Chinese cannons

Haakbus · Jan 25, 2015

I've been trying to make sense of Chinese cannons (especially of the 1500s and 1600s) lately, and I have several questions:
Was there any sort of classification based on size, purpose, design, etc.?

The most common names seem to have been "dajiangjunpao" "folangjipao", and "hongyipao". What was the nature of these?

Other names include "first general", "second general", "zhankou", "xiangyang".

There was also the "hudunpao" which was sort of an anti-personnel mortar.

I can note traditional styles, western styles, and also intermediate styles.

Haakbus · Jan 25, 2015

This is a hongyipao Western-style cannon:

The two smaller ones are traditional style while the larger one is western style:

Here is a hudunpao:

purakjelia · Jan 25, 2015

From my understanding, Hong Yi Pao only referred to the large western style cannon imported during the 17th century.

The Great General Cannon (Da Jiang Jun Pao) could sometimes refer to large traditional Chinese muzzle-loading iron-hooped cannons, but it might also refer to large breech-loading cannons.

Fo Lang Ji referred to the various types of breech-loading guns and cannons.

unity · Jan 25, 2015

Haakbus said:
I've been trying to make sense of Chinese cannons (especially of the 1500s and 1600s) lately, and I have several questions:
Was there any sort of classification based on size, purpose, design, etc.?

The most common names seem to have been "dajiangjunpao" "folangjipao", and "hongyipao". What was the nature of these?

Other names include "first general", "second general", "zhankou", "xiangyang".

There was also the "hudunpao" which was sort of an anti-personnel mortar.

I can note traditional styles, western styles, and also intermediate styles.

folangjipao and hongyipao were reverse engineered from european cannon.

In the 1520's Ming China's navy defeated the Portuguese twice, one at Tunmen in 1521 and at Xicaowan in 1522. At Xicaowan after defeating the Portuguese, the Chinese captured a Portuguese ship and its cannon, and took the Portuguese breech loading cannon back to Beijing and then reverse engineered it. It was put into mass production as the "folangji" (frankish) cannon, since the Portuguese were known as "folangji"(Franks). Non-westerners used to call all western europeans as "Franks".

"hongyipao" was reverse engineered from Dutch cannon. "hongyi" means "red barbarian" and that was the name for the Dutch. China defeated the Dutch in a war over the Pescadores in 1624. The Chinese navy also defeated the Dutch at Liaoluo Bay in 1633, first using fireships to attack the Dutch and then blasting them with cannon. In 1662, Chinese Ming loyalists under Koxinga defeated the Dutch and drove them out of Taiwan. There were plenty of opportunities to seize Dutch cannon, but it might have also been obtained peacefully (through trade with the Dutch East India Company). In any case, the Chinese managed to obtain the cannon and reverse engineer it.

In both these instances, it was noted that the Chinese cannon was inferior but the Chinese still defeated and blew up the Portuguese and Dutch ships. I posted about that here-

http://historum.com/asian-history/8...ck-antagonism-3.html#post2065174?postcount=22

After the Portuguese were defeated by the Ming in the 1520s- 1540s and driven off Guangdong, Fujian, and Zhejiang's coasts, they later returned peacefully and were given the harbor at Macao to trade. In the 1620s-1630s another type of cannon was peacefully traded by the Portuguese to Ming China and also put into mass production.

The foreign cannon were variously obtained as war booty or traded.

Haakbus · Jan 25, 2015

unity said:
...

After the Portuguese were defeated by the Ming in the 1520s- 1540s and driven off Guangdong, Fujian, and Zhejiang's coasts, they later returned peacefully and were given the harbor at Macao to trade. In the 1620s-1630s another type of cannon was peacefully traded by the Portuguese to Ming China and also put into mass production.

...

What type of cannon was that?

purakjelia said:
From my understanding, Hong Yi Pao only referred to the large western style cannon imported during the 17th century.

The Great General Cannon (Da Jiang Jun Pao) could sometimes refer to large traditional Chinese muzzle-loading iron-hooped cannons, but it might also refer to large breech-loading cannons.

