..... but had to read through a lot of usless junk too XD
I think, some of these crossbows can fire multiple bolts at one time.
The chinese were famous for that weren't they? Any ways how many shots can a unit or person fire in one minute with a crossbow.
Basicly shots per minute.
Basicly shots per minute.
There is a chinese movie called 'Hero" by director Zhang Yimou. In the movie, you can see many crossbows archers firing bolts..
I shall quote some primary source passages (slightly modified in translation) from Joseph Needham's "Science and Civilisation in China", Vol. V Part 6 (pp. 121-125), which covers military thought, archery, and siege warfare. This book is highly recommended, but expensive and very thick. If you can find it in a library, grab it!
Zeng Gongliang 曾公亮, writer of the Song military manual Wujing Zongyao 武经总要 (1044):
The crossbow is the strongest weapon of China and what the four kinds of barbarians [i.e. Yi 夷 in the east, Di 狄 in the north, Man 蛮 in the south and Rong 戎 in the west] most fear and obey. ... Now for piercing through hard things and shooting a long distance, and when struggling to defend mountain passes, where much noise and impetuous strength must be stemmed, there is nothing like the crossbow for success. However, as the drawing [i.e. the arming] is slow, it is difficult to cope with sudden attacks. A crossbow can only be shot off [by a single man] three times before it comes to hand-to-hand weapons. Some have therefore thought crossbows inconvenient for fighting, but truly the inconvenience lay not in the crossbow itself but in the commanders, who did not know how to make use of crossbows. All the military theorists of the Tang maintained that the crossbow had no advantage over hand-to-hand weapons, and they insisted on having long halberds [i.e. changji 长戟] and great shields [i.e. pavises] in the front line to repel the charge, and made the crossbowmen to carry sabres [i.e. dao 刀] and long-hafted weapons [i.e. modao 陌刀]. The result was that if the enemy adopted an open-order formation and attacked with hand-to-hand weapons, the soldiers would throw away their crossbows and have recourse to those also. A body of the rearguard was therefore detailed to go around and collect up the crossbows.
But now [i.e. in the Song army] things are not at all like this. The crossbow is the most efficient weapon of any, even at distances as small as five feet. The crossbowmen are mustered in separate companies, and when they shoot, nothing can stand in front of them, no [enemy] formation can keep its order. If attacked by cavalry, the crossbowmen will be as solid as a mountain, shooting off such volleys that nothing can remain alive before them. Although the charge my be impetuous it will not reach them. Therefore the barbarians [i.e. Khitan] fear [the crossbow]. For struggling around strategic points among mountains and rivers and defiles, overcoming men who do not lack bravery, the crossbow is indispensable.
Regarding the method of using the crossbow, it cannot be mixed up with hand-to-hand weapons, and it is beneficial when shot from high ground facing downwards. It only needs to be used so that the men within the formation are loading while the men in the front line of the formation are shooting. As they come forward they use shields to protect their flanks. Thus each in their turn they draw their crossbows and come up; then as soon as they have shot bolts they return again into their formation. Thus the sound of the crossbows is incessant and the enemy can hardly even flee. Therefore we have the following drill -
shooting rank
advancing rank
loading rank.
Needham's comment: ... perhaps Zeng Gongliang was a little ungenerous to the military writers of the Tang, for in fact the latter part of his discourse is borrowed almost verbatim from the Shejing 射经 (Book of Archery) or Jiaoshejing 教射经 (Instruction Book for Archery) written by Wang Ju 王琚, a distinguished technologist of the 8th century.
My comment: Zeng Gongliang also underestimates the effectiveness and practicality of the Tang modao drill for crossbowmen against armoured cavalry who are well protected against crossbow bolts except at close range. This drill may have caused the extinction of heavy cavalry in the Tang, making the Song volley-fire drill useful against the lighter cavalry that now became the norm. The Song would later encounter the stronger armoured cavalry of the Jurchen, and would find their crossbow drills as disastrously inadequate as the Western Jin soldiers had in the 4th century. They had to turn again to modao-style tactics, with the use of the zhanmadao and Yue Fei's mazhadao becoming decisive against cavalry rather than the crossbow.
