Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 11th, 2015, 02:50 PM   #21
Reptilian Shapeshifter
 
Joined: Aug 2013
From: Draco
Posts: 2,452
Blog Entries: 2

^^ What in the world do IQ scores have to do with this?

Last edited by Haakbus; April 11th, 2015 at 02:53 PM.
Haakbus is offline  
Remove Ads
Old April 11th, 2015, 02:54 PM   #22
ise
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Gaia
Posts: 433

Faster reaction times and better aim are absolutely a combat advantage. Simply put, Europeans didn't copy Chinese inventions fast enough to overcome ingrained weaknesses. Among these are an inability to tolerate truly cold weather.
ise is offline  
Old April 11th, 2015, 03:05 PM   #23
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,485

Quote:
Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
As for field artillery, the Qing would actually be ahead of Europe in this respect:
See this post (http://historum.com/asian-history/88853-comparison-ming-mughal-japanese-militaries-1590s-2.html#post2151475) and get real. You are not even logical, much less correct: The Qing got their technology from the Jesuits who acquired it from European gunfounders, the real experts, who had usually developed their models much further at the time they found their way to the Far East. The Qing were operating with Europe's yesterday artillery technology - if at all.

For the remainder of your post, it is often so lame that I cannot bring myself to respond. Take just this:

Quote:
The Japanese army also probably had superior hand to hand melee ability in short weaponry compared to the Europeans.
How? Both in the defensive and offensive European short weaponry and fighting techniques were very advanced. The katana was effectively a two-hander meaning that the body of the samurai was generally not protected with a shield and thus vulnerable to counter-attacks. But Samurai armour, being over-heavy and antiquated, was no great protection.

By contrast, European fighters also often used-two handers, at least in duels, but because they could rely on the best body armour in history, plate armour. European fencing techniques were highly developed, with a large body of specialist literature (Martial arts manual - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).


A clip on the many weaknesses of the katana:


This clip nicely shows how agile fighters in plate armour were and how it needed special fighting techniques to overcome their armour:

This armour is so protective that slashing techniques were largely useless. And the overrated katana was a slashing weapon mostly...

Last edited by Aetius; April 11th, 2015 at 03:13 PM.
Aetius is offline  
Old April 11th, 2015, 03:11 PM   #24

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: Canada
Posts: 3,213

Quote:
Originally Posted by ise View Post
Faster reaction times and better aim are absolutely a combat advantage. Simply put, Europeans didn't copy Chinese inventions fast enough to overcome ingrained weaknesses. Among these are an inability to tolerate truly cold weather.
Hahaha? Come on man
YouLoveMeYouKnowIt is online now  
Old April 11th, 2015, 03:11 PM   #25

HackneyedScribe's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,454
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aetius View Post
See this post (http://historum.com/asian-history/88853-comparison-ming-mughal-japanese-militaries-1590s-2.html#post2151475) and get real. You are not even logical, much less correct: The Qing got their technology from the Jesuits who acquired it from European gunfounders, the real experts, who had usually developed their models much further at the time they found their way to the Far East. The Qing were operating with Europe's yesterday artillery technology - if at all.
It is incredibly naive to expect that just because the Qing copied European designs, the Qing did not add any additional innovations of their own. Even Verbiest who casted cannons for the Qing had casted his cannons to suit the needs of the Qing, to the effect that some of these cannons can justifiably be called uniquely Chinese cannons first made by a European. They were NOT simply copy/pastes of European cannons. This can be seen in the source you linked, so please read your own source.

Quote:
For the remainder of your post, it is often so lame that I cannot bring myself to respond.
Ah, your usual tactic of throwing everything out the window when you have no facts to respond with. Allow me to repost what you considered as "lame", so others can judge for themselves:


I was inspired by the naval comparison threat to start an army comparison as well. There tend to be a view that Qing firearms was outmatched by European firearms since the beginning. However, research shows otherwise. Qing cannons were actually superior for the part and it's muskets were comparable until the 18th century. I will start with cannons.


There are cannons weighing several dozen jin (half kilos) to 3-400 jin for field operation and heavy cannons of 5-600 jin for siege. 《钦定工部则例造火 器式》listed 85 types of cannon.