Fo Lang Ji referred to the various types of breech-loading guns and cannons.

Okay.

But didn't dajiangjunpao also later refer to large western-style cannons once they replaced the traditional types?

Also just to clarify, the traditional cannons were not iron-hooped in the sense of early European bombards, but were cast iron with reinforcement rings, which is better.

purakjelia · Jan 25, 2015

Haakbus said:
Okay.

But didn't dajiangjunpao also later refer to large western-style cannons once they replaced the traditional types?

Also just to clarify, the traditional cannons were not iron-hooped in the sense of early European bombards, but were cast iron with reinforcement rings, which is better.

Yes, the term had multiple referents depending on the time period. It didn't just refer to a single type of cannon.

Thanks for the clarification.

purakjelia · Jan 25, 2015

And also, Zhankou cannon referred to an early type of bronze cannon that was already in use during the Yuan or the Early Ming. Its name Zhankou means "cup-shaped muzzle".

Haakbus · Jan 25, 2015

purakjelia said:
Yes, the term had multiple referents depending on the time period. It didn't just refer to a single type of cannon.

Thanks for the clarification.

I'm primarily concerned with traditional style cannons, so before the western style replaced them during the 1600s.

No problem.

What about "first general", "second general", and "xiangyang" which were mentioned by Song Yingxing according to wiki here Huolongjing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

It would seem that "first general" was either another name for the great general or the size just smaller than it and the "second general" is probably the next size down.

purakjelia said:
And also, Zhankou cannon referred to an early type of bronze cannon that was already in use during the Yuan or the Early Ming. Its name Zhankou means "cup-shaped muzzle".

Was this the same as a wan-kou (bowl-shaped muzzle)?

purakjelia · Jan 25, 2015

Haakbus said:
I'm primarily concerned with traditional style cannons, so before the western style replaced them during the 1600s.

No problem.

What about "first general", "second general", and "xiangyang" which were mentioned by Song Yingxing according to wiki here Huolongjing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

It would seem that "first general" was either another name for the great general or the size just smaller than it and the "second general" is probably the next size down.

Was this the same as a wan-kou (bowl-shaped muzzle)?

Yes, I believe zhan-kou and wan-kou refer to the same weapon.

I also think the names "first general" and "second general" refer to difference in the size of the cannon.

Haakbus · Jan 25, 2015

purakjelia said:
Yes, I believe zhan-kou and wan-kou refer to the same weapon.

I also think the names "first general" and "second general" refer to difference in the size of the cannon.

I did find a Chinese word 盞 "cup" which as that meaning. So the name would be 盞口 or 碗口.

Now what about the xiangyang? Do we have any info on that?

There's also the Wēiyuǎnpào (威遠砲).

Also, what are some relevant primary sources that describe performance, size, etc.?

purakjelia · Jan 25, 2015

Haakbus said:
I did find a Chinese word 盞 "cup" which as that meaning. So the name would be 盞口 or 碗口.

Now what about the xiangyang? Do we have any info on that?

There's also the Wēiyuǎnpào (威遠砲).

Also, what are some relevant primary sources that describe performance, size, etc.?

Xiangyang Pao was the counterweight trebuchet used by the Mongols during the siege of Xiangyang. In Chinese, the character Pao "砲" could refer to both a trebuchet and a cannon.

Sorry, I don't have any primary sources at my disposal. Better ask someone else.

unity · Jan 25, 2015

Haakbus said:
What type of cannon was that?

Okay.

But didn't dajiangjunpao also later refer to large western-style cannons once they replaced the traditional types?

Also just to clarify, the traditional cannons were not iron-hooped in the sense of early European bombards, but were cast iron with reinforcement rings, which is better.

I actually think they actually labelled all (muzzle loading) European style cannon as hongyipao so both the later Portuguese and Dutch cannons were probably called by the same name.

Only the breech loading cannon captured from the Portuguese in 1522 was called Folangjipao.

Haakbus · Jan 25, 2015

purakjelia said:
Xiangyang Pao was the counterweight trebuchet used by the Mongols during the siege of Xiangyang. In Chinese, the character Pao "砲" could refer to both a trebuchet and a cannon.