Additional note: Needham mentions that Wang Ju listed the ranges of the various kinds of crossbow. The winch-armed crossbow (jiaoche nu 绞车弩) would shoot a bolt as far as 1,160 yards (about 1km) and was used especially for attacking city ramparts and forts. The arm-drawn form (bizhang nu 臂张弩), presumably the standard type, had a range of some 500 yards (about 457m), and the horse-archer's crossbow (ma nu 马弩) would shoot about 330 yards (about 300m).
Zeng Gongliang 曾公亮, writer of the Song military manual Wujing Zongyao 武经总要 (1044):
The crossbow is the strongest weapon of China and what the four kinds of barbarians [i.e. Yi 夷 in the east, Di 狄 in the north, Man 蛮 in the south and Rong 戎 in the west] most fear and obey. ... Now for piercing through hard things and shooting a long distance, and when struggling to defend mountain passes, where much noise and impetuous strength must be stemmed, there is nothing like the crossbow for success. However, as the drawing [i.e. the arming] is slow, it is difficult to cope with sudden attacks. A crossbow can only be shot off [by a single man] three times before it comes to hand-to-hand weapons. Some have therefore thought crossbows inconvenient for fighting, but truly the inconvenience lay not in the crossbow itself but in the commanders, who did not know how to make use of crossbows. All the military theorists of the Tang maintained that the crossbow had no advantage over hand-to-hand weapons, and they insisted on having long halberds [i.e. changji 长戟] and great shields [i.e. pavises] in the front line to repel the charge, and made the crossbowmen to carry sabres [i.e. dao 刀] and long-hafted weapons [i.e. modao 陌刀]. The result was that if the enemy adopted an open-order formation and attacked with hand-to-hand weapons, the soldiers would throw away their crossbows and have recourse to those also. A body of the rearguard was therefore detailed to go around and collect up the crossbows.
But now [i.e. in the Song army] things are not at all like this. The crossbow is the most efficient weapon of any, even at distances as small as five feet. The crossbowmen are mustered in separate companies, and when they shoot, nothing can stand in front of them, no [enemy] formation can keep its order. If attacked by cavalry, the crossbowmen will be as solid as a mountain, shooting off such volleys that nothing can remain alive before them. Although the charge my be impetuous it will not reach them. Therefore the barbarians [i.e. Khitan] fear [the crossbow]. For struggling around strategic points among mountains and rivers and defiles, overcoming men who do not lack bravery, the crossbow is indispensable.
Regarding the method of using the crossbow, it cannot be mixed up with hand-to-hand weapons, and it is beneficial when shot from high ground facing downwards. It only needs to be used so that the men within the formation are loading while the men in the front line of the formation are shooting. As they come forward they use shields to protect their flanks. Thus each in their turn they draw their crossbows and come up; then as soon as they have shot bolts they return again into their formation. Thus the sound of the crossbows is incessant and the enemy can hardly even flee. Therefore we have the following drill -
shooting rank
advancing rank
loading rank.
Needham's comment: ... perhaps Zeng Gongliang was a little ungenerous to the military writers of the Tang, for in fact the latter part of his discourse is borrowed almost verbatim from the Shejing 射经 (Book of Archery) or Jiaoshejing 教射经 (Instruction Book for Archery) written by Wang Ju 王琚, a distinguished technologist of the 8th century.
My comment: Zeng Gongliang also underestimates the effectiveness and practicality of the Tang modao drill for crossbowmen against armoured cavalry who are well protected against crossbow bolts except at close range. This drill may have caused the extinction of heavy cavalry in the Tang, making the Song volley-fire drill useful against the lighter cavalry that now became the norm. The Song would later encounter the stronger armoured cavalry of the Jurchen, and would find their crossbow drills as disastrously inadequate as the Western Jin soldiers had in the 4th century. They had to turn again to modao-style tactics, with the use of the zhanmadao and Yue Fei's mazhadao becoming decisive against cavalry rather than the crossbow.
