technology of Ancient China

Naima

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
2,323
Venice
i still believe you have this concern because you want to set something arguement on the "diffusions"
since i do not personally think the western clocks have the same origin with chinese ones. i don't want to discuss this more. if there is the diffusion, it must be very indirect.
the hostile relationship between arabs and europeans made the such bordering effect rather weak, for a very long time.

if one would just realize the spherical objects are just auxiliary in washstands, one understand the washstands is so different from those in other machines(i'm not sure if we are limit it to clocks)
And I actually agree with you , on the diffusion argument , wich was only brought up earlyer by hack and in reference to the "stimulus" diffusion supposed by Needham. I also agree that the western and chinese clocks might have more endependant origins.
As for the hostile relations this is incorrect, there had plenty of pacific contacts , but also plenty of captured slaves from one side and the other wich might have hold "technological" secrets.
 

HackneyedScribe

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
6,553
Hack , read my post quote of yours and your last comment on the person rather thanthe argument.
Again I have given you the quotes , description and proves, please try to read and understand them instead than continuously repeat the same things. The escapement is described clearly in the picture what is that you cannot understand ? Its in the spoon mechanism and the way it works at discrete intervals breaking the continuous flow. Then , again its explained how it works in plenty of details so that you could even reconstruct one yourself and if this was not enough for you you can have a more fitting description to clockworks in the vitruvius quote that describes just the escapement device in action. No you won't find the "word" "escapement" or better "échappement" since its a French original word for wich reason you can guess. But so you do not have such a word in the chinese machine as well, but only a description of the mechanisms.
You are free to think that Chinese invented all that Needham claims if that is what you prefer , but you can't rewrite history according to your preferences.
No you did not give proof, and your description does not fall under the definition of an escapement clock, you couldn't even pinpoint where the escapement is nor the wheelwork it is acting upon, nor could you show where I insulted you.
Again, Philon's spoon mechanism have no wheelwork to act upon, so it is not an escapement as according to merriam Webster as deacribed in my previous post, much less an escapement clock. Seriously, there are reproductions of Greek water clocks, and reproductions of susong's clock. The former operates continuously or at most sporadically, whereas su song's clock, due to its regulator operates discretely. So yes, the descriptions allow me to reconstruct one myself.... And the reconstructions supports my argument, not yours.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BsOABR5kcS4

The first time you invent something, chances are the word didn't exist yet, so don't see why you are using that as a gauge on what is or is not an escapement.
 

Naima

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
2,323
Venice
No you did not give proof, and your description does not fall under the definition of an escapement clock, you couldn't even pinpoint where the escapement is nor the wheelwork it is acting upon, nor could you show where I insulted you.
Again, Philon's spoon mechanism have no wheelwork to act upon, so it is not an escapement as according to merriam Webster as deacribed in my previous post, much less an escapement clock. Seriously, there are reproductions of Greek water clocks, and reproductions of susong's clock. The former operates continuously or at most sporadically, whereas su song's clock, due to its regulator operates discretely. So yes, the descriptions allow me to reconstruct one myself.... And the reconstructions supports my argument, not yours.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BsOABR5kcS4

The first time you invent something, chances are the word didn't exist yet, so don't see why you are using that as a gauge on what is or is not an escapement.
LOL really ? reread my quotes then , either its my english very bad or you are simply not reading them. I have told you what and where is the escapement in the Philon washstand, I have provided you the quotes and the description of Vitruvius of usage of discrete time motion devices. But of course no , those are not proves for you.
And your arguments have no valid stands apart your own convinction that Needham is right and all rest of the world is wrong.The reconstructions actually do not prove anything of your argument, you see into them just what is conventient to see for you.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,457
T'Republic of Yorkshire
Naima and HackneyedScribe, that's enough. Move on.

Or else we close this thread and possibly this forum.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,457
T'Republic of Yorkshire
And I might add that if we need to do that, several posters will be taking a break as well.
 
