As I'm sure most of you are aware, the introduction of firearms to Japan was ushered in by the shipwreck of Portugese sailors on the shores of Japan in 1543.

I'm currently doing a research paper, in which I must answer the following question:

"How have advances in weapons technology affected East Asia since 1400AD?"

(Please bear in mind that I'm not coming here to find someone to do the research for me. I'm merely asking for help to find insight, or a nudge in the right direction.)

My first research area focuses on the influence the influx of Japanese weapons had on warfare in East Asia, and I'd like to progress toward other countries. (Primarily China, but Korea, Mongolia, and Taiwan as well.)

I'm not aware of how exactly China got firearms, though. My guess is that they spread from Japan, but I want to know how. I need a good foundation between ideas.

If anyone here has any idea, and/or an internet (or published source) to back up their information, it'd be most appreciated if you took the time to help me.

Many, many thanks in advance.

- Dan

Actually, firearms themselves ARE an indigenous Chinese Invention. The earliest 'guns' being the Huoqiang, the Fire Lance, which was a spear which also had a small bamboo tube on it, filled with gunpowder, and either an arrow or another projectile, made during the Song Dynasty.
Cannons should've been devleloped by then as well, and the earliest excavated handgun in the world is a Yuan Dynasty Chong.
This far precedes the time Japan got their firearms, during their Sengoku Period.
My suggestion: instead of simply focusing on how Japanese Arms changed East Asia, perhaps look at the greater scope of East Asia?
I do think- rockets and guns did quite change warfare. Since your area of most knowledge seems to be Japan, it's probably quite easy to see, from how Takeda's Cavalry was defeated by the Tanegashima guns, how warfare was changed.

I think that harquebuses named "niaoqiang" were borrowed from Portuguese directly in th every beginning of the XVI century as even before 1543 year Chinese army had some clashes with Portuguese conquistadores and Europeans were defeated and captured.

Even in 1543 those 3 notourious Portuguese traders arrived to Tanegashima by Chinese junk etc. And in 1558 it was prodused additional lot of 10000 harquebuses to spread in Ming Army. In that time Japanese harquebuses were only in dozens even in large Japanese armies.

And in the middle of the XVI century Koreans defeated the large party of Japanese raiders coming back from China. Koreans used chontong and bows and defeated Japanese raiders completely, but they did not mention any harquebuses. If Japanese raiders used harquebuses they could supress Korean defence easily but we did not observe it in that case.

Best regards,

Alexey.

Consult Yang Hongs 'Weapons in ancient China' for pictures of actual items and accounts and names of the earlier weapons in use.
This is well beyond my area of primary study but the text doen confirm firearms existing in China well before Europeans arrived and the date given above.
It is commonly known, even in Western sources, that gunpowder was discovered in China first. The Chinese obsession with alchemy after all has a head start of over a mellenia. The idea it was only used to make loud noises to scare spirits is not correct however.
Japan is another subject unto itself, but of secondary relevence for gunpowder in Asia. Japanese patterns of warfare at the time portugese arrived already focused on the Samurai.
For a good personal account of the first Portugese, then Spanish Dutch and English contacts/impressions with the Japanese I recommend 'Samurai Williams' by Giles Morton. Mainly as a good read, but it draws extensively from dairies and covers generations of SHogun where Europeans were first welcomed and then the eventual closing of Japan from these influences under later rulers.
It notes the cannon on a Dutch (protestant) ship (and the shifting of Japanese authority against Catholicism/Spain/Portugal) and the clash of musket armed Spaniards against sword wiedling Japanese which suggests even by the early 1600's Japanese were slow to simply turn away from their beloved swords.
The accounts of sweaty uncouth Europeans sailors amazed at bowing Japanese, their manners and ettiquette, and their enjoyment of using swords on convicts at every oppurtunity does offer insight into the later Japanese paradox of high culture and cruelty.
Firearms have a longer tradition in China anyhow, and as Yang Zongbao notes the earliest cannon can be confirmed via Yang Hongs text. The invention of gunpowder in the West seems secondary as the awareness of such devices as suggested by firearms expert Ian Hogg is that it spread via Arabia to the West.
The ingredients of the the ancient Chinese powder is given in Hongs text..as well as the effect for different % and original accounts of the weapons.
The Hong text is indespensible as proof...and Japan should not be the first point of reference on this topic...China should be.