Additional note: Needham mentions that Wang Ju listed the ranges of the various kinds of crossbow. The winch-armed crossbow (jiaoche nu 绞车弩) would shoot a bolt as far as 1,160 yards (about 1km) and was used especially for attacking city ramparts and forts. The arm-drawn form (bizhang nu 臂张弩), presumably the standard type, had a range of some 500 yards (about 457m), and the horse-archer's crossbow (ma nu 马弩) would shoot about 330 yards (about 300m).
Lanzhenzi 《懒真子》, by the Daoist naturalist Ma Yongqing 马永卿, written about 1115 AD (towards the end of the Northern Song):
Since ancient times we Chinese have fought against the barbarian tribes (Yidi 夷狄) and we have always made use of the crossbow. ... Of course, in mounted archery the barbarians are skilful, but the Chinese are good at using crossbow wagons (or ballistas, nu che 弩车). These carriages can be drawn up in the form of a laager which cannot be penetrated by cavalry. Moreover, the crossbows can shoot their bolts to a considerable range, and do more harm (literally 'penetrate deeper') than those of the short bow. And again, if the bolts are picked up by the barbarians they have no way of making use of them. Recently the crossbow has unfortunately fallen into some neglect; we must carefully consider this.
My comment: Is this an indication that the crossbow drill that Zeng Gongliang was so proud of had declined by the early 12th century, just like crossbow units declined at the end of the Western Jin? If so, we may have found another important reason for the fall of the Northern Song to the Jurchen in 1127.
Since ancient times we Chinese have fought against the barbarian tribes (Yidi 夷狄) and we have always made use of the crossbow. ... Of course, in mounted archery the barbarians are skilful, but the Chinese are good at using crossbow wagons (or ballistas, nu che 弩车). These carriages can be drawn up in the form of a laager which cannot be penetrated by cavalry. Moreover, the crossbows can shoot their bolts to a considerable range, and do more harm (literally 'penetrate deeper') than those of the short bow. And again, if the bolts are picked up by the barbarians they have no way of making use of them. Recently the crossbow has unfortunately fallen into some neglect; we must carefully consider this.
My comment: Is this an indication that the crossbow drill that Zeng Gongliang was so proud of had declined by the early 12th century, just like crossbow units declined at the end of the Western Jin? If so, we may have found another important reason for the fall of the Northern Song to the Jurchen in 1127.
A memorial to the Western Han emperor Wendi in 169 BC, by the great statesman Chao Cuo 晁错. A classic account of Western Han military strategy, including their version of crossbow drill:
... According to the Bingfa 兵法 (unclear which work it is, apparently not Sunzi), where there are waterways fifteen feet wide, chariots cannot pass. Where rocks are piled up among the mountain forests, and rivers circulate between hills covered with woods and thickets; there the infantry arm comes into its own. Here two chariots or two horsemen do not equal one foot soldier. Where there are rolling hills, wide open spaces and flat plains, there chariots and cavalry find their use, and ten foot soldiers are not as good as one horseman. Flat places intersected with gorges, and abrupt declivities affording wide outlooks - commanding positions such as these should be held by archers and crossbowmen. Here a hundred men armed with hand-to-hand weapons are not equal to one archer. When two forces oppose one another on a plain covered with short grasses they are free to manoeuvre back and forth, and then the long halberd (长戟) is the right weapon. Three men with swords and shields are not as effective as one so armed. Among reeds and rushes and thickets of bamboo, where the undergrowth is rich and abundant, short spears are needed. Two men with long halberds are not as good there as one with a spear. But among winding ways and dangerous precipices the sword and shield are to be preferred, and three archers or crossbowmen will not do as well as one swordsman. ...
... Now both the country and the tactics of the Xiongnu are different from those of the Chinese. Their lands are nothing but mountain-slopes with ways going up and down and winding through gorges in and out; in such regions our Chinese horses cannot compete with theirs. Along the tracks at the edges of precipices still they ride and shoot; our Chinese horse archers can hardly do the like. Rain and storm, exhaustion and fatigue, hunger and thirst, nothing do they fear; our Chinese soldiers can in these things hardly compare with them. These are the merits of the Xiongnu.
