What were some significant military advancements in medieval and ancient China?

At that time army's were still dependent on massed movements signal rockets could be seen from a far distance made a loud noise that could be easily heard if not seen. That would have made a game changer in command and control.

solarz said:

Hence why I said they never fielded armies of riflemen. I was making the dual point that Ming firearms were not as effective as rifles or muskets and they were never used on a large scale.

Click to expand...

No, you misunderstand. Rifle is not synonymous with firearm. Up until the late 18th century, China only fielded smooth bore firearms, while were NOT rifles because they don't have rifling!

rhino123 said:

Don't think it make too big an impact in Chinese ancient warfare. But the Chinese did created something pretty interesting at that era.

Multi-stage rockets - 火龍出水 (Fire Dragon out of the Water).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

[video=youtube;nrdbYD8Acdg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrdbYD8Acdg [/video] (go to 1.52 minute)

Actually if the Chinese continued to do research and development of these type of weapons and make used of them in vast numbers, we might be seeing game changers in those time.

Click to expand...

Actually I don't understand how they would keep such a contraption stable in flight without some kind of feedback controls to stop it from plunging into water or shooting away into the air.

The earliest (relative) lightweight firearm that resemble modern handheld firearm was the Arquebus, which was smooth bore and requires wick to set off. Then the muskets were developed which were still smooth bore but use various locks to fire. Then rifling was introduced later still which I think gradually made away with muzzle loading.

When you say rifleman I take it that you generally mean infantry units that fire firearms, as rifleman was originally a specialised term referring to people who fire rifled firearms. People who fire smooth bore were called musketeers.

The firing in formation was adopted because of the lack of accuracy with smooth bore firearms. It gradually went away with introduction of rifled firearms - which I think is why the civil war was horrible in terms of casualties in part because they were still using musket tactics with rifles.

no_name said:

The firing in formation was adopted because of the lack of accuracy with smooth bore firearms. It gradually went away with introduction of rifled firearms - which I think is why the civil war was horrible in terms of casualties in part because they were still using musket tactics with rifles.

Click to expand...

I think you can also include the length of time it took to reload and the effect 'formation firing' had for why the tactic was used.I think the practice faded away with the introduction of breech loaders and repeaters.

What about the siege machines, were they as good or better than their European counterpart?

The Koreans were supposed to have borrowed some technology from the Chinese and came up with some multiple arrow /rocket firing thingy, which they used fairly successfully against the Japanese footsoilders/Samurai

no_name said:

Actually I don't understand how they would keep such a contraption stable in flight without some kind of feedback controls to stop it from plunging into water or shooting away into the air.

Click to expand...

I think system worked like a rocket propelled arrow, much like you shoot a arrow over the water. I don't think it would be useful when shooting over ocean or at a great distance (beyond visual) and if wind is too harsh, it don't work that well. But taking it as the earliest multi-stage rocket, I think the feat is kind of incredible. Imagine thousands of them fired at once, a couple of them gonna hit their target (as long as those targets are within range) and with four rocket propelling it, the distance is gonna be longer than a fully drawn bow and arrows.

I guess the fact that they spray arrows out of their 'mouth' rather than a single detonating charge indicates that they were never meant to be very accurate over large distances.

I do wonder why ancient chinese didn't put large cannons on their ships. It is as though they mainly fight by boarding other ships. Is it because they don't fight on the high seas and it is simply quicker to do a takeover?

no_name said:

Actually I don't understand how they would keep such a contraption stable in flight without some kind of feedback controls to stop it from plunging into water or shooting away into the air.

Click to expand...

Believe it or not, this did work... once. During the Imjin War it claimed one Japanese ship after it was fired. Not a very effective weapon, but very intimidating when fired.

no_name said:

I guess the fact that they spray arrows out of their 'mouth' rather than a single detonating charge indicates that they were never meant to be very accurate over large distances.

I do wonder why ancient chinese didn't put large cannons on their ships. It is as though they mainly fight by boarding other ships. Is it because they don't fight on the high seas and it is simply quicker to do a takeover?

Click to expand...

On the contrary, Chinese naval warfare is range heavy compared to European counterparts until the mid-16th century. Naval warfare was primarily confined to lakes and major rivers, where stable water conditions allowed for massive towerships (essentially floating fortresses) that rained projectiles down on opponents.

As for why the Chinese didn't put large cannons on their ships... They did, after they acquired them. Prior to the introduction of Fulangji from Portugal the largest example of cannons cast in China were the iron cannons cast during the Hongwu reign. They were around a meter in length but had a relatively massive bore of 11 centimeters. Unlike the smaller and lighter Wankouchong that fired anti-personnel grapeshots, the Hongwu cannon from Xian was most certainly a siege weapon designed to hurl stones against fortifications. However, most artillery during the early and mid-Ming Dynasty were only around a foot in length (the hand-held firearms were actually longer than them!).

When European cannons became available, the Chinese actually used a very large number of them on the Fuchuan warships, and to devastating effects against the Japanese during the Imjin War.

Rifled guns were used in Europe since the 16th century. Until the introduction of the Minie bullet it was necessary to use a hammer to enter the ball into the barrel and beat it home onto the charge, using the ramrod. You could fire your rifle once every so many minutes while in the end you could fire a musket several times a minute by which time the "thin red line" was two or three ranks deep while at the introduction of the musket in the late 16th century it was six ranks deep.