I agree completely. Have you any materials from "Ming shi" to prove the borrowing of European small firearms by Chinese before 1543 except for the folanji pao ?

Rearding the folanji pao I just translated a passage from "Ming shi":
"It is produced of copper. The length is 5-6 chi (appr. 1,6-1,96 m.). The largest one is more than 1000 cutties and the smallest one is 150 cutties. Big "belly", long "neck" (it is about the rear part of the cannon and the barrell). It is a long hole in the "belly" and the gunpowder is charged into the "belly" by 5 zipao (the cartridges containing gunpowder and the ball). It fires for more than 100 zhang (more than 320 meters). The most useful in on-sea/river battles (literally shuizhan)".

This passage is dated by Zhengde period (1506-1521) of Ming Emperor Wuzong.

Best regards,

Alexey.

Is this question for me? I dont assume the Chinese borrowed much from the West, but you would know more specifics no doubt.
I have no real information on Ming history beyond general reading. It is well after my period of interest. I did review Yang Hong and Ian Hogg out of curiousity last night.
Gunpowder existed in Tang. Incendairy weapons exist from early times. Actually firearms come later but by Northern and Southern Song there are wooden barrelled arrow launching devices.
Western History agrees that powder first existed in the East. The earliest firearms however that still exist today are around 1300....and this is both in East & West examples. There is a 1300ad Swedish (IIRC) cannon and a Yuan cannon from around 1320-1330ad I have pictures of.
The early handguns in East & West are quite similar...short, solid and crude. Common nessecity of design.
The European example of 1300ad is tapered like a tear drop while the Yuan cannon is actually flared towards the barrel and quite different, but this may be related to the projectiles also.
It seems like seperate evolution...however the European art of firearm making must overtake the Chinese so that by late dynasties the powerful weapons on warships are noted by Chinese and by the 19th century the Chinese purchase Krupp guns from the West.
In this way the Chinese history is longer but firearms after the 15th century from Western sources may have made more impact on Japan. The Japanese would not have been unaware of the Chinese weapons.

This is only my impression from scattered commentary but it may provide an area for investigation on the development and impact of weapons in SouthEast Asia from both CHinese and Western sources.

I have read Samurai William (by Giles MILTon, actually), and I don't recall any account of a "clash of musket armed Spaniards against sword wiedling Japanese"--in truth, both guns AND swords were still very much in evidence on BOTH sides, as various period documents make plain.

Take, for example, this Munitions Requesition from the Philippines, from 1565:

"Memorandum of things—not only articles of barter, but arms and military supplies—which are necessary, to be provided immediately from Nueva España in the first vessels sailing from the said Nueva España to these Felipinas Islands; of which the following articles must be speedily furnished:



Articles

First: twelve pieces of heavy artillery,and among them culverins and reinforced cannonand swivel-guns for the fortress which is to be built, xii

Fifty more bronze bersos [small culverins], of the sort brought from España with double chambers, l

Twenty falcons with double chambers, xx

A dozen new scaling ladders, xii

Balls for the artillery and the molds for making them,

Two hundred quintals 87 of powder, cc

Fifty quintals of fuses, l

Two hundred quintals of lead, cc

Fifty quintals of saltpetre, l

Thirty quintals of rock sulphur, xxx

Three hundred arquebuses (not of the worthless supply there in Mexico); and with them some with flints, all with horn powder-flasks (large or small) together with their molds and gear, which are to be in good condition, ccc

One hundred corselets with their fittings,c

Two hundred morions and helmets, cc

Fifty coats-of-mail, of rather heavy mail, l

One hundred tapir hides, c

One hundred white blankets for light andserviceable body armor, c

Three hundred pikes with their iron points, ccc

Fifty cavalry lances, l

Fifty good broadswords, of which there is great need, l

Twelve foreign cannoniers, for thosewhom we brought with us are of little account, xii

Three hundred well-disposed soldiers who are to remain here, (a third or half of them to be sailors), ccc

A dozen carpenters to build the vessels which must be built here, xii

Two smiths, with their forges and tools, ii

Four pairs of bellows with their tubes, iiii..." (emphasis added)

Note how pikes and swords are still very much in evidence, and how armor is still very common.