On the other hand, on plains light chariots can be used and cavalry charges made; in such conditions the Xiongnu are readily thrown into confusion. The strong crossbow (劲弩) and the ballista shooting javelins have a long range; something which the bows of the Xiongnu can in no way equal. The use of sharp weapons with long and short handles by disciplined companies of armoured soldiers in various combinations, including the drill of crossbowmen alternatively advancing [to shoot] and retiring [to load]; this is something that even the Xiongnu cannot face. The troops with crossbows ride forward and shoot off all their bolts in one direction; this is something which the leather armour and wooden shields of the Xiongnu cannot resist. Then the [Chinese horse-archers] dismount and fight forward on foot with sword and halberd; this is something that the Xiongnu do not know how to do. Such are the merits of the Chinese.
Thus from all these considerations we see that the Xiongnu have three merits and our Chinese [soldiers] have five. Yet Your Majesty has sent out troops numbering several hundred thousands to fight a horde of Xiongnu numbering only several thousands, so that we have a superiority of ten to one.
Needham's comment: [Noteworthy is] the firm statement that the crossbow was a weapon more effective than the short composite bows of the nomadic horse archers, which it outranged. Its larger catapult (i.e. ballista) forms were also evidently considered important. Of interest, too, is the information we are given about the proper tactical use of crossbowmen, and their three-rank drill, already developed in the Han.
My comment: The use of dismounted horse archers, wielding swords and halberds, by the Han was probably a kind of mopping-up operation to finish off the Xiongnu who had been dismounted or incapacitated by crossbow bolts. This indicates that horse archers in the Han army were a multi-purpose skirmishing force, unlike the specialised crossbowmen and infantry. Massed charges by cavalry were apparently still not important on either side - Chao Cuo's statement that the Xiongnu had a disadvantage on the plains suggests that at this point they still relied on ambush tactics in closer, hilly terrain.
... According to the Bingfa 兵法 (unclear which work it is, apparently not Sunzi), where there are waterways fifteen feet wide, chariots cannot pass. Where rocks are piled up among the mountain forests, and rivers circulate between hills covered with woods and thickets; there the infantry arm comes into its own. Here two chariots or two horsemen do not equal one foot soldier. Where there are rolling hills, wide open spaces and flat plains, there chariots and cavalry find their use, and ten foot soldiers are not as good as one horseman. Flat places intersected with gorges, and abrupt declivities affording wide outlooks - commanding positions such as these should be held by archers and crossbowmen. Here a hundred men armed with hand-to-hand weapons are not equal to one archer. When two forces oppose one another on a plain covered with short grasses they are free to manoeuvre back and forth, and then the long halberd (长戟) is the right weapon. Three men with swords and shields are not as effective as one so armed. Among reeds and rushes and thickets of bamboo, where the undergrowth is rich and abundant, short spears are needed. Two men with long halberds are not as good there as one with a spear. But among winding ways and dangerous precipices the sword and shield are to be preferred, and three archers or crossbowmen will not do as well as one swordsman. ...
... Now both the country and the tactics of the Xiongnu are different from those of the Chinese. Their lands are nothing but mountain-slopes with ways going up and down and winding through gorges in and out; in such regions our Chinese horses cannot compete with theirs. Along the tracks at the edges of precipices still they ride and shoot; our Chinese horse archers can hardly do the like. Rain and storm, exhaustion and fatigue, hunger and thirst, nothing do they fear; our Chinese soldiers can in these things hardly compare with them. These are the merits of the Xiongnu.
On the other hand, on plains light chariots can be used and cavalry charges made; in such conditions the Xiongnu are readily thrown into confusion. The strong crossbow (劲弩) and the ballista shooting javelins have a long range; something which the bows of the Xiongnu can in no way equal. The use of sharp weapons with long and short handles by disciplined companies of armoured soldiers in various combinations, including the drill of crossbowmen alternatively advancing [to shoot] and retiring [to load]; this is something that even the Xiongnu cannot face. The troops with crossbows ride forward and shoot off all their bolts in one direction; this is something which the leather armour and wooden shields of the Xiongnu cannot resist. Then the [Chinese horse-archers] dismount and fight forward on foot with sword and halberd; this is something that the Xiongnu do not know how to do. Such are the merits of the Chinese.
