# What were the most advanced medieval civilizations

• B

#### Bart Dale

What you say about horizontal axis windmills is only true for small versions like those of the Chinese. You need to prove that the big versions of European windmills, in which the shaft is stuck to a building, could somehow be rotated to face the wind even though the shaft is stuck in place. I asked you for proof of this, and you have yet to give it.

Explain how the fans of this windmill could be rotated 180 degrees to the back of the building:

Show sourcing that such windmills could do what you claim it could do. I asked you already and you have failed to provide, you merely repeated the same-old same-old sourceless claim.
Rather hypocritical to accuse me of needing to do research before i post, where you are the one who clearly has done no research at all on the subject.

If you had done any research, which you clearly have not, you would know that the entire top rotates 360 degree to face the wind.

Here is a post mill:

The Post-Mill Design The psalter picture of 1270 (Figure 1-6), referred to earlier as the first know illustration in a book of a European windmill, shows a mill with a long handle to turn it into the wind; the whole body is mounted on a central post supported by offset struts to the ground. This is known as a post mill, and it is the simplest type of horizontal-axis windmill. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.656.3199&rep=rep1&type=pdf
On the post mill, you rotate the entire body to turn it into the wind.

The European windmill’s four sails, possible flat boards in the earliest instances, were mounted on a horizontal shaft, with each sail set at a small angle with respect to the plane of rotation of the whole wheel. This presented several engineering problems. Three major ones were (1) transmission of power from a horizontal rotor shaft to a vertical shaft, on which the grindstones were set; (2) turning the mill into the wind; and (3) stopping the rotor when necessary, because the wind could not be diverted or blocked. The first problem was solved by adopting the cog-and-ring gear shown in Figure 1-5, designed long before by Vitruvius for his horizontal-axis water wheel. To solve the second problem, the bold step was taken of rotating the whole system on a central spindle composed of a stout post supported by heavy beams. This is suggested in Figure 1-6, which is the earliest know representation in a book of this type of windmill and appears as part of an illuminated letter in an English psalter of 1270 [Wailes 1956]. The third problem, stopping the mill, could be solved by turning it out of the wind and applying a frictional braking action at the outer edge of the large gear wheel shown in Figure 1-5.
.
.
.
In order to be able to make larger mills, builders had to take another major inventive step: changing the design from one in which the whole body of the mill had to move to face the wind to one in which only the sails, windshaft, and brake wheel had to move. This was accomplished by mounting the windshaft assembly in the cap of the mill. which turned in a curb or track mounted on the top of a fixed tower. The fact that the mill tower was fixed allowed it to be larger in cross section and higher than the post mill, it could now be made of brick with a circular cross section or of wood in an octagonal shape

Anyone who had done any research on all on the subject would know the top of the tower mill rotated.

Again, you bring post-Medieval things in order to make an inflammatory remark. The thread is about who was the most advanced in the Medieval era. Chinese may not know about the spherical earth until after the Medieval period, but Europeans took just as long to recognize that negative numbers were not "absurd numbers". What's your point?
I think it is clearly inflammatory to accuse someone of ignorance and needing to do research when you are the one who clearly has done NO research on the subject.

And what is more important, knowing the true shape of the earth and size which has important implications for navigation and calculating astronomical events, allowing others (Persians, Jesuits) to have superior astronomy, or negative numbers which in the middle ages had little practical value?. Exactly what practical value did knowing negative numbers have for the Chinese? And eventually, the Europeans did figure out negative numbers, and did figure out a practical application on their own, while the Chinese did not figure out a spherical earth on their own.

(it would be an interesting topic to find out why the Chinese did not accept a view of a spherical earth on their own, when all their contemporary Old World civilizations did. It isn't a lack of intelligence or skill, but must be deeper. What is it in the Chinese psyche that so resisted the idea of a spherical earth.

And clearly the Persian astronomers at the Ming court did not share the idea of a spherical earth with the Chinese, otherwise Yang Guangxian would not have associated it so strongly with the Jesuits. Was it because their were afraid of the negative reaction and hostility such as Guangxian directed toward the Jesuits? That implies there was some important emotional attachment by the Chinese to the idea of a flat earth. Or was it because the knowledge of a spherical earth gave them a leg up on their Chinese counterparts?. A spherical earth will lead to different predictions of when astronomical events will occur at different locations, such as when an eclipse will occur. The Jesuits were not worried about losing their jobs, they only took the jobs to try to impress the Chinese to win converts. Anyways, Yang Guangxian's actions show that the idea of a spherical earth must not have been held by even a small minority of Chinese scholars before Jesuit contact, otherwise Guangxian could not have been so vocal and fierce in his criticism of the Jesuits if even some Chinese held such views. The very superiority of the Persian and Jesuit astronomers indicate the lack of a spherical view of the Chinese, that is what helped make their astronomy better than the Chinese. Just in case someone tries to argue that perhaps some minority of Chinese held the view.)