Ta-ts'in Centurion,
Yes, you are correct about the name of the author but I do recall the Spanish fighting with the Japanese. BTW I am reading a 4th of Milton's 5 books (reading 'White Gold' at present) and so am unlikely to mispell or incorrectly recall him again.
The fight between the Spanish and the Japanese is when the Spanish governor from the Phillipines who had punished unruly Japanese there arrived by boat in Japan and refused the local Japanese ruler an inspection of his ships cargo, the ruler remembered his name & infamy and this latest slight and massed to assault the boat inside the harbour. The Spanish had the firepower to turn back numerous attackers (described as Samurai) who came at night in several attempts over three days IIRC and it was only a mishandling of a grenade that damaged the ship to the point where the governor realised all was lost & took a torch below to the powder room and blew the ship to pieces.
''Samurai William'' also notes the Dutch/English ship gunners were a welcome addition to the Shoguns force and contributed in fighting in his conflicts, this being one reason that Williams demonstrated usefulness to the Shogun. Such larger ship borne weapons bought by Catholics and the Protestant nations must have been a novel instrument to the Japanese. Unsurprisingly in these early European period texts that are quoted the Japanese are associated with their blades and their effects noted. Stephen Turnbull comments that even Japanese recorded individual courage and glory more readily in art and literature than the reality of the military and so focus on and glorify the warrior. The cult of the warrior and the sword was still a defining feature even though warlords in Japan used firearms in the hands of peasants to effect in battle as early as 1554. http://www.ospreysamurai.com/knights.html

This is an interesting bias..but doesnt explain the issue fully. In several incidents involving Japanese at this time outside Japan Milton details (inc. Dutch employed Japanese mercenaries and also the actions of Japanese pirates) the combat stresses swords & resolute attacks. Milton certainly doesnt fail to mention when muskets or cannon are employed by Arabs or Europeans in his other books as they were quite prominent in other fighting. It would seem Europeans records cant suffer from the same cultural exaggeration of individual exploits. One reason Williams and others in the reign of Elizabeth and James may have seen few muskets is outlined below*.
The European use of swords, pikes and even longbow in New England are also described in seperate combats in the early 1600s so I am not surprised...& for instance Japanese boarders armed with swords were repelled by desperate European crews armed with pikes on another occasion in the far East. Japanese hacking off the heads of captured Chinese workers in the Spice Islands and rolling them around the feet of shackled English is one of many episodes that displays their relish to use blades.

Note: I did not say the the Japanese simply failed to adopt firearms based on early contacts, or more specifically that the Spanish/Europeans didnt still use pikes and swords as you are suggesting I did. Clearly the Japanese adopted firearms from Europeans but there wasn't an overnight revolution with the Samurai or Bushido ethos.
Thanks for correcting me on the author though as I am very enthusiastic about his work and hope others read them. Much as in other parts of the world battle field realities didnt stop some warriors from scorning muskets as unworthy of warriors.
Your list from 1565 is interesting but hardly a surprise.
*One insight into the lack of references to firearms in Japanese hands in the period around the turn of the 17th century is below;
{the weapons were melted down}

http://www.angelfire.com/ab8/gun/

This is only a short time before Miltons main journal sources begin. The battles with mercenaries and pirates Milton describes, as well as warriors in the employ of provincial authorities such as battling the Spanish were less likely to have muskets than those of just a short period earlier.

My main points are however directed to the opening post which mentioned only Japan to which I commented..ie;firearms have a long history in Asia without Europeans bringing them in, European firearms were not as prominent in this books period (being up to early 1600s)...hence China is a better point of reference to begin with as they employed gunpowder in siege from much earlier times and employed firearms, both hand held and cannon, at the same early time Europeans did.
Quite why the Chinese weapons did not impress as much as the European weapons likely must have more to do with traditional patterns of warfare in Japan before such displays on their own soil as they must have had some awareness after the nearly 300 years they existed in China.
Since the Chinese were harrassed by Japanese pirates at this time and even unwelcome on Chinese soil the Chinese are unlikely to share such weapons in the manner Europeans did.
The eventual adoption of firearms in Japan is therefore comparatively late, despite true Chinese firearms existing from 1300ad.