Dec 2012
446
The Mongols were able to capture Fancheng in a matter of days using Western style siege engines, when they were unable to capture in years using traditional Chinese siege engines. The overwhelming consensus is that these engines built by their Muslims speicialist from the west werew counterweight trebuchets, which pretty well domonstrated the superioty of the counterwight trebuchets in actual sieges. The traction teebuchets were not phased out, but continued to be used, just as an anti-personal weapon, or perhaps light siege engine against weak targets. We see in the same medieval illustrations both counterweight trebuchet and small traction teebuchets. The faster speed of a traction trebuchet was more desirable as anti-personnel weapon, where the power of a counterweight was not needed.

And the Mongols in their initial invasion of Hungary were not able to conquer a single one of the more more advanced European stone forrtifications. Hungary only had a few (10) of such castles, but the Hungarians built a lot more of these stone fortifications after the first invasion, and the Mongols/Golden Horde second invasion was a total failure, the invading Mongol force being completely wiped out, and the Mongols/Horde never again tried any major invasion of Hungary.

As for the Mongols success in Asia Minor, in most cases the fortresses were just surrendered to the Mongols or were conquered to through treachery. For example, it is said that the vizier responsible for Baghdad's defense sabotaged it - Baghdad's own siege engines were said to be found inoperable, and this official was rewarded with rulership of the city after the Mongols conquered it. Plus, the Mongols would have hzd knowledge of counterweight trebuchets due to captured native engineers.

Song crossbows don't seem to be any factor, there is no record of the Mongols using them in the west to any significant amount. Probably because most of the Mongol forces were cavalry, and the Chinese lacked the mechanical winching aids like a cranequin to allow you to use a powerful crossbow on horse back. For sieges, western forces had siege engines (ballistas, etc.) that were comparable to the siege crossbows of the Chinese,. Explosives I don't think had been perfected yet, cannons of the time were not yet powerful enough to knock down strong forfication walls. I haven't ead anything mentioning the Mongols using explosives or cannons to knock down fortifications in the West.
Is there anyt evidence that the trebuchets actually destroyed sections of the walls of Fancheng
 
Dec 2012
446
a minor update to the last point, from the best descriptions of the siege of Xiangyang I could find, War Politics and Society in Early Modern China 900-1795 says that the Mongols scaled over the walls of Fancheng, If the trebuchets punched a hole in the wall do you really need to scale it? It suggests the trebuchets were used as cover fire while soldiers filled moats and climbed walls with latters.
 
Jan 2016
611
United States, MO
a minor update to the last point, from the best descriptions of the siege of Xiangyang I could find, War Politics and Society in Early Modern China 900-1795 says that the Mongols scaled over the walls of Fancheng, If the trebuchets punched a hole in the wall do you really need to scale it? It suggests the trebuchets were used as cover fire while soldiers filled moats and climbed walls with latters.
I believe that Lorge is basing part of his argument on a line from the Xinshi 心史 which describes the use of the counter-weight trebuchet at the battle of xiangyang. It states:

至十一月,元虏大势合围,月馀其回回炮甚猛于常炮,用之打入城,寺观楼阁尽为之碎,廿一、廿二直攻西门,敌之不去,四门杀入,一城尽死

When the eleventh month came, the Yuan barbarians had a large encirclement. After that month they used the muslim trebuchet to enter the city. Their trebuchet is fiercer than normal ones, temples and towers simply break to bits because of these engines. They directly attacked the western gate on the twenty-first and the twenty-second. It could not be resisted. The enemy butchered their way into the four gates, and the city perished.

A couple things to note:

1. The author, Zheng Sixiao 郑思肖, explicitly states that temples and towers (寺觀樓閣) were susceptible to the counter-weight trebuchet. Many of these structures would be made of wood and stone towers would have thin walls easily smashed by the trebuchets.

2. The trebuchet was used to break into a gate. The archery tower on top of the gate house would be made of wood and probably wouldn’t stand up to bombardment even from large traction trebuchets. If the archery tower is taken out, then only troops standing on the wall could shoot down at the enemies as opposed to an entire building full of archers. Also, the gate itself would be made out of iron plated hardwood at best, but this material can only take so much punishment before breaking.

It seems fairly clear that the counter-weight trebuchets couldn’t break the city walls with a rammed earth core, but it had great range and could make quick work of certain defenses. This combined with the facts that the city had already been under siege for a few years and that the song had long given up on reinforcing the city meant that there was not much the defenders could do.