Thus from all these considerations we see that the Xiongnu have three merits and our Chinese [soldiers] have five. Yet Your Majesty has sent out troops numbering several hundred thousands to fight a horde of Xiongnu numbering only several thousands, so that we have a superiority of ten to one.
Needham's comment: [Noteworthy is] the firm statement that the crossbow was a weapon more effective than the short composite bows of the nomadic horse archers, which it outranged. Its larger catapult (i.e. ballista) forms were also evidently considered important. Of interest, too, is the information we are given about the proper tactical use of crossbowmen, and their three-rank drill, already developed in the Han.
My comment: The use of dismounted horse archers, wielding swords and halberds, by the Han was probably a kind of mopping-up operation to finish off the Xiongnu who had been dismounted or incapacitated by crossbow bolts. This indicates that horse archers in the Han army were a multi-purpose skirmishing force, unlike the specialised crossbowmen and infantry. Massed charges by cavalry were apparently still not important on either side - Chao Cuo's statement that the Xiongnu had a disadvantage on the plains suggests that at this point they still relied on ambush tactics in closer, hilly terrain.
Great posts
"Chao Cuo's statement that the Xiongnu had a disadvantage on the plains suggests that at this point they still relied on ambush tactics in closer, hilly terrain. "
Didn't he also say that at this point the Han army would use cavalry charge? does that mean that the Han had more of a melee based cavalry than the xiongnu at this point?
also from the horse armour pictuer of the spring and autumn it would seem some form of melee cavalry is alrady adopted. In the battle of Maling, its recorded that Pan Juen kept pursuing with his elite "cavalry" and left the bulk of his infantry behind. Suggesting there well exist a cavalry unit of function at this time.
"Chao Cuo's statement that the Xiongnu had a disadvantage on the plains suggests that at this point they still relied on ambush tactics in closer, hilly terrain. "
Didn't he also say that at this point the Han army would use cavalry charge? does that mean that the Han had more of a melee based cavalry than the xiongnu at this point?
also from the horse armour pictuer of the spring and autumn it would seem some form of melee cavalry is alrady adopted. In the battle of Maling, its recorded that Pan Juen kept pursuing with his elite "cavalry" and left the bulk of his infantry behind. Suggesting there well exist a cavalry unit of function at this time.
Ma Ling is by all accounts in the warring states period though.........
perhaps they had used the horse armor mostly for chariot pulling horses....? obviously i agree cavalry probably existed before Zhao Wu Ling but to what extent really?
perhaps they had used the horse armor mostly for chariot pulling horses....? obviously i agree cavalry probably existed before Zhao Wu Ling but to what extent really?
chinese sources never said Zhao wu ling introduced cavalry, it always said that he introduced was horse archery.
well.. the famous "Hu Fu Qi She" 胡服骑射 (the policy of adopting the Hu's clothing and learning their cavalry archery) was practised by Zhao Wuling. Cavalry probably already existed before Zhao Wuling's time, but it was him who asked his armies to learn and train in the nomadic way of fighting using cavalry archery and formation of cavalry units. Don't forget that Qin has been fighting nomads for years and they already had cavalry at that time.
Does anyone have any more information about the origins of the crossbow?
I always thought it was a Chinese invention, but in a recent book I've been reading, the author mentions that the crossbow, and the word for it, seems to have been introduced to China from Austroasiatic peoples in the south around the third or fourth century B.C. The websites that DaMo provided seem to indicate the same thing, saying the crossbow made it's way to China from the state of Chu. Does anyone have any more on the history of the crossbow? Though it probably may never be known for certain, what are your opinions on it's origins?
I always thought it was a Chinese invention, but in a recent book I've been reading, the author mentions that the crossbow, and the word for it, seems to have been introduced to China from Austroasiatic peoples in the south around the third or fourth century B.C. The websites that DaMo provided seem to indicate the same thing, saying the crossbow made it's way to China from the state of Chu. Does anyone have any more on the history of the crossbow? Though it probably may never be known for certain, what are your opinions on it's origins?
QUOTE (wuTao @ Nov 24 2004, 05:44 AM)
Does anyone have any more information about the origins of the crossbow?