The Wei Yuan Jiangjun Pao weighed 280-330 jin, fired balls canisters weighting 20-30 jin, and had a range of 200 paces -3 li, or around 400 meters to 1.7 km. According to Qing Wenxian Tongkao; the firing distance depends on the amount of powder inserted, ranging from 200 paces to 3 li. “如放二百步至二百五十步,用药一斤;三百步增二两;如放二三里,用药三斤”(《清文献通考》) 。

The Zi Mu cannon weighs 85-95 jin, mounted on 4 wheels and fires balls weighing 8 jin at a distance of around 500 meters. It's used as a defensive weapon and has what resembles a fixed ammunition, perhaps the first of it's kind in the world, which gave it the highest rate of fire of any cannon. It is the arguably the most advanced cannon of it's era.

Each banner had 9 Zimu cannon, 2 Wei Yuan Jiang Jun cannon, and One Dragon cannon.

The prominence of light cannons in the Qing army was reflected in European armies as well. Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden emphasized the use of light cannons due to their mobility. He preferred 4-9 pounders over 12 pounders. The rapidity of the fire of the cannon was more important than the power of its shots and in the Battle of Breitenfeld in 1631, Adolphys's tactics proved effective as he was able to fire 3-5 times of many volleys as the enemy.
This is comparable to the range of European cannons of the 18th century, which generally comes in 6, 8, or 12 pound cannons and had a range of 600-1800 yards.

Although the range and weight of the cannons that were fired were comparable between Qing and European armies of the 17th and 18th century, the Qing cannons had a higher rate of fire because of the nature of the fixed ammunition of the Zi Mu (son-mother) cannons (although because of this, it had a slightly less range, but the rate of fire was more important in the warfare of the time), which after 1717 also used canister shots. Even more importantly, the percentage of cannons per personnel was a lot higher in the Qing army.

Most European armies of the 17th and 18th century had only around 1 cannon per 1,000 soldiers. Only in large campaigns do we see some exceptions.
Gustabus Adolphus was revolutionary in having 6 cannons per 1,000 soldiers and it was a significant amount.
Yet even as late as the Battle of Hastenbeck in 1757, the allies had 30,000 infantry, 5000 cavalry and 28 canons, whereas the French had 50,000 infantry, 10,000 cavalry and 68 cannons. In another word, there was only about 1 cannon for every thousand soldiers.

At the battle of Minden in 1759, the allies had 42,500 soldiers and 187 cannons whereas the French had 54,000 men and 170 cannons. Here, there were about 4 cannons per thousand soldiers.

Even as late as 1794, in the Battle of raclawice between Pland and Russia, there were 11 cannons per 4,440 on the Polish side and 12 cannons per 3,000 on the Russian side. The ratio is still around 3-4 cannon per 1,000 soldiers.


On the other hand, typical banner as described above had 9 Zimu cannon, 2 Wei Yuan Jiang Jun cannon, and One Dragon with a total of 12 cannons. The size of an average banner is 7,500 men. This is about 1.7 cannons per 1,000 personnel.

Large campaigns during the Qing had even more cannons and were unrivaled in Europe until the Napoleonic wars.

In the battle of Jaomodo in 1696, Kang Xi mobilized 80,000 soldiers with 300 cannons, or over 35 cannons for every 1,000 soldiers. Only battles by the time of the Napoleonic war, such as the battle of Austerliz where there was 75,000 french soldiers and 150 cannon as well as 90,000 allies and 300 cannons did it reach the major Qing campaigns in the number of cannons both in total and per personnel.



In terms of non-artillery units, 17th century European equipments were roughly similar to the Chinese ones in both weaponry and percentage of distribution.
Both had around 60 or more percent of their infantry been musketeers.

In the Cheng Zhou Fu Zhi, it was recorded that in 1839, the middle battalion of Cheng prefecture had 117 cavalrymen, 394 guards and 244 muskets, or over 60% of the infantry were musketeers. The left batallion had 115 cavalrymen, 368 infantry and 235 musketeers and 32 cannons. Again over 60% of the infantry were musketeers and around half were musketeers in total including the cavalry units. The Qing shigao record of Tibetan units of the 18th century also mentioned that there were 50% musketeers, 30 percent bowmen and 20 percent swords and pikesmen. This is only the Green standard soldiers, and the bannerman were in all likelyhood armed with more firearms. 17th century European armies similarily had around 60% of their soldiers armed with matchlocks (or later wheellocks) and a similar proportion of pikemen and around 1/6 cavalry (whereas the Green Standard cavalry made up around 1/5 of the total force).

