"Fire and Water" Ralph Sawyer 2004 Westview Press
Chapter 5, Methods, Weapons and Techniques,
Section, Animal Delivery Systems,
pg. 120;

"A slightly different but subsequently famous example of provoking animals with burning rags affixed to their tails unfolded in the Later Han around A.D. 180 when Yang Hsuan, Grand Protector of Ling-ling, attempted to suppress heavy rebel activity with badly inadequate forces. Yang's solution was to load several tens of wagons with sacks of lime and mount automatic crossbows on others. Then, deploying them into a fighting formation, he exploited the wind to engulf the enemy with clouds of lime dust, blinding them, before setting rags on the tails of the horses pulling these driverless artillery wagons alight. Directed into the enemy's heavily obscured formation, their repeating crossbows (powered by linkage with the wheels) fired repeatedly in random directions, inflicting heavy casulaties. Amidst the obviously great confusion the rebels fired back furiously in self-defense, decimating each other before Yang's forces came up and largely exterminated them."

Wow. The Gattling Gun of the 100s.

Funny thing, I was wondering a couple of days back if a repeating crossbow could be rigged to operate on the strokes of a continuous wheel or crank motion, instead of a tiring to-and-fro motion of a lever. I was about to post on that, but if this is for real, it definitely answers my question. Fascinating.

Yeah, I was like stunned for a couple of moments when I read that passage. I'm not through reading his book yet so I suspect there's a lot more interesting stuff like that yet to be uncovered.

I've dropped him an e-mail about it. It's absolutely fascinating and I'd like to get more details.

I would really be interested to know how these technologies come to be "lost", if they were lost.

Sounds like a thing which ought to have been enshrined.

It's amazing how much we've lost or remain ignorant of. Sad that new generations of Chinese today continue to drop Chinese practices and remain ashamed of Chinese history.

It's not so much a tecnology that's lost but an example of an engineer adapting the items they have to circumstances. The automatic crossbows on the waggons were probably fairly standard ones, as the linckages and gearing that could be fitted would be unlikely to support rewinding anything heavier in a reasonable time. Without the element of surprise, using the waggons to build barricades and having normal crossbowmen firing aimed shots would be far more effective.

The repeating crossbows here I believe are not the standard single shot crossbows but rather zhuge nus.

I'm afraid that in this case Sawyer seems to have read too much into the sources. The original text in the Houhan Shu simply states that Yang Xuan filled his wagons with drawn bows and crossbows (gong nu), and when the horses stampeded into the enemy, the bows and crossbows in the wagons were shot wildly (luan fa). There is nothing to indicate that they were not manned by archers and crossbowmen. Indeed there is little evidence that repeating crossbows were in use in China before the Song dynasty, other than an isolated example from a Chu tomb. As Needham has pointed out, the 'lian nu' used by Qin Shihuang, Li Ling, and Zhuge Liang's army were all multiple-bolt crossbows, rather than repeating crossbows. In other words, more like multi-barrelled shotguns than machine guns.

If they were manned, why would burning rags be tied to their tails?

Very interesting then that he can write so specifically and definitively on the fact that they were linked to the wheels! Hmmm....

The text is quite clear about this: the 10 wagons in front were unmanned and were pulled by horses with their tails set alight, while the wagons behind them were manned and filled with archers and crossbowmen. The 10 front wagons first charged into the enemy to break up their lines and confuse them, and the manned wagons in the rear then moved in and showered the enemy with arrows and bolts. The defeat of the rebels was due to their being disoriented by the dust, and then being smashed into by frenzied horses and showered with projectiles, leading them to think they were being attacked by a much larger army.

BTW, for those interested in the question of whether the Chu tomb 'magazine' crossbow found in 1986 proves that repeating crossbows existed in the Warring States, Qin and Han, I'm afraid the answer must be negative (contrary to the opinion of Stephen Selby of ATARN). The description of the Chu crossbow (in Chinese) is as follows:

