Western influences on China's military

[BLUEJACKET]

Rome vs Han tread is closed, but today I came across this article-
Riddle of the `Roman' villagers (http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=20&art_id=37540&sid=12037964&con_type=1).
I wonder if the Western mercanaries/POWs really had any significant lessons to teach to the ancient Chinese generals?

[Jiang]

Rome vs Han tread is closed, but today I came across this article-
Riddle of the `Roman' villagers (http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=20&art_id=37540&sid=12037964&con_type=1).
I wonder if the Western mercanaries/POWs really had any significant lessons to teach to the ancient Chinese generals?


Well, I think China has great tatics, what China need is Weastern Hardwares, and training systems. :china:

[BLUEJACKET]

On this tread, I mean to focus on ancient military history.
There were, for instance, Greek mercenaries in Persian Empire (http://www.parstimes.com/library/brief_history_of_persian_empire.html)who fought Alexander the Great. Undoubtedly they came in contact with the nomads and merchants of Central Asia and through them, with the Chinese. The later Turks probably borrowed sword designs from them. Compare these Greek examples (http://www.deepeeka.com/store/catalog/greek/ah4111H.jpg)with this Turkish one (http://swordforum.com/swords/historical/falcata.html)
The Chinese had crossbows (http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2812)for very long time, and so did the Greeks. Where they first developed independently from each other? Why the Greeks didn't use them as much as the Chinese had?
In the 5th century BC, a variant of the crossbow was independently invented in the Greek city-states. The shooter held this device, known in Greek as gastraphetes ("belly-bow"), against one's stomach and then retracted the drawstring with both hands. The user of a gastraphetes shot the weapon by releasing a lever, which set in motion a trigger mechanism. Because it took a long time to load and shoot, the gastraphetes was not an especially effective weapon, except during long sieges. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbow
Is this statement true?

[lyhx]

sorry ,i think there is not any influence of the wstern on the ancient chinese militrary !
first , just i had recognized that the ancient china did not communicate much with the western empire as persain and turkish etc. chinese emperor considered that the china was the central of the world ,so they did not need assilimilate other dependency's culture and military etc. all other country in the world were the dependency of china !!

second , china was surrounded mostly by the mountain and ocean ,in their north ,it was awesome llano where did not established a longtime empire .
so the western may did not have any onfluence on the china!!

[szbd]

On this tread, I mean to focus on ancient military history.
There were, for instance, Greek mercenaries in Persian Empire (http://www.parstimes.com/library/brief_history_of_persian_empire.html)who fought Alexander the Great. Undoubtedly they came in contact with the nomads and merchants of Central Asia and through them, with the Chinese. The later Turks probably borrowed sword designs from them. Compare these Greek examples (http://www.deepeeka.com/store/catalog/greek/ah4111H.jpg)with this Turkish one (http://swordforum.com/swords/historical/falcata.html)
The Chinese had crossbows (http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2812)for very long time, and so did the Greeks. Where they first developed independently from each other? Why the Greeks didn't use them as much as the Chinese had?

Is this statement true?

I think this is not true. In 5 century BC, both China and Persains have maturely developed "hyperbolic compound bow" (双曲复合弓). But the two kinds of bows are different. Chinese one is more flexible, that is, one can reach a long range with a smaller bow. A very strong evidence is in ancient Chinese books, like <考工记> (may be can be translated as "technology catalog"), all the materials to produce Chinese bows were recorded, and they just don't exist in central asia or europe. Crossbows are developed based on bows.

[adeptitus]

IMO most people today don't realize how extensive our ancestor's "reach" and trading network was. For example, many assume the tribes of Amazons are just primitive villages in the jungle, until they found this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077413/
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s949687.htm

If some jungle villagers in Brazil could build towns connected by roads up to 50m width w/curbs, I have to think our ancestors probably travelled extensively and traded with people pretty far away. It's not impossible to assume products from the "western world" made its way to China via traders long before Alexander ever set foot in Persia.

[fishhead]

I think it's the other way around. Western military had too small scale compared with the size of Chinese terrain, see the Alexander the Great in China thread.

Chinese influence to the west:

1. compound bow, its strength is equal to the British long bow, but much smaller to carry and fight on a horse, both Chinese and nomades contributed to its development

2. cross bow, Chinese original. With that Qin united the whole China and the following dynasty defeated Huns again and again. It's the machine gun before the real machine gun invented.

