Why China Chose Bows over Guns...

Originally Posted by solarz

CBC News - Technology & Science - China chose bows over guns for centuries

Some problems I find with this article:



Southern China is also very humid, so why didn't they try to use more guns?



That sounds pretty BS. China in times of war drafted plenty of peasants into the army. If they had a weapon that they could train people quickly in, that army would have a huge advantage.

I think that on the contrary, it's not that China had too many archers, it's that due to China's centralized government, the Imperial Court does NOT want civilians to be able to create weapons that can challenge the military.

When the hell did the Chinese choose bows over guns?

Handgonnes were produced in very large numbers in the Early Ming Dynasty and special military divisions called "Shen Ji Ying" consisted entirely of firearms wielding troops. The Matchlock arquebus were introduced in the mid-1550s and were commonly fielded in Southern China.

Even the Manchus, who were notorious for their archery skills, fielded large numbers of musketeers during the late 17th century till the 18th century. Although the guns fielded by the Chinese were technologically inferior to their European and American counterparts they were still, as a matter of fact, guns, not bows.

Originally Posted by siegecrossbow

When the hell did the Chinese choose bows over guns?

Handgonnes were produced in very large numbers in the Early Ming Dynasty and special military divisions called "Shen Ji Ying" consisted entirely of firearms wielding troops. The Matchlock arquebus were introduced in the mid-1550s and were commonly fielded in Southern China.

Even the Manchus, who were notorious for their archery skills, fielded large numbers of musketeers during the late 17th century till the 18th century. Although the guns fielded by the Chinese were technologically inferior to their European and American counterparts they were still, as a matter of fact, guns, not bows.

Even though there have been the odd firearms regiment here and there during Ming and Qing, you can't deny that the Chinese Military still relied on bows and crossbows as the main ranged weapon.

In fact, you could take this further: development of firearms eventually displaced melee weapons, while the Chinese still relied heavily (even unto WW2) on melee weapons!

When the hell did the Chinese choose bows over guns?

Handgonnes were produced in very large numbers in the Early Ming Dynasty and special military divisions called "Shen Ji Ying" consisted entirely of firearms wielding troops. The Matchlock arquebus were introduced in the mid-1550s and were commonly fielded in Southern China.

Even the Manchus, who were notorious for their archery skills, fielded large numbers of musketeers during the late 17th century till the 18th century. Although the guns fielded by the Chinese were technologically inferior to their European and American counterparts they were still, as a matter of fact, guns, not bows

It is my impression that the Ming made more extensive use of firearms and guns than the Qing. I believe that guns were not favored by the Qing for the following reasons-

1) The Manchus were an ethnic and cultural minority which ruled over a much, much larger Han majority. They wanted to have a monopoly on military power. The Manchu military relied on highly skilled horseman and bowmen as the decisive factor on the battlefield; they did not want to proliferate a weapon that would allow Chinese peasants to challenge their bannermen. It can be seen by the Muslim, Nien, and Taiping Rebellions in the 19th century that even Chinese peasants with limited access to firearms can prove to be a serious threat to Manchu military forces, caused massive damage over very large areas, and took years to contain. In fact, during the beginning of the Taiping Rebellion, the Manchu bannermen were wholly ineffective against the Taiping Rebels, which relied heavily on firearms. It is interesting to note that the Manchus did make wide use of cannons and several other larger types of firearms, since these weapons were more difficult to make, thus allowing the Qing rulers to maintain a monopoly on the production and distribution of such weapons. It is a lot more difficult for peasants to produce cannons in backyard workshops.

2) The Manchu military's primary role was to maintain control within the Empire, not to fend of external threats. Apart from several campaigns against the Mongols and Tibetans, and a few minor clashes with the Russians, the Manchus never faced any real external threats. Their military was primarily tasked with preventing and putting down rebellions in China, Vietnam, and other areas of the empire. They did not need guns to defeat armies of discontent peasants. This is in contrast to the Ming military, which faced constant threats from the Mongols, Manchus, and Japanese.

3) A very important aspect of traditional Manchu culture was martial prowess, specifically archery and horsemanship. Even into the late 19th century, during the yearly military examinations, which ran parallel to the civil examinations, candidates for military positions were tested on their skill with the bow and on the horse. In Europe, as firearms proliferated, the status and position of the knights and nobility were called into question, and European society came to be dominated by the merchant class. The Manchu upper class wanted to maintain their status in Chinese society and did not want the legitimacy of their position questioned.