战国楚墓出土过一种连弩，在长方形的弩臂上表面刻有两条平行的半
圆形截面的箭槽，箭槽正中是矩形截面的弩机槽，弩机可在其中沿弩臂前后滑动，弩身的上方是一个储箭的矢盒，矢盒中有3条竖直箭道，中间上方箭道储箭，左右两条箭道与弩臂上的箭槽相连。发射时左右倾斜弩身，便会有两支箭分别通过两侧箭道落人箭槽
中，压在弓弦中央所系的细长发射圆杆上。弩机前端连有一个青铜制鸟嘴
形活动件，前推弩机，“鸟嘴”前端斜面触圆杆上抬，钩住圆杆;后拉弩机，圆
杆随弩机一同向后运动，带动弓弦张开弩弓。圆杆脱离弩箭尾端后，弩箭完全嵌人箭槽，这时“鸟嘴”后端斜面被迫上抬，释放圆杆，圆杆在弓的作用下
迅速前移，将两支箭一同发射出去。再次左右倾斜弩身，推拉弩机，可完成第
二次发射。装一次箭可连续发射10次，共20支箭，其发箭密度是相当高
的。但这种连弩的射程很近，据《天工开物》记载，只有20多步，因而不能用于战场作战，只用作民间防贼。究其原因，这种弩的弩臂后端有类似于现代步枪枪托的装置，发射时“枪托”抵胸，一手托弩臂，另一手扳弩机。这种设计固然提高了发射速度，但单手张弩，力
量较弱，射程近也是必然的了。而古代即使最弱的手孽(即用手张)弩，实际
也是脚踩弩臂前端，弯腰双手张弩的。

(from http://www.cchere.com/thread/317970#C318298 )

This crossbow had a magazine with 20 bolts mounted on the stock, but each tilting of the magazine to left and right would release only two bolts into two grooves, to be shot out when the trigger was pulled. So this was essentially a 'double-barrelled' crossbow, and not a 'machine gun'. Every shooting of two bolts had to be followed by another loading of the next two. This is nothing like the 'Zhuge Nu' of the Ming, in which the pulling back and forth of the lever mechanism can release 10 bolts from a crossbow in rapid succession. And once again it must be noted that the 'Yuanrong' crossbow developed by Zhuge Liang was also not of the 'Zhuge Nu' type (in spite of the name given to the Ming weapon), but was essentially a crossbow that could loose a spread of 10 bolts at once (and not in a burst) with the one pull of the trigger.

anyone ever play the game 'contra'? the spread shot gun? yeah?

That's what this is making me think of

Neverless, a spread shot crossbow is still very cool. not quite sure how it works out with the grooves though

Thanks Yun!
I wondered about that but simply gave him the benefit of the doubt on the item.
It appears...as I am often told by collectors of weapons...that the experts will often not agree.
The poor translations and crossed wires on some of these items we are trying to study are very frustrating and counterproductive!
This is why I have to re-evaluate conclusions made 6 months earlier...but I am glad to be in the know instead of stuff buidling upon inital errors!
It appears that unless anything is confirmed by independant research as valid or a clear/solid reference is given NONE of what we are told in a text should be taken as literal truth.
I grow more sceptical overtime. The repeating crossbow chariot/Sawyer thing..and CJ Peers & Needham all together cause as much misinformation as illumination.
I prefer what I can see and touch. In this way some progress has been made on identified arcuballista parts..but the literature references in turn may be dubious.

The medieval-themed computer game "Heretic" featured a multi-bolt crossbow as a weapon. But it fired flaming ethereal bolts, not real ones.

Contra and now Heretic...you arent exactly young are you? Good to know there are at least a couple of older blokes here.



This pretty much applies to much of history.

But having conflicting text makes for two very important things which are just as crucial to the learning of history;

1. it questions assumptions and established doctrine and forces a reevaluation which is important as new interpretations and new evidence crop up all the time.

2. make history more interesting instead of a top down fixed view of unquestionable history.

Here's the reply from Ralph Sawyer.



Yun, any idea on the Liutao?

Liang Jieming,

I think Liutao is the Jiang Tai Gong book.

Yes, I just checked about the Liutao. The 'Hutao' section has a list and description of weapons and warships, but the 'linked crossbows' that Sawyer finds there are simply a mistranslation of 'lian nu', which may literally mean 'linked crossbow' but has been established by Chinese experts to be the multi-bolt crossbow rather than the repeating crossbow.

Could the 'Zhuge Nu' of the Ming be spelled Chu-Ko-Nu or Cho-Ku-Nu in the West? I used to play Age of Empires, and the Chinese civ's unique unit was called something like that, and it was a rapid-firing crossbow, but the Ming Dynasty seems too late in history for the game to cover...?

Or do none of you waste your time playing silly games like me?

For information about Chu Ko Nu (Zhuge Nu), refer to http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=1726

Heretic was a great game. I especially loved the crossbow and it was my weapon of choice.



Don't forget, Diablo 2 has the chuku-no too. Fast firing, but nothing compares to a good nice firewall

Could this have been the liannu ?

I'd think the spread wouldn't be so wide. but something like that, yeah.

Really cool.

Zhuge Nu is suppose to look like a big fat tube(bos), kind of like a AT rocket. not a crossbow.

I think I've seen something like the tube before

but the tube is a part of the crossbow isn't it?

Like... if you put a bunch of pencils in a cup and threw the cup (without letting go, but the pencils fly out) would be the Zhuge ne

while a regular crossbow would be throwing one pencil.