I always thought it was a Chinese invention, but in a recent book I've been reading, the author mentions that the crossbow, and the word for it, seems to have been introduced to China from Austroasiatic peoples in the south around the third or fourth century B.C. The websites that DaMo provided seem to indicate the same thing, saying the crossbow made it's way to China from the state of Chu. Does anyone have any more on the history of the crossbow? Though it probably may never be known for certain, what are your opinions on it's origins?
I always thought it was a Chinese invention, but in a recent book I've been reading, the author mentions that the crossbow, and the word for it, seems to have been introduced to China from Austroasiatic peoples in the south around the third or fourth century B.C. The websites that DaMo provided seem to indicate the same thing, saying the crossbow made it's way to China from the state of Chu. Does anyone have any more on the history of the crossbow? Though it probably may never be known for certain, what are your opinions on it's origins?
Interesting. I've not come across this mentioned before. The state of Chu was not considered a true Chinese kingdom as it was centred around the Yangtze instead of in the Yellow River Plains. It was semi-barbaric in the eyes of the Chinese but then again, so was the Qin which eventually conquered China. :-)
Frankly, I personally would consider the state of Chu or even the Yueh kingdom in what is now Fujian province as a Chinese kingdom in comparison to the Man tribes who were seen at that time as only semi-human further south. The Chu, Yueh, Qin etc were border states and had a lot of genetic intermingling but were Chinese in culture and customs. There was really very little difference between a man from Chu and a man from say... Qi (Shandong) except for a perception that a person only qualified as true Chinese by place of birth in the central plains. The Man tribes got pushed further and further south until their ancestors who didn't get assimulated into China now live in northern Vietnam and still worship their Dog ancestor (who in legend rescued and hence married a Chinese princess and fathered the Man people). What was Chu is now the expanded heartland of ancient China which has grown to encompass the Yangtze basin as well.
Jieming
QUOTE (wuTao @ Nov 23 2004, 09:44 PM)
Does anyone have any more information about the origins of the crossbow?
I always thought it was a Chinese invention, but in a recent book I've been reading, the author mentions that the crossbow, and the word for it, seems to have been introduced to China from Austroasiatic peoples in the south around the third or fourth century B.C. The websites that DaMo provided seem to indicate the same thing, saying the crossbow made it's way to China from the state of Chu. Does anyone have any more on the history of the crossbow? Though it probably may never be known for certain, what are your opinions on it's origins?
I always thought it was a Chinese invention, but in a recent book I've been reading, the author mentions that the crossbow, and the word for it, seems to have been introduced to China from Austroasiatic peoples in the south around the third or fourth century B.C. The websites that DaMo provided seem to indicate the same thing, saying the crossbow made it's way to China from the state of Chu. Does anyone have any more on the history of the crossbow? Though it probably may never be known for certain, what are your opinions on it's origins?
The Chu are considered to be AustroAsiatic?
Thats only modern anthropolic theory. But its quite irrelevant, they are considered a Chinese state or else they would not be allowed to participate in conferances and alliances of the central plain much less recognized as the leader of alliances. Besides, the person who is credit to have invented crossbow was not of Chu origin, he merely went to Chu later in his life. And the date of the invention around the 6th century B.C. is more likely an improve in mechanism rather than inventing the crossbow.
Chu-ko-nu was a repeating crossbow. Can someone give me it's firing range and reloading time compaired to other Chinese crossbows (as well as any other Chinese bow)
QUOTE (Liu Ce @ Nov 24 2004, 02:10 PM)
Chu-ko-nu was a repeating crossbow. Can someone give me it's firing range and reloading time compaired to other Chinese crossbows (as well as any other Chinese bow)
I think it's effective at like... 150 yards or so
I've heard it's able to fire two bolts a second, but this was a modern reconstruction and probably possessed very weak power
From what I know, the actual ones used fired like...
http://www.atarn.org/chinese/rept_xbow.htm
according to that man, 10 bolts in 15 seconds.
So 100 men armed with repeating crossbows, in a minute, can discharge 4000 bolts :0!
That would be if they did not have to reload though. The cartridge tends to hold 10-12 bolts
It was fired from the hip, and was innacurate. Used as a defensive weapon against lightly armored targets, as the bolts did not have the power to penetrate iron, and could be stopped by leather armor.