Originally Posted by FriedRiceNSpice

It is my impression that the Ming made more extensive use of firearms and guns than the Qing. I believe that guns were not favored by the Qing for the following reasons-

I've seen a lot of arguments lately that try to "ping the blame" on the Qing for China's falling behind in firearms development.

However, while it might be true that Ming made relatively more use of firearms than the Qing, they still relied mostly on arrows and melee on the battle. If you read an account of Zheng Chengong's retaking of Taiwan from the Dutch, you'll notice that the Ming troops fought with "medieval" weapons against the Dutch firearms.

Im not sure if Zheng Chengong's force was representative of the actual Ming military. That campaign occurred only after the Manchus had capture most of China, including the Ming's capital and base of military power. The force under Zheng Chengong were raised, trained, and equipped by himself following the defeat of the regular Ming military, which had been completely destroyed by Li Zhicheng, and massive peasant rebellions even prior the Manchu invasion.

Originally Posted by FriedRiceNSpice

Im not sure if Zheng Chengong's force was representative of the actual Ming military. That campaign occurred only after the Manchus had capture most of China, including the Ming's capital and base of military power. The force under Zheng Chengong were raised, trained, and equipped by himself following the defeat of the regular Ming military, which had been completely destroyed by Li Zhicheng, and massive peasant rebellions even prior the Manchu invasion.

Actually, Zheng's army was the remnant of a Ming army that he led, and was defeated by the Qing, forcing him to flee to Taiwan. He was kind of like the KMT in that aspect.

In any case, I don't think there are any historical accounts of Ming battles where *guns* (as opposed to cannons, which *were* used often) played a major role.

There is several issues with the question.

China did not exist as we know today for much of history. Sure, the Song was great with gun powder weapons, but the Mongolian, Jin and Manchu which ruled China over the subsequent dynasties were heavy Calvary based where firearms are next to useless untill the invention of the revolver.

Which brings another point, why focus on guns? China have always been a avid user of rockets, fire arrows, land mines and grenades?

Besides, guns are not particularly effective until the invention of the percussion cap.

Originally Posted by Lezt

There is several issues with the question.

China did not exist as we know today for much of history. Sure, the Song was great with gun powder weapons, but the Mongolian, Jin and Manchu which ruled China over the subsequent dynasties were heavy Calvary based where firearms are next to useless untill the invention of the revolver.

Which brings another point, why focus on guns? China have always been a avid user of rockets, fire arrows, land mines and grenades?

Besides, guns are not particularly effective until the invention of the percussion cap.

Percussion cap was only a modest improvement over the flintlock in terms of reliability. I'd say the invention of self-contained cartridges is probably the turning point.

Well, there is also the factor of how much metal did a typical Chinese household dealt with back then. After the wok, knife, and farm tools, I don't think there's much. China had their blacksmiths but making gun calls for geometries along other things (especially resources) much different than that of making knives or cannons (you need much higher tolerances for pistols than cannons for one).

The fact that China had a much bigger army and that guns are much more expensive than bows alone would not let China issue guns to everyone.

I agree with what Lezt said also, although I am inclined to think that China had a lot of foot soldiers around the time of the Opium Wars. The lack of weapons trade between China and the West also meant China probably didnt have the needed exposure to improve their guns to a point that warranted a major change. (Someone correct me if I am wrong.)

And if you ask me, I think rifling is the most important improvement on the gun, other wise I'd rather use a bow myself. China might have found the gun to be way too inaccurate and preferred the arrow. (Guns did went from muskets during the start of Qing to Mausers and Maxims by the end.)

If it is, as others have said, that most of China's enemies from 1400 - 1800AD were largely nomadic horseback raiders, then the Firearm would have been largely useless until the Revolver or Carbine was invented.

In Europe warfare was mainly based around massed ranks/columns of slow moving Infantry - ideal targets for early firearms.

Originally Posted by siegecrossbow

When the hell did the Chinese choose bows over guns?