Edit; although Japanese had firearms & the 'Europeans had swords' as is established and beyond dispute my quote you should have bought me to task over now I re-read my earlier post would be ''...suggests even by the early 1600's Japanese were slow to simply turn away from their beloved swords.". This would not be accurate as in decades before this it was nessecary to employ muskets and they influenced warfare. The odd feature is that firearms after proving their worth went into decline and Japan closed off from the outside while the sword and the Samurai remain as a living relic untill the 19th century. The Japanese distaste over employing such industrial weapons is evident even in the early heydey and there are comparisons with the West over commoners/peasants shooting down noble men.
Japanese were not 'slow' to use muskets but they did have their cultural reservations over it on reasons more over principle. It also brings to mind an initial distaste of the NZ Maori in using muskets in battle..being in a similar fashion focused on individual hand to hand combat and glory there was a recorded split in mid-battle where one Chief shot an enemy dead and an ally then killed another in close combat. The Chief with the musket was told by his ally that close combat claims 'first fish' (first kill/i.e bodies on a battlefield appear like fish laying on a beach) and recieves the honour and denegrated the musket. The insulted chief withdraw his troops from the battle and left the other in the lurch.
In a very short time however muskets were accumulated en masse when in one battle alone 1500 'local' Maori armed with traditional weapons were killed by musket-armed tribal enemies. With an arms race then apparent there was no peace for some decades untill all tribes were similarily armed and the pursuit of revenge was not so easily entertained with impunity.
The individual glory ethos of the Japanese & the nessecity of muskets being apparent brings comparisons to the above. Once the nation was united by strong central government however the policy of this government in destroying huge armouries of regional lords and the cultural conservatism of the Samurai code leads to a unique reversal.

I'm wondering how the Japanese culture would have evolved if the advent of guns effectively destroyed the Samurai class (Say, period of unification takes longer, more drastic social changes are affected by firearms). Of course this would be very boring..

Kenneth,

You are referring to the incident in Nagasaki bay involving the huge carrack, the Nossa Senhora de Graca, but you still have the details wrong.

First off, we're not talking about the Spanish--the Nossa Senhora de Graca was a Portuguese ship. In addition, the commander was not "the Spanish governor from the Philippines", but the former Portugese governor of Macau, Andre Pessoa.

My original reply to you was based on your statement where you decribed an action that involved a "clash of musket armed Spaniards against sword wiedling Japanese"--this did not happen in Nagasaki. The samurai had plenty of muskets of their own (you no doubt recall that the Japanese actually gave the Portuguese early warning of their first night attack when they began firing off their muskets). Also, they did manage to close withing HTH range, and the Portugese responded in kind with half-pikes, swords, and knives (Pessoa himself--armed with sword and shield--killed two samurai).

Best regards,

David

OK. I'll return to the library and reissue the book and check this. Sounds like you know the incident pretty well (or else seem to have a copy of the book) & I have recalled it in a distorted form.
Apart from retracting my impression of the Japanese use of the musket I would still be interested to know why it took the Europeans to bring them into use in Japan when the weapons the Chinese used at the early stages are quite comparible to Western models and could have been adapted at a much earlier date. They could have been refined by the Japanese as they display a successful appropriation of the European designs.

Edit;
Yep, checked Samurai Williams & it is 'Our Lady of Grace', Portuguese etc. etc. {blush}
Still, a good book though. I do remember that much.

Yes, I have the book.




Did the Chinese have a gun of their own that was really comparable to the European matchlock arquebus?

BTW, why was this thread moved?

Possible because it has turned into a thread about the Portuguese landing at Tanegashima and subsequent Japanese firearms?

It's a Forum about Chinese weapons, and it's a thread about Chinese weaponry. It's only natural to also discuss the weapons of the various people that the Chinese had contact with--they are related topics.

So no offense, but I really don't see any valid reason for moving the thread.

Hello All
Ave Centurio,

I have to get in on this one. Aside from Roman, I have a small troupe of living historians at the Renn Faires. We are called the 16th Century Royal Court of Siam. We are a mixed group of Siames courtiers (my wife is the princess) and Portuguese (and an occasional Spanish pig) mercenaries.

As far as I know, the Chinese were obtained cannons from the Arabs in the 15th or 14th Century. I have no primary sources to back this up. I do know this. The Portuguese were all over Asia by the middle of the 16th Century. Artillery and small arms followed them. By the end of the 16th Century, most Asian armies were gunpowder armies. The Siamese army certainly was. Thousand of Portuguese served in the various Asian armies.

If you are interested in joining my sight and seeing some good 16th Century pics, here is my website;

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thaifestivallivinghistory/



Quintus Demetrius Romulus
Legio VI Victrix