Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

1400's, China vs Europe


  • Please log in to reply
169 replies to this topic

#1 TMPikachu

TMPikachu

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • CHF Grand Historian Award
  • 2,545 posts

Posted 07 July 2005 - 02:39 PM

This is around when Europe's got the heavy crossbows, plate armor, big charger knights and whatnot.

And this is... Ming China then, yeah? What would a clash of such armies had been like?

Would the Chinese find their bolts bouncing off plate and defeated? Or would Europeans be exausted by Chinese mobility and defeated?
"the way has more than one name, and wise men have more than one method. Knowledge is such that it may suit all countries, so that all creatures may be saved..."

#2 jiangji

jiangji

    Chief State Secretary (Shangshu Ling 尚书令)

  • CHF Grand Historian Award
  • 902 posts

Posted 07 July 2005 - 02:45 PM

I would say that leadership would be important here in determining the victory condition. I think Ming would have great advantages during Yongle leadership. Again, cannon was already in use by the Ming army at that time. This could give an great advantages over the Europe army.

Edited by jiangji, 07 July 2005 - 02:49 PM.

Detach from emotions and desires; get rid of any fixations.

#3 ih8eurocentrix

ih8eurocentrix

    State Undersecretary (Shangshu Lang 尚书郎)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 618 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Art of War
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Ancient Chinese Military

Posted 07 July 2005 - 05:32 PM

agincourt was a victory of longbowmen over french plate armoured knights so i dont see how the europeans could win

#4 Guest_Conan the destroyer_*

Guest_Conan the destroyer_*
  • Guest

Posted 07 July 2005 - 06:14 PM

delete

Edited by Conan the destroyer, 08 January 2006 - 07:08 PM.


#5 Effect

Effect

    Provincial Governor (Cishi 刺史)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 43 posts
  • Location:South Africa
  • Interests:Reading, history

Posted 07 July 2005 - 06:45 PM

Actually it is rather incorrect to say that the longbows won agincourt. The ground chosen as the site for battle, the conditions etc all played their part. The truth is even at close range a longbow wont pierce plate armour.

#6 Kenneth

Kenneth

    Grand Marshal (Da Sima/Taiwei 大司马/太尉)

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 1,491 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Ancient Chinese Arsenals
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Ancient Weapons. Artefact studies.

Posted 07 July 2005 - 08:32 PM

Actually it is rather incorrect to say that the longbows won agincourt. The ground chosen as the site for battle, the conditions etc all played their part. The truth is even at close range a longbow wont pierce plate armour.

View Post

That seems more correct, Agincourt is simplified into 'Longbow vs. Plate' far too often. The proportion of French wearing plate, the movement of the formations, the boggy ground etc. all seems to be left out of it.
There have been some pretty indepth discussions on this subject elsewhere....and along with experiments of Longbows versus plate found that the armour is very effective at turning arrows at even an optimum angle....it takes a chisel point specifically and a direct hit at short range to stand a chance....not an volley in an arc.

These various 'versus' threads just keep popping up. Seeking answers to hypotheticals that can't be satisfactorily answered.
WHich is better; Coke or Pepsi? Does one really have to be better than the other?

How about comparing weapons and tactics of each without the unnessecary 'versus' since nobody ever outlines the numbers, terrain, location or scenario by which these armies meet.
Climb over the Great Firewall.
http://www3.youtube....h?v=tzax4KkQ4ug

Posted Image

#7 Liang Jieming

Liang Jieming

    Ingénieur chinois de siège

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 7,251 posts
  • Location:in the distant past, changing your future...
  • Interests:Ancient History with emphasis on the sciences, technological and engineering achievements and milestones. Areas of interest include Mesopotamian, Chinese, Roman, English and Central American history.
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Ancient Chinese Arsenals
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Ancient Siege Weaponry

Posted 07 July 2005 - 09:28 PM

coke is better. pepsi is too sweet! :P But then again, Dr. Pepper's pretty good too. :lol:

Ok, seriously, Kenneth has a valid point. All these verses type treads seek answers that can't ever be satisfactory for either point of view.

#8 Daniel

Daniel

    Grand Tutor (Taifu 太傅)

  • CHF Grand Historian Award
  • 326 posts
  • Location:Missouri, United States
  • Interests:Mandarin Chinese, history, fiction, sea piracy, weight lifting, racquetball, fencing, movies.

Posted 07 July 2005 - 09:37 PM

agincourt was a victory of longbowmen over french plate armoured knights so i dont see how the europeans could win

View Post


Well, the longbowmen were Europeans too, right? ;)

IIRC, the most formidable European infantry of the 15th century were the close-packed Swiss pikemen. Wouldn't such close-packed formations be very vulnerable to massed Ming firearms? Plate armor also would be no protection against the firearms.

Since Europe wasn't unified in the 15th century, I have a hard time seeing any one European state whose army could have beaten a Ming army.
What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite.
--Bertrand Russell, Skeptical Essays.