Handgonnes were produced in very large numbers in the Early Ming Dynasty and special military divisions called "Shen Ji Ying" consisted entirely of firearms wielding troops. The Matchlock arquebus were introduced in the mid-1550s and were commonly fielded in Southern China.

Even the Manchus, who were notorious for their archery skills, fielded large numbers of musketeers during the late 17th century till the 18th century. Although the guns fielded by the Chinese were technologically inferior to their European and American counterparts they were still, as a matter of fact, guns, not bows.

It was only the decline of Manchus in the late 18th century to 19th century, where the central virtually had no money to purchase or manufacture guns, the decline led to Taiping Revolution and 8 nations invasion of China. Once the Ching Navy even has the so-called mighty navy which is 'the best in Asia, 4th in the world' but defeated by Imperial Japan Navy in the First Sino-Japanese War.

Its all due to money, not preferences. If given a choice, why would anyone wants to be bald if you can have a hairful of hair?

Originally Posted by FarkTypeSoldier

It was only the decline of Manchus in the late 18th century to 19th century, where the central virtually had no money to purchase or manufacture guns, the decline led to Taiping Revolution and 8 nations invasion of China. Once the Ching Navy even has the so-called mighty navy which is 'the best in Asia, 4th in the world' but defeated by Imperial Japan Navy in the First Sino-Japanese War.

Its all due to money, not preferences. If given a choice, why would anyone wants to be bald if you can have a hairful of hair?

I'm sorry but that was just an incredibly contradictory statement, you're saying China had no money to modernize and yet had the best fleet in Asia?

You are aware that said fleet was the best not because of size but because it was comprised of modern, top of the line warships built and purchased from Germany, the failure of this fleet was that officers and crewmen weren't trained on modern methods of warfare, adopting western technology but maintaining the old ways.

Originally Posted by Player 0

You are aware that said fleet was the best not because of size but because it was comprised of modern, top of the line warships built and purchased from Germany, the failure of this fleet was that officers and crewmen weren't trained on modern methods of warfare, adopting western technology but maintaining the old ways.

I'm not sure about that. I've always read that the Beiyang fleet was annihilated because of poor maintenance and corruption. It was said that Ci Xi diverted funds for the fleet to construct her summer palace, and that corrupted officials pocketed made fake ammo and pocketed the money themselves, thus causing a severe shortage of ammo for the fleet.

In fact, I believe the Beiyang fleet lost their battle against the Japanese due to their lack of ammo. Several times, the fleet scored direct hits against the Japanese flagship, but the shells failed to detonate.

Originally Posted by solarz

I'm not sure about that. I've always read that the Beiyang fleet was annihilated because of poor maintenance and corruption. It was said that Ci Xi diverted funds for the fleet to construct her summer palace, and that corrupted officials pocketed made fake ammo and pocketed the money themselves, thus causing a severe shortage of ammo for the fleet.

In fact, I believe the Beiyang fleet lost their battle against the Japanese due to their lack of ammo. Several times, the fleet scored direct hits against the Japanese flagship, but the shells failed to detonate.

Qing NS fleet ( Beiyang) failure due to many reasons, you mentioned that you had read Beiyang fleet was annihilated because of poor maintenance and corruption, that's correct, lack of ammo is only one reason, if the shell detonated in the Japanese flagship, but it could not destroyed the flogship, both Qing and Japanese warship were very heavy metal sheet warships,the Japanese flagship was advanced and largest new warship,to destroy the warship, it needs many shells detonate, maybe one or two torpeto can destroy the warship.the total tonnage of Japanese fleet warships were more than Qing NS fleet warships, the speed of Japanese warships were faster than Qing warships,the guns shells speed of Japanese warships were faster than Qing warships, Qing NS fleet used to stronger than the Japanese fleet, but the Japanese fleet catch up and past Qing fleet, that could conclude Beiyang fleet must failed the battle.
in the Yellow Sea battle, the chief commander of Beiyang fleet Ding Ruchang丁汝昌 is not a capable navy commander, he was the Qing army officer, he dosn't know much about navy affair, when the sea battle began, he had made mistake, he ordered the fleet to composed of an wrong array,faced to the Japanese fleet, and in the battle, there was a captain of the Qing warship fled,caused the Beiyang fleet some chaos.
so many problems of Qing dynasty and Beiyang fleet.