Sorry, I don't have any primary sources at my disposal. Better ask someone else.

The hudunpao took its name from an earlier trebuchet, so I'd guess the xiangyang cannon was a similar case.

Haakbus · Jan 26, 2015

Thanks guys this has really helped.

purakjelia · Jan 26, 2015

I looked up some information about Ming weapons on Chinese internet sites. It seems that both the Zhankou and the Hudun are anti-personnel mortars, not cannons. They fire stone or lead pellets. The soldiers first have to dig a hole or ditch on the ground, put the mortars in the ditch, stabilize it and set it for a certain angle, and then load the pellets and fire. And also, due to their relatively light weight, these anti-personnel shotgun mortars were also used on Ming war junks.

The subsequent Qing Dynasty was still using the Hudun anti-personnel mortar.

purakjelia · Jan 26, 2015

Ming firearms developed in a different way from western firearms.

Western cannons became larger and larger overtime and emphasized more on siege abilities, while Ming cannons and guns were light weight and they were mostly used in a way similar to modern day shotguns. And Ming also used lots of rocket arrows. This is probably caused by different opponents they were facing. Europeans were fighting other European armies who often had sophisticated and well developed fortifications, so there was a greater need for long-range siege weapons. On the other hand, Ming were facing threats from the Mongols and Manchu nomads to the north who preferred to use cavalry, thus light weight shotguns and rocket arrows were needed to counter those hordes of charging cavalry.

unity · Jan 26, 2015

purakjelia said:
Ming firearms developed in a different way from western firearms.

Western cannons became larger and larger overtime and emphasized more on siege abilities, while Ming cannons and guns were light weight and they were mostly used in a way similar to modern day shotguns. And Ming also used lots of rocket arrows. This is probably caused by different opponents they were facing. Europeans were fighting other European armies who often had sophisticated and well developed fortifications, so there was a greater need for long-range siege weapons. On the other hand, Ming were facing threats from the Mongols and Manchu nomads to the north who preferred to use cavalry, thus light weight shotguns and rocket arrows were needed to counter those hordes of charging cavalry.

Manchus are not nomads. That has been discussed to death on multiple forums. Using mounted cavalry archers does not make you nomadic. Manchus were sedentary farmers.

Manchu is not nomadic nation - Qing - China History Forum, Chinese History Forum

I posted sources on this post here proving that Manchus were farmers and not nomads.

http://historum.com/asian-history/82067-qin-shi-huang-ethnicity-19.html#post2063322

Haakbus · Jan 26, 2015

purakjelia said:
Ming firearms developed in a different way from western firearms.

Western cannons became larger and larger overtime and emphasized more on siege abilities, while Ming cannons and guns were light weight and they were mostly used in a way similar to modern day shotguns. And Ming also used lots of rocket arrows. This is probably caused by different opponents they were facing. Europeans were fighting other European armies who often had sophisticated and well developed fortifications, so there was a greater need for long-range siege weapons. On the other hand, Ming were facing threats from the Mongols and Manchu nomads to the north who preferred to use cavalry, thus light weight shotguns and rocket arrows were needed to counter those hordes of charging cavalry.

This seems to be a good explanation and make a lot of sense.

Haakbus · May 15, 2018

Found some beautiful (and mostly accurate) reconstructions of Ming era cannons:

Ming%20Chinese%20Cannon_side02.jpgcd261168-a32e-4a04-83ef-e339fc2b0a02Large.jpg

Haakbus · May 15, 2018

This was mentioned in another thread but I don't remember which. Basically on some of the early cannons it was mentioned that the rings were cast separately and later heated and placed on the barrel. I always assumed this was a rare practice that got phased out, but I'm not so sure now. Joseph Needham seems to assume it was always what they did.

Search

Search

Chinese cannons

Haakbus

Haakbus

purakjelia

unity

Haakbus

purakjelia

purakjelia

Haakbus

purakjelia

Haakbus

purakjelia

unity

Haakbus

Haakbus

purakjelia

purakjelia

unity

Haakbus

Haakbus

Haakbus

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions