according to the description of 腰引弩, which relies on the soldiers to use waist muscles, soldiers have to *sit*, and use legs.
so...that makes it similar to europe?
so...that makes it similar to europe?
Han Dynasty Crossbow
- Thread starter HackneyedScribe
- Start date
Joined Feb 2011
10,194 Posts | 3,839+
1 bu = 6 chi for the Han period
石 is pronounced "shih" in modern Chinese, ancients might have pronounced it differently. In terms of weight it is ~64.5 lbs. In terms of volume it is ~20 liters.
got it
just searched it again. dan for sure, for anything related with "units", volume, weight, salary....
and some dictionaries confirm it. not sure whether recent few years people decided to make it easier for students..... anyway, I will not teach my child to read it like shi, it doesn't matter to get a lower grade...
Joined Feb 2011
10,194 Posts | 3,839+
it depends on the college entrance exam.....
recent few years, we made some things "simpler"..... from an administrative aspect
my personal education tells it is not homonym.
but i am not sure about exactly NOW how they decide it.
Joined Feb 2011
10,194 Posts | 3,839+
I'm pretty sure 石 is pronounced "Shih" for quite a while. If it can also be pronounced Dan to mean something else, then it's a homonym, so I'm not sure what you mean.
Joined Feb 2011
10,194 Posts | 3,839+
You're right, sorry. I was thinking heteronym but mixed it with homonym, hence the misunderstanding.
Last edited:
I also have a question about shi (石
and dou (斗 as they're used in bow and crossbow draw weights. Folks like Stephen Selby in Chinese Archery convert Song-era dou to approximately 6.7kg (7 dou = 47kg). But other English-language sources give lower or higher figures. Kent G. Deng writes that the Song shi coverts to 46.2kg. William Guanglin Liu writes that the Song shi was only 67 liters. Did shi and dou for draw weights refer to something else? If it means a picul as in a 100 catties then I guess Selby's figures make sense, though Liu gives the Song catty as 640g. (This book gives the Song catty (jin) as 633g and the Song dan (I guess 120 catties) as 75.96kg.
In part I'm curious about the conversion of Song-era bow and crossbow weights that have been quoted in this thread, with one song shih apparently assessed as 59.2kg (1 shih 2 dou glossed as 71.04kg).
(Note that I know basically nothing about Chinese characters.)
and dou (斗 as they're used in bow and crossbow draw weights. Folks like Stephen Selby in Chinese Archery convert Song-era dou to approximately 6.7kg (7 dou = 47kg). But other English-language sources give lower or higher figures. Kent G. Deng writes that the Song shi coverts to 46.2kg. William Guanglin Liu writes that the Song shi was only 67 liters. Did shi and dou for draw weights refer to something else? If it means a picul as in a 100 catties then I guess Selby's figures make sense, though Liu gives the Song catty as 640g. (This book gives the Song catty (jin) as 633g and the Song dan (I guess 120 catties) as 75.96kg.In part I'm curious about the conversion of Song-era bow and crossbow weights that have been quoted in this thread, with one song shih apparently assessed as 59.2kg (1 shih 2 dou glossed as 71.04kg).
(Note that I know basically nothing about Chinese characters.)
Joined Feb 2011
10,194 Posts | 3,839+
Last edited:
This is needlessly confusing the numbers, skipping around from shi to dou back to shi(in liters, when the author also mentioned units of weight) to jin and then become flabbergasted that the numbers don't match. Is that so surprising when you are comparing different units that mean DIFFERENT amounts of weight? If you organize your authors and categorize the numbers, you can see who is wrong or right:
Stephen Selby
Shi is 67 kg because dou is 6.7 kg
Kent G Deng
shi is 46.2 kg, so a dou is 4.62 kg
William Guangliu
Shi(dan) is 64 kg because a jin is .64 kg
Jin Yunting
Shi(dan) is 75.96 kg, but one jin is .633 kg? A shi should be 63.3 kg in that case.
Kent is probably flat out wrong on virtue of being the odd man out. Stephen, William, and Jin more or less agree with each other, except Jin thought 1 shi is 12 dou when it should be 10. I don't have the info on the Song era excavated weights that are used to convert to modern units, but I do have one for the Han dynasty and the excavated weights have pretty much the same weight.
There are pictures of them measuring a bow's draw weight, there's no other way to interpret the picture except that their meaning for a bow's power in weight is the same as our meaning for draw weight. There's very little room for interpretation.
Stephen Selby
Shi is 67 kg because dou is 6.7 kg
Kent G Deng
shi is 46.2 kg, so a dou is 4.62 kg
William Guangliu
Shi(dan) is 64 kg because a jin is .64 kg
Jin Yunting
Shi(dan) is 75.96 kg, but one jin is .633 kg? A shi should be 63.3 kg in that case.
Kent is probably flat out wrong on virtue of being the odd man out. Stephen, William, and Jin more or less agree with each other, except Jin thought 1 shi is 12 dou when it should be 10. I don't have the info on the Song era excavated weights that are used to convert to modern units, but I do have one for the Han dynasty and the excavated weights have pretty much the same weight.
There are pictures of them measuring a bow's draw weight, there's no other way to interpret the picture except that their meaning for a bow's power in weight is the same as our meaning for draw weight. There's very little room for interpretation.
Last edited:
William Guanglin Liu's description of the Song shi as 75 liters of rice/wheat comes close to Deng's 46.2kg, assuming 75/70kg for 100 liters. That would make the Song shi 50.25kg (rice) or 46.9kg (wheat). 46.9kg is awfully close to Deng's 46.2kg.
Did the Song shi (石 have the same meaning for the sort of economic grain measures as for bow/crossbow draw weights, or did it mean something different in that context?
In part I'm curious about the Song scroll-53 range difference for bows and crossbows. The ballistic info in the appendix of The Great War gives an idea of how much range reduces kinetic energy. Assuming a four-shi crossbow bolt has the same energy at 100 paces as a 1.2-shi bow has a 60 paces, that implies the crossbow the crossbow has least 15% more kinetic energy to start with. Of course, the real numbers depend on various aerodynamic factors.
Assuming the 1-shi-2-dou draw weight as 71kg, that probably means an initial kinetic energy of around 155 J, using Turkish bow numbers and assuming a medium-weight arrow. It'd be less with a lighter arrow and more with a heavier arrow. So the Song crossbow would be approximately 180 J, maybe more or less depending on projectile weight. Now, a Manchu-style bow would deliver much more energy, but I don't think the Song used such bows.
Also note that 春秋戰國 of the Great Ming Military blog expresses skepticism about the ability of hypothetical heavy-long crossbows to perform. We really need reconstructions and tests of so many types of historical crossbows.
Did the Song shi (石
have the same meaning for the sort of economic grain measures as for bow/crossbow draw weights, or did it mean something different in that context?In part I'm curious about the Song scroll-53 range difference for bows and crossbows. The ballistic info in the appendix of The Great War gives an idea of how much range reduces kinetic energy. Assuming a four-shi crossbow bolt has the same energy at 100 paces as a 1.2-shi bow has a 60 paces, that implies the crossbow the crossbow has least 15% more kinetic energy to start with. Of course, the real numbers depend on various aerodynamic factors.
Assuming the 1-shi-2-dou draw weight as 71kg, that probably means an initial kinetic energy of around 155 J, using Turkish bow numbers and assuming a medium-weight arrow. It'd be less with a lighter arrow and more with a heavier arrow. So the Song crossbow would be approximately 180 J, maybe more or less depending on projectile weight. Now, a Manchu-style bow would deliver much more energy, but I don't think the Song used such bows.
Also note that 春秋戰國 of the Great Ming Military blog expresses skepticism about the ability of hypothetical heavy-long crossbows to perform. We really need reconstructions and tests of so many types of historical crossbows.
Joined Feb 2011
10,194 Posts | 3,839+
Last edited:
Shi could mean both volume and weight, I don't know why you are using the weight of shi by liters of rice weight, when the strength of the crossbow is measured by weight and the same author also gave the amount of shi in weight
I read the skepticism on the blog. However, I've already shown that the size of qin trigger mechanisms was about the same size as that of a six stone trigger. If trigger size should be used to measure the draw weight of a crossbow, then the Qin crossbows would have a draw weight of six stone.
As for the ability for a stock to support the draw weight, please imagine a windlass crossbow being drawn, not to the nut but right before the string reaches the nut. This would prove that a long stock could support magnitudes more draw weight. I also have the mathematics equation to prove it, but considering that most people can't or won't understand much simpler equations, there's not much point.
I read the skepticism on the blog. However, I've already shown that the size of qin trigger mechanisms was about the same size as that of a six stone trigger. If trigger size should be used to measure the draw weight of a crossbow, then the Qin crossbows would have a draw weight of six stone.
As for the ability for a stock to support the draw weight, please imagine a windlass crossbow being drawn, not to the nut but right before the string reaches the nut. This would prove that a long stock could support magnitudes more draw weight. I also have the mathematics equation to prove it, but considering that most people can't or won't understand much simpler equations, there's not much point.
Are we not also forgetting that the Chinese also used poison on crossbow bolts? Accounts ranging from the Han Period up to WW2 (the crossbow was used by Communist rebels behind the enemy lines, to fight and assassinate the Japanese) shows the use of poison on crossbow bolts. Depending on the poison death could happen between a week (scorpion, snake, spider, centipede) to a few hours (five-tiger poison).
Joined Dec 2018
2 Posts | 2+
united states
The Crossbow Packages was brought into Chinese fighting amid the United States time frame (481-221 BCE). To set the crossbow for discharging it was at first essential for the shooter to put the weapon vertically and prop it under the feet while the rope was pulled back. For more details visit this site.5 Best Top Rated Crossbow Packages for Women - SheisPicky.com
Ancient Chinese models also show Chinese sitting down and pushing with their feet on a proof of a horizontal crossbow. Based on evidence from medieval European crossbows, 300 lbs I'd about the limit you could pull vertically, sitting down you can use your strong leg muscles and have a higher draw weight.
Modern hunters don't need as powerful crossbows as the ancient Chinese used in war, and most hunters or crossbow users wouldn't want to sit on the ground to draw their crossbow, a verticsl position is preferred for them.
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-