3. horse stirrup, Chinese original. This changes the whole concept of calvary warfare, since you have something to support your feet when on the horse back fighting. And Mogoles benefited greatest from this invention.

4. gun powder, needless to say about it.

The 3 and 4 made Mongol waring-machine more deadly than Huns.

[szbd]

I think it's the other way around. Western military had too small scale compared with the size of Chinese terrain, see the Alexander the Great in China thread.

Chinese influence to the west:

1. compound bow, its strength is equal to the British long bow, but much smaller to carry and fight on a horse, both Chinese and nomades contributed to its development

2. cross bow, Chinese original. With that Qin united the whole China and the following dynasty defeated Huns again and again. It's the machine gun before the real machine gun invented.

3. horse stirrup, Chinese original. This changes the whole concept of calvary warfare, since you have something to support your feet when on the horse back fighting. And Mogoles benefited greatest from this invention.

4. gun powder, needless to say about it.

The 3 and 4 made Mongol waring-machine more deadly than Huns.

Crossbow is not the machine gun, it's a long range/sniper rifle. The fire speed of crossbow is far below a compound bow, just the crossbow can shoot can arrow with high energy anytime you want. But after the shooting, the reloading take much time. For a heavy crossbow, one has to lay down and use the strength of his legs to reload.

I don't think Mongolians used gun powerder a lot. Ancient hot weapons were not reliable in quality and created a have logistic burden. Mongolians were successful because of a good military system and a large amount of PROFESSIONAL soldiers.

[crobato]

I dont know if compound bows are a Chinese invention; they are more likely from the steepes, and its around even in the middle east ancient world. The Egyptians acquired them from foreigners for example, before learning to make them on their own.

This is not to say that the compound bow is regarded as the most prized weapon in the ancient world. It takes 1.5 to 2 years to properly glue one together, and as the glue requires maturing. As such, compound bows are only made by the finest craftsmen. One Egyptian pharoah was said to take a personal interest on compound bows and would so often visit the craftsmen to examine the pieces.

The problem of compound bows is that they tend to get soft and fall apart in humid climates. Hence the English choose to use solid bows instead. The closer compound bow users get to the Meditereanean, the less effective the compound bow becomes. It probably has its effect as Atilla got closer to Rome, or during the Persian invasion of Greece.

I think in Japan, the Yumis were mainly solid as well. Humid climates in Japan and in Vietnam would have contributed to the lack of success the Mongol compound bow would have there.

The Chinese bow uses lacquer to help preserve the bow. Compared to other compound bows, it adds a new material to the equation---bamboo. Even though compound bows are widespread from central Russia to Korea, it is in the Far East, like in China or Korea where we see the big extreme 160lb plus draw strength bows. Most composite bows are small, intended for the horse rider. But when sedentary peoples use composite bows on foot soldiers, these bows tend to be big and powerful.

While compound recurve bows are from the north, the crossbow originated in the south. The crossbow is more of a southern chinese invention, and the concept may have originated from tribes south of the Yangtze. Unlike the compound bow, the bow on the crossbow tends to be solid, so it was easy to manufacture. What put it all together was the invention of the blast furnace, which allowed mass manufacture of the precise brass made trigger mechanism. Later these furnaces are instrumental in the widespread manufacture of metal stirrups.

The crossbow isn't a weapon made by artisans and craftsman, it was the first weapon in the world mass manufactured by a semi-industrial manufacturing infrastructure, the first military-industrial complex in the world. The result of this, you can pound out more crossbows than compound bows. And since it is a lot easier to train peasants to use crossbows than archers, you are producing a lot more soldiers. Professional archers like northern horseriders had a lifetime of proficiency to develop their skills, which is not available to sedentary agricultural peoples who main skills in life are to grow veggies. Chinese armies in general tend to use mercenary, allied or recruited northern horsemen as their archery component, but their crossbow troops are mainly from their main populations.

There is also a reason why China never developed a strong feudal structure. Feudal lords can afford their companies of blacksmiths to make weapons for them, and they can afford stable to grow horses. But they cannot afford the "factories" of blast furnaces---a monopoly by the imperial dynasty---that are needed to mass manufacture the trigger mechanisms for crossbows.

With the crossbow also came the end of the "romantic age" in China in swordmanship. it is because a simple peasant with a crossbow can kill mounted skilled warriors with their lifetime of training, their lavish armor and horses, their beautifully crafted swords, just with a simple press of the trigger. The crossbow is the great equalizer that lets the farmer kill the warrior and the knights. It meant the democratization of warfare and at the same time, the consolidation of power to those who control the industry.

[szbd]

Bow was more important than crossbow in Chinese ancient military history.

According to 太白阴经, a military doctrine book in Tang Dynasty, a corps with 12500 soldiors has 12500 bows and 2500 crossbows.

In 宋史：志第一百五十 兵十一(part of official history of Song Dynasty) said, 弓弩院岁造角弝弓等凡千六百五十余万，诸州岁造黄桦、黑漆弓弩等凡六百二十余万. This sentence is the bow-crossbow complex of central government produce 16,500,000 bows or so a year and local complexes produce bows and crossbows of other kinds 6,200,000 or so a year. But I seriously doubt these numbers, I think it should be arrows.

In 武经总要, doctrine of Song dynasty, a platoon with 50 soldiors has 5 crossbows and 10 bows.

In 武备志, doctrine of Ming Dynasty, said, 弓者，器之首也, means bow is the top weapon. Also the sequence of 十八般兵器----18 types of weapons is 一弓、二弩、三枪......, means 1 bow 2 crossbow 3 spear.....
Also, the earliest compound bow discovered in China is 500 years older than the earlist crossbow discovered in China, 11th BC in Shang Dynasty vs. 6 BC in Chun Qiu (Spring Autumn) period, then about 200 years later for brass trigger.

Chinese compound bows were more reliable in humid weather because China had good paint.

[crobato]

Are you sure that this is correct? Compound bows are a lot harder to make than crossbows. Hard to say if what happens in the field matches the doctrine in paper. Also, crossbows can draw up to over 300lbs of strength, which enable them to tear through horses. Crossbow troops is one way the Han managed to even things up with nomad cavalry.

[szbd]

Well, for things about ancient history, we can only look at the records available, right? The doctrines were official ones, and was published after the beginning period of a dynasty, means after massive battles occured. So they must have a reason to put number of bows more than crossbows.

For a crossbow with 300lb strength, you either lay down use your legs to reload, or there's a ratcheting on it so you can use your arms. Either way, it needs a lot of strength, time, and training.

Crossbows were very important and considered top lethal weapon. But it was mainly used as an elite firepower and tend to be very expensive. For example there were crossbows manned by like 20 people and several bulls.

Ancient Chinese government put a lot of investment in bow and crossbow industry. The central factory could have a thousand people working, so the complexity to make them was not a big issue. Besides, China seldom use metal to make the bow of the crossbow, so to hold that strength, a crossbow can't be cheap.

[fishhead]

Compound bows were very important, in the sense that Mongol used them to conquer the vast area. Without that, it's simply impossible for them to achieve that.

Crossbow was not used in China as "range/sniper rifles". Chinese crossbow is smaller and easy to be loaded. It's a large scale infantry weapon very efficiently used to fight cavalry, especially huns.

Chinese corssbow
http://www.cctv.com/program/natureandscience/20060814/images/103263_1.jpg

[fishhead]

This is how ancient Chinese soldier using the crossbow. If used in large number, it could beat cavalry charge. Chinese used it in large number, not just for its strength, that's the difference from the west.
http://www.klepsidra.net/klepsidra4/mercenario.jpg

[kunmingren]

well, there are interaction between different part of the world even far back during the age of sumeria and babylonians. scholars have unearthed trade goods from china/sumeria that ended up in the different part of the world. In fact, Chariot warfare, which was very common during the warring State, was introduced into China from the middle east during the Shang Dynasty.

[crobato]

I can't remember where I read this, maybe from the CHF, but at one time, the Han Dynasty has accounted for over 250,000 crossbows for all its armies. That does not sound like an elite weapon but rather one that is commonly used. I am not sure if you're confusing it with ballistae, which is like a large crossbow mounted on wheel.

Drawing a crossbow via leg or through a ratchet is much easier than trying to draw a bow with around 80 to 160lbs of draw strength.

[szbd]

I said elite, that is elite to some extent. Look at the doctrine for Tang dynasty, for a 12500 people corps, averagingly everyone has a bow, and 1/5 people have crossbows.