Only by 1700 did European musket tactics change. Flintlocks were introduced along with the bayonet but the superiority was not decisive. Matchlocks and flintlocks both had effective range of only around 100 meters and flintlocks fired about 24 shots compared to 20 for the matchlock. More importantly however, flintlocks are lighter and can be equipped with a bayonet which allowed European armies to get rid of pikemen altogether around 1700(with the exception of some east European armies that retained them until the 1720s). Although pikemen largely disappeared from European warfare, it was still used in the Battle of Raclawice by the Poles against Russia in 1794 where the Polish force of 4,400, near half of whom were peasants armed with pikes won against a 3,000 men Russian army armed with bayonets.

It would appear then, that Qing hand held firearms were comparable to European ones in the 17th century while it's artillery was more powerful. Whereas in the 18th century, the Qing hand held firearms became inferior but it still had an edge in artillery; the Qing had by far the most amount of artillery of any regime on earth and could arm it's soldiers with more of it at least until the late 18th century. Yet firepower aside, according to Peter Perdue, the Qing army also had a superior logistics and mobility throughout the 17th and 18th century compared to western armies. Due to a significant horse supply and a highly universally monetized economy over all of China, the Qing was capable of projecting military campaigns over 1,500 KM from home whereas European armies of the time had trouble with merely an eighth of that distance.


Quote:
Take just this:

How? Both in the defensive and offensive European short weaponry and fighting techniques were very advanced. The katana was a two-hander meaning that the body of the samurai was generally not protected with a shield and thus vulnerable to counter-attacks. But Samurai armour, being over-heavy and antiquated, was no great help.

By contrast, European fighters also often used-two handers, at least in duels, but because they could rely on the best body armour in history, plate armour. European fencing techniques were highly developed, with a large body of specialist literature (Martial arts manual - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).


A clip on the many weaknesses of the katana:


This clip nicely shows how agile fighters in plate armour were and how it needed special fighting techniques to overcome their armour:

This armour is so protective that slashing techniques were largely useless. And the overrated katana was a slashing weapon mostly...
Too bad the primary Japanese melee weaponry was the long spear, not the sword. The Japanese spearmen fought in tercio-like blocks just like in Europe. The difference being that Japanese spears were made out of bamboo, which allowed them to fight by using the spear as a thump-over-the-head weapon due to the bamboo's whiplash motion. The sword was used as a backup if the soldier for one reason or another lost his spear, which makes me suspect the katana was designed for a quick draw action as the Japanese have an entire school dedicated to drawing the sword quickly. So whatever sword comparison there is negligible. So too is comparison with full plate because hardly anyone wore full plate armor.
Yu Dayou said "these people's (European) only weapon is a soft sword, their naval combat ability is inferior to our soldiers, and on the ground, long spears would have subdued them."

On the other hand I did list how Japanese armies were ahead in the ways of the arquebus:

Quote:
Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
Japanese arquebusiers were pretty sophisticated. Besides standardized bores and drilling to fire in turns, they had efficient cartridges (hayago) that allow for fast reloading speed. This was achieved by unifying the motion of putting the gunpowder and the bullet into the bore as one singular action.

Hayago:
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.

This reduces the steps needed to reload and shoot an arquebus:

Click the image to open in full size.

First step: Take the cartridge located from the waist, and put the gunpowder + bullet from the cartridge into the arquebus bore.

Click the image to open in full size.

Step 2: ram the bullet ball and charge into the bore using the ramrod

Click the image to open in full size.

Step 3: Prime the pan using a separate gunpowder container, also located at the waist.

Click the image to open in full size.

Step 4: Set the slow burning match

Click the image to open in full size.

Step five: Fire

This is two steps below the usual six-seven steps needed to fire an arquebus, because the action to put the gunpowder and bullet into the bore would be split into separate steps. Using a hayago a reenactor was able to fire 2 shots in about 30 seconds or about 4 per minute, as opposed to non-Japanese arquebusiers without a hayago who would be firing at around 2 shots per minute:
(I didn't count his first shot nor the time it took to shoot it because it was pre-loaded when the countdown started)

Plus, the hayago allowed a more stable input of gunpowder. Without it, it is very likely that the chaos/panic of battle would cause the gunpowder input to be too low.

Information came primarily from wolflance in another forum: ???????????? vs ?????_????_????
So in summary the Japanese had an advantage in arquebus due to
1) Standardized bores, meaning standardized bullets, cheapening the production and availability of ammunition.
2) Better cartridges which allowed a faster reloading rate.
3) Rotating firing drill that superseded the rest of the world (for the arquebus, anyways).