All sides will cease and desist; the irrelevant posts have been deleted.
From here on, pointless bickering will be ****-smacked with a quick warning.
And Wang Yun: I seriously have no idea what your problem with Liang is, but stop it. It's unsightly when one joins a thread for the simple purpose of potshotting a member they bear a dislike for. Whatever your problem is, don't use the forum as a tool to duke it out.
From here on, pointless bickering will be ****-smacked with a quick warning.
And Wang Yun: I seriously have no idea what your problem with Liang is, but stop it. It's unsightly when one joins a thread for the simple purpose of potshotting a member they bear a dislike for. Whatever your problem is, don't use the forum as a tool to duke it out.
Wang Yun, if you have problems with some of the post in this thread, it's better for you to PM privately to staff members, instead of openly criticize and fuel the flame in this thread.
Does anyone know about Zhuge Nu (Chukonu, in Japanese, sorry if I misspell it). Where was it originated ? Why was it named "Zhuge" ? Anything with Zhuge family ? Thanks
supposedly the 3 kingdoms tactican zhuge liang invented it, which is where it got its name. However, this is most likely legend, since chokonus blueprints dating before the 3 kingdoms era have been discovered.
btw, I don't think the word chu-ko-nu is Japanese in origin.
btw, I don't think the word chu-ko-nu is Japanese in origin.
QUOTE(TMPikachu @ Nov 24 2004, 07:03 PM)
I think it's effective at like... 150 yards or so
I've heard it's able to fire two bolts a second, but this was a modern reconstruction and probably possessed very weak power
From what I know, the actual ones used fired like...
http://www.atarn.org/chinese/rept_xbow.htm
according to that man, 10 bolts in 15 seconds.
So 100 men armed with repeating crossbows, in a minute, can discharge 4000 bolts :0!
That would be if they did not have to reload though. The cartridge tends to hold 10-12 bolts
It was fired from the hip, and was innacurate. Used as a defensive weapon against lightly armored targets, as the bolts did not have the power to penetrate iron, and could be stopped by leather armor.
I've heard it's able to fire two bolts a second, but this was a modern reconstruction and probably possessed very weak power
From what I know, the actual ones used fired like...
http://www.atarn.org/chinese/rept_xbow.htm
according to that man, 10 bolts in 15 seconds.
So 100 men armed with repeating crossbows, in a minute, can discharge 4000 bolts :0!
That would be if they did not have to reload though. The cartridge tends to hold 10-12 bolts
It was fired from the hip, and was innacurate. Used as a defensive weapon against lightly armored targets, as the bolts did not have the power to penetrate iron, and could be stopped by leather armor.
TMPikachu, you are right on the range, accuracy and rate of fire from the modern reproduction I built using period material. I did use steel instead of bronze for the tips but I think this is accptable.
I have built a Zhuge Nu and posted a picture about a year ago. The photo shows 2 laminates of bamboo bound with sineu. The final has 3 layers. The 3 layer bow can shoot to a maximum of about 200 yards and about 10 bolts in 15 seconds. I was surprised at the range. I used drawings from Jieming and Payne-Gallwey's book to build it. Simple modern tools were used but there is nothing there that could not be built with a sharp rock and a lot of time. "Timing" is everything with getting it to feed right. The bow width seems to be critical. The wider the bamboo the better the power, but if it is too wide it splits. Mine will shoot through both sides of a cardboard box at close range. It is difficult to make it feed when the bow is level to the ground, but since they were used or indirect (high angle) fire that would not make much difference. Bolts would have to be tipped in poison to be effective, but so tipped and fired in mass would be very effective against charging infantry. Very small paper fletching shifts the center of mass forward of the center of force ratio far enough to immediatly stabilize the shafts and does not interfer with feeding. Without these very tiny fletching the range was less than half even though the CM/CF ratio was appropriate. Range is erratic and 200 yards is the max. Shooting 10 bolts you may get ranges between 125 yards and 200 yards. Accuracy is not good but as I said this is and indirect fire weapon. I broke the bow and will have to make another but shot it hundreds of times. In just 3-4 days during spare time I had it shooting.
PS that is not me shooting. I did have a few emails asking.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.