Why China Chose Bows over Guns...

solarz

Brigadier
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Some problems I find with this article:

article said:
This meant composite bows would not last long in Europe, Japan or Southeast Asia, where wooden bows dominated.

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

article said:
In Asia, the bow was part of the people's culture, skill in its use was an important tradition for officers wanting to progress through the military ranks. So Chinese armies had a huge pool of skilled archers to pick from, European armies did not.

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.
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


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.
 

solarz

Brigadier
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.
 

solarz

Brigadier
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.
 

solarz

Brigadier
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.
 

Lezt

Junior Member
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.
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
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.
 

sumdud

Senior Member
VIP Professional
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.)
 
Top