#9 General_Zhaoyun

General_Zhaoyun

    Grand Valiant General of Imperial Han Army

  • Owner
  • 12,284 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Singapore (Taiwanese/Singapore Permanent Resident)
  • Interests:Chinese History, Chinese Philosophy and Religion, Chinese languages, Minnan/Taiwanese language, Classical Chinese, General Chinese Culture
  • Languages spoken:Mandarin, Taiwanese (Hokkien), English, German, Singlish
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Han Chinese (Taiwanese Hoklo)
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    General Chinese Culture
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese Language, History and Culture

Posted 07 July 2005 - 09:58 PM

The Ming firearms during this time was definitely more advanced than Europe. The multi-ple cannons can blow up the European knights of this time.
Posted ImagePosted Image

"夫君子之行:靜以修身,儉以養德;非淡泊無以明志,非寧靜無以致遠。" - 諸葛亮

One should seek serenity to cultivate the body, thriftiness to cultivate the morals. If you are not simple and frugal, your ambition will not sparkle. If you are not calm and cool, you will not reach far. - Zhugeliang

#10 wlee15

wlee15

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 433 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History

Posted 07 July 2005 - 10:11 PM

Well the firearms of the time didn't have much range and required a gunner to manualy ignite the gunpowder which necesitated the use of a bipod. That limited the rate of fire would very limited even with rotation. Plus pikeman can sprint quickly over quite a long distance even with their heavy equipment. In any case the early 15th century no army would make an heavy use of firearms.

#11 Mei Houwang

Mei Houwang

    Prime Minister (Situ/Chengxiang 司徒/丞相)

  • CHF Grand Historian Award
  • 1,950 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Art of War
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese Military History and Chinese Art of War

Posted 07 July 2005 - 10:45 PM

The Swiss pikemen even after introduction to gunpowder were very reluctant to give up their fighting styles for gunpowder. Maybe it has something to do with their effectiveness.

#12 Liang Jieming

Liang Jieming

    Ingénieur chinois de siège

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 7,251 posts
  • Location:in the distant past, changing your future...
  • Interests:Ancient History with emphasis on the sciences, technological and engineering achievements and milestones. Areas of interest include Mesopotamian, Chinese, Roman, English and Central American history.
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Ancient Chinese Arsenals
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Ancient Siege Weaponry

Posted 08 July 2005 - 12:14 AM

early guns were no match for the rate of fire, accuracy and in many cases, range of bows and crossbows. Only the increasing cheapness of manufacture, ease of training and increasing range, power and accuracy of gunpowder weapons forced traditional range weapons out of service.

#13 TMPikachu

TMPikachu

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • CHF Grand Historian Award
  • 2,545 posts

Posted 08 July 2005 - 02:35 AM

That seems more correct, Agincourt is simplified into 'Longbow vs. Plate' far too often. The proportion of French wearing plate, the movement of the formations, the boggy ground etc. all seems to be left out of it.
There have been some pretty indepth discussions on this subject elsewhere....and along with experiments of Longbows versus plate found that the armour is very effective at turning arrows at even an optimum angle....it takes a chisel point specifically and a direct hit at short range to stand a chance....not an volley in an arc.

These various 'versus' threads just keep popping up. Seeking answers to hypotheticals that can't be satisfactorily answered.
WHich is better; Coke or Pepsi? Does one really have to be better than the other?

How about comparing weapons and tactics of each without the unnessecary 'versus' since nobody ever outlines the numbers, terrain, location or scenario by which these armies meet.

View Post


But with a versus theme, people post as much as they know on their respective sides to give an idea of who had what.
"the way has more than one name, and wise men have more than one method. Knowledge is such that it may suit all countries, so that all creatures may be saved..."

#14 Effect

Effect

    Provincial Governor (Cishi 刺史)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 43 posts
  • Location:South Africa
  • Interests:Reading, history

Posted 08 July 2005 - 10:27 AM

Perhaps kennth does not have a bad idea. Rather than turning into a versus thread we simply turn it into a project of discovering as much about both sides as we can. And each can take from that info what they will. If we organise it right we can get some decent info and discussion.

And while it may be counter productive to compare two states, I imagine it would be perfectly possible to compare things such as training recieved by chinese spearmen vs european spearman

#15 TMPikachu

TMPikachu

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • CHF Grand Historian Award
  • 2,545 posts

Posted 08 July 2005 - 12:32 PM

Perhaps kennth does not have a bad idea. Rather than turning into a versus thread we simply turn it into a project of discovering as much about both sides as we can. And each can take from that info what they will. If we organise it right we can get some decent info and discussion.

And while it may be counter productive to compare two states, I imagine it would be perfectly possible to compare things such as training recieved by chinese spearmen vs european spearman

View Post

that's what happens in the versus threads tho', what happened in the HvR one.
"the way has more than one name, and wise men have more than one method. Knowledge is such that it may suit all countries, so that all creatures may be saved..."




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users