Last edited by HackneyedScribe; April 11th, 2015 at 04:13 PM.
HackneyedScribe is online now  
Old April 11th, 2015, 04:14 PM   #26
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,893

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aetius View Post
Which are these areas? It cannot be siege warfare or the navy by any stretch of imagination, so it must be limited to land warfare. But how can the Japanese whose infantry relied to a great deal on imported European weapons technology (arquebuse) or the Ming which soon came to rely on European weapons technology too (Jesuite production of cannon) be more powerful than the Europe of the military revolution?
Perhaps you should tone down your imagination a bit, even in siege and navy, it is very much a toss up. According to Wang Hongbin's work "Qingdai Qianqi Haifang: Sixiang yu Zhidu", Chinese ship making technology and Europeans are on the same pace even as late as the early Qing. In Zhou Huang's Liu Qiuguo Zhilue, it was recorded that late Ming boats still had exception sized ones. In 1533 the Ming boat that was sent to invest the Ryukyu king Shangqing had a length of 17 Zhang, width of 3.16 Zhang and a depth of 1.33 Zhang with a weight of some 537 tons. In 1633, the ship sent to Ryukyu to invest the king Shangfeng, was 1200 tons. The thickness of the bottom was 7 Chinese inches or one English feet. These dimension proportions (not absolute size) were comparable to contemporary English warships.

The average European warship in Asian waters in the late 17th century was around 190 tons. The average medium European ships were generally 500-1000 tons.

"By the early 17th century, Chinese warships actually had heavier gunnery than western ships. The English warship "sovereign of the sea" designed in 1637, had 104 cannons and was the biggest ship in the west weighting at 1683 tons with a crew size of 850 or around 8 crew per cannon. The cannons were 12 and 6 pounders. The heaviest cannons mounted on English ships at the time were 24 pounders. Koxinga's San wei Paochuan had 26.45 pounders(24 jin) Fulanji and the Hongyi cannon could have 32 pounders which was heavier than the most powerful English cannons.
In the battle of Penghu, the Zheng regime had 200 ships with an average of 100 crew per ship and mounted one hongyi cannon along with 20 smaller cannons and 100-200 muskets on each ship. This meant 6,200 cannons total with two hundred 30 pounders, and around 5 crew per cannon. "

In fact, the contemporary Ming navy that participated in the Imjin war was probably larger than the Spanish armada and had more firepower.
The Ming mobilized 50 camps(ying). The vanguard Deng Zilong's fleet's third rate Fuchuan could already hold 300 men per ship, the first rate Fuchuan of the Ming period weighed up to 400 tons.
The average battleship according to standard division(not including the largest Fuchuan) is 2 shao per fleet, or 510 men with 10 large, medium and small boats. The main battle ship had 4 cannons, others had 40 fulangji(which was replaced by the more powerful Hongyi cannon by Qing times), 30 small cannons. 50 camps would have 500 ships(with 100 second rate Fuchuan), and 3,700 cannons, with around 25,500 people(not including the army that was shipped there).
If each ship had an average of 260 ton, then there would be around 130,000 tons total.
The contemporary Spanish armada that invaded the British Isles had 130 ships, weighting at 57,868 tons with 2,431 cannons and 27,051 crews.

Last edited by heavenlykaghan; April 11th, 2015 at 06:09 PM.
heavenlykaghan is offline  
Old April 11th, 2015, 06:25 PM   #27
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,485

Quote:
Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
Even more importantly, the percentage of cannons per personnel was a lot higher in the Qing army.

Most European armies of the 17th and 18th century had only around 1 cannon per 1,000 soldiers. Only in large campaigns do we see some exceptions.
I looked up 16th century Russia, a power not too far ahead of China at the time, and I found this number work:

Quote:
The Austrian ambassador, Hans Kobenzl von Prosseg, claimed that by 1576, Ivan had more than 2,000 artillery pieces...By 1600, Muscovy is said to have had 3,500 cannons, and by the late 1600s, from 4,000 to 5,000 pieces.

Source: The Military Revolution in Russia, 1550-1682, 2004, p. 22
Going by your ratio of 1:1000, the Russian army of this period would have been between 2 and 5 million men strong....