In han dynasty there were small crossbows and strong crossbows mensioned in the record. But after that, seems bows were getting more and more in number.

[crobato]

I don't really think Chinese chariots was some invention that came from the Middle East. Chariots from different countries like Egypt and the Hittites, were different among themselves, reflecting differing military doctrines. The Hittites for example, preferred their chariots heavier and bigger, where you can put more archers on it, while the Egyptians go for lightweight, speed and maneuverbility.

The Chinese chariots seem unique on their own and don't carry specific influences from the Middle Eastern empires. Would have been difficult for any chariot to transverse across central Asia in the first place.

The chariot itself was the militarization of a rather popular and mundane vehicle that is typical of sedentary cultures, the wheel cart. Anyone who had the wheel cart would inevitably have chariots.

The concept of pure cavalry on the other hand, came from the Huns. They were first encountered and fought by the Zhao, and later the Zhao would use all cavalry formations against the other Warring States. By the end of the Warring States period, chariot use had declined to the point they are mainly for pageantry and as a command vehicle by the top generals.

From Han later on all the way to Tang, the cavalry dominated and was the golden age of cavalry in China. The stirrup began mass manufacture towards the end of the Han Dynasty, just in time to be used in the Three Kingdom wars. From the Three Kingdoms to the Sui, cavalry was increasingly armored, and this was the period in China where it came closest to having the equivalent of knights, or heavy cavalry. Turkish influences on the Tang changed this again, and the Tang went for the speed of the light cavalry.

Chariots, or to be more precise, wheeled carts, later returned to military service but not in the manner people thought. With the invention of fire arrows, mainly rockets with arrow tips, came the invention of multiple firing boxed launchers, a sort of prmiitive MLRS. These were often mounted in wheeled carts, creating an early artillery battery.

Evolution of swords in China also reflect foreign influences. Up to the Warring States period, the predominant sword form was the Jian, straight blade with two edges. From the Han on, this changed to the Dao, which is a single edged sword. The change from Jian to Dao reflects cavalry use, and the change of swordmanship from thrusting and stabbing attacks to slashing. But later on the Turkish and the Mongols influenced the Dao design to a curved saber form, starting to appear by the Yuan and Ming Dynasties.

[szbd]

I think the change from Jian to Dao also was a result of improvement in steel production.

[BLUEJACKET]

Just who was the first to smelt iron & steel? I heard that the Hittites got the secret from a certain tribe in what is now Armenia. Somehow, the technology appeared in China - the 1st iron implements are from the Lungshan period.

[crobato]

Iron use appeared to sprung out spontaneously, and when you have iron and carbon, you will inevitably discover steel one way or another. But China appeared to be quite ahead in a number of innovations, including the use of blast furnaces, differential heat treatment, forging and lamination (folding multiple layers). At a time when the rest of the world were using wrought iron fo their swords (Roman gladius for example), Han armies began brandishing dao that was forged, laminated and folded steel, a sword making process still preserved in Japanese sword making.

Jian to Dao transition was a result of moving from infantry to cavalry army, moving away from infantry close formation stabbing, to on the horse slashing---or slashing at the horse. This also comes with the appearance of two handed swordmanship styles.

[szbd]

When you can melt iron and carbon together with low temperature, you get wrought iron, which has bearly no carbon and very soft. If you melt them with high temperature, you get pig iron (where did this name come from?) which has quite some carbon and very fragile. The amount of carbon in steel is in between. So you either put more carbon into wrought iron or extract carbon from pig iron to produce steel. In reality you have to produce pig iron in order to get steel, so you at least need the technique to reach high temparature. China developed various techniques to extract carbon from pig iron, basicly first by melt pig iron together with iron ore, then the technique advanced to melt pig iron and wrought iron together. By this way, raw steel can be produced in large amount. Then use multiple layer forging, heat treatment etc. to produce fine steel. China also had the techniques to attach blades made by fine steel to body made by raw steel. Therefore mass production of good sword could be achieved in big plants.

[jason_she]

If someone knows something about Romance of the three kingdoms, he can never forgot the hero Ma Chao. Ever a roman troops survived in their war towards Persia, and they settled in China when it was Han-dynasty. Ma Chao war believed to take the advantage of the roman troops, Especially the use of spear. Thanks to the combination of the western and eastern, Ma's troops were invincible.