As for field artillery, the Europeans invented the two features absolutely crucial to its success: the wheeled carriage and the barrel peg, which allowed for adjustment of height. Both design features were only, if at all, belatedly copied by Asians, particularly the latter not before the direct technology transfer set on.
Aetius is offline  
Old April 11th, 2015, 06:33 PM   #28
ise
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Gaia
Posts: 433

The Austrian ambassador, Hans Kobenzl von Prosseg, claimed

Nice try.
ise is offline  
Old April 11th, 2015, 06:34 PM   #29
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,485

Quote:
Originally Posted by heavenlykaghan View Post
"By the early 17th century, Chinese warships actually had heavier gunnery than western ships. The English warship "sovereign of the sea" designed in 1637, had 104 cannons and was the biggest ship in the west weighting at 1683 tons with a crew size of 850 or around 8 crew per cannon. The cannons were 12 and 6 pounders. The heaviest cannons mounted on English ships at the time were 24 pounders. Koxinga's San wei Paochuan had 26.45 pounders(24 jin) Fulanji and the Hongyi cannon could have 32 pounders which was heavier than the most powerful English cannons.
In the battle of Penghu, the Zheng regime had 200 ships with an average of 100 crew per ship and mounted one hongyi cannon along with 20 smaller cannons and 100-200 muskets on each ship. This meant 6,200 cannons total with two hundred 30 pounders, and around 5 crew per cannon. "
Source?

Anyway, the late 16th century Eagle of Lubeck, the flagship of the Hanseatic city of Lubeck, had

  • 8 48 pounders
  • 6 24 pounders
  • 26 10 pounders
  • 4 5 pounders
  • 8 3 pounders
in bronze ordnance alone going by its extant artillery book.


Chinese warships never developed the multiple-deck broadside which made ships effective and seaworthy artillery platforms. This made them invariably much less powerful weapons. This is also why they mostly relied on swarm attacks or fire ships against European ships from their earliest encounters onwards.



I am wasting my time with your credulous and fabricated pseudo-stats which are devoid of understanding of the basics of naval warfare.

Last edited by Aetius; April 11th, 2015 at 06:36 PM.
Aetius is offline  
Old April 11th, 2015, 06:34 PM   #30

HackneyedScribe's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,454
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aetius View Post
I looked up 16th century Russia, a power not too far ahead of China at the time, and I found this number work:

Going by your ratio of 1:1000, the Russian army of this period would have been between 2 and 5 million men strong....
Now that is just dishonest selective quoting, because the very NEXT sentence from the same source says:

However, in the 1660s Kotshikhin wrote that there were only "about six hundred artillerymen and harquebusiers and masters of various kinds in Moscow, in addition to the provinces", far too few to man the 4,000 or 5,000 cannons in Russia's arsenals. He later wrote that the Tasar's Regiment had some 200 artilery "pieces of various kinds," while the other regiments, including the strel'tsy regiments, had 50 to 80 pieces each. Fortresses and fortified monasteries were likewise equipped with cannons as needed. While it was true, as Hellie noted, that by the second half of the sixteenth century "RUssian military successes... can be attributed in large part to the skillful use of artillery", it must be added that many of the pieces in stock were older pieces; an inventory of the arsenal at Smlensk in the mid-seventeenth century listed artillery pieces from the reign of Ivan III, two hundred years ealier. Such large numbers of cannons were apparently quite obsolete by 1700, when almost the entire (modern) artillery park was lost at Narva....." (The use of "regiment" here is a larger division than the one I used, as in your source Russia only had a total of five regiments as opposed to 33)

Even discounting your selective quoting, heavenlykaghans quote is applies as a general rule to all of Europe. Giving an example of one specific place in Europe where it is an exception rather than the rule is not even close to a rebuttal.

Quote:
As for field artillery, the Europeans invented the two features absolutely crucial to its success: the wheeled carriage and the barrel peg, which allowed for adjustment of height. Both design features were only, if at all, belatedly copied by Asians, particularly the latter not before the direct technology transfer set on.
Zimu cannon had both a wheeled carriage and a barrel peg in the form of a swivel. You are switching topic by switching time periods in order so that Europeans come out on top, even though no one claimed otherwise.

Click the image to open in full size.

Last edited by HackneyedScribe; April 11th, 2015 at 06:55 PM.
HackneyedScribe is online now  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
1590s, comparison, japanese, militaries, ming, mughal



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Medieval Indian Militaries Hresvelgr War and Military History 24 December 28th, 2014 09:50 PM
Ming painting reveals how Ming infantrymen looked like purakjelia Asian History 54 March 27th, 2014 10:01 AM
What if Japan beats Korea in the 1590s? DS1967 Speculative History 2 January 30th, 2013 12:47 PM
Chinese-Japanese Military Comparison 1937 Isoroku295 War and Military History 6 April 26th, 2011 11:22 AM
Burmese - Ming dynasty conflict around 1590s?? RollingWave Asian History 0 July 26th, 2010 12:26 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.