I'm not going to apologize for something I've never said. Are you going to apologize for stuffing words into my mouth? If not, show the post number and quote in which I supposedly stated that horizontal axis windmills don't require gearing. [/quotr]

What I did say was that Chinese vertical axis windmills do require gearing, in response to you saying that they don't.
The horizontal axis windmill's don't require gearing, that view is incorrect. The Persian vertical axis windmills often did not have it. You could attach a horizontal beam to the vertical shaft, and put a vertical grinding wheel on it resting on top of the flat mill stone. As the windmill vertical shaft turns, the grinding wheel wiil rotate, much the same way as donkey powered grain mill operates Instead of the donkey turning the vertical shaft and grinding wheel, the wind does it.

And why would think that a vertical shaft windmill needs gearing, when a vertical shaft (horizontal wheel) waterwheel doesn't need gearing? It works the same way as the vertical shaft waterwheel, except wind, not water, turns. Once again, you are completely, totally wrong. You correct me, when you are the one that repeatedly doesn't know what he is talking about.

Unlike European Don Quixote-style windmills, the Persian design is powered by drag as opposed to lift. And since the blades are arrayed on a vertical axis, energy is translated down the mast to the grindstone without the need for any of the intermediary gears found on horizontal axis windmills. The Ancient Windmills of Nashtifan
I don't know how much more plain it can be. Once again, as you have been so many times, You were flat out, 100% wrong.

I will say this, although I said that you could add gearing to a vertical axis windmill, I didn't think you would. But in that regard I was in error, since the Chinese did add a horizontal power takeout through gearing to their vertical axis windmills. But the Persians did not. But you were completely, 100% wrong about:

1. Horizontal axis windmills couldn't be used in any given wind direction. They could, you just had to turn the windmill, and the medieval horizontal axis windmills were designed to do just that.

2. That vertical axis windmills do need gearing (they don't).

Horizontal axis windmills don't need gearing (they do), but since you said you didn't say it, I let it pass.

To add salt to your would, the picture below shows a vertical axis windmill that automatically adjust to the wind direction. The vane in the rear acts like a weather vane, always ensuring the windmill points into the wind. Wind pushes on the vane, until the vane is parallel to the wind, thus ensuring the windmill points into the wind at all times.

• #### HackneyedScribe

What I said: Show sourcing that such windmills could do what you claim it could do.
Your interpretation of what I said: Rather hypocritical to accuse me of needing to do research before i post, where you are the one who clearly has done no research at all on the subject.

The whole point of me asking your for sourcing is so I don't have to do research. You realize that, don't you? You made the positive claim, so the responsibility of research belongs to you regarding said claim.

On the other hand:
You did just show a ploughed field, and think they were planting in rows, did you not?
And I suppose every time I provided sourcing in response to your demands for sourcing, and this happend a lot, you were just being ignorant and hypocritical? Hey, that's the standard you're setting, isn't it?

Now with your sourcing I can gain a new appreciation for European tower mills and admit that it is a testament of high technology. Now perhaps you can gain a new appreciation for Chinese inventions that I will list below.

Bart Dale said:
And what is more important, knowing the true shape of the earth and size which has important implications for navigation and calculating astronomical events, allowing others (Persians, Jesuits) to have superior astronomy, or negative numbers which in the middle ages had little practical value?. Exactly what practical value did knowing negative numbers have for the Chinese? And eventually, the Europeans did figure out negative numbers, and did figure out a practical application on their own, while the Chinese did not figure out a spherical earth on their own.
The Chinese knew that the Earth was curved by the Tang dynasty. I've told you this before many times. That is enough for astronomical calculations unless if you want to circumnavigate the globe.

From Fan Dainian:
"In ancient China, similar measurements were also made, although not until much later. In aobut 604, during the fourth year of the Ren Shou period of the Sui dynasty, Liu Chao suggested to the emperor Sui Wen that the popular belief that the length of the shadow cast by the gnomon of a sundial changes on cun every thousand li is inaccurate. He proposed remeasuring so that "it is impossible to hide its shape." In the twelfth year of the Kai Yuan period of the Tang dynasty, Yi Xing and Nangong Yue conducted large-scale research on the measurement of latitudes, including the world's first on-the-spot measurements of the meridian in the Yudong plains (now eastern Henan Province), obtaining a measurement of 1 degree meridian equal to 351.27 li (about 176 km). With this data, the entire length of a meridian could have been obtained immediately by multiplying by 365.25 (this number refers to the yearly cycle). However, here they stopped and did not advance to the calculations of the size of the earth"

As for negative numbers and its usefulness....
Liu Hui: Now there are two opposite kinds of counting rods for gains and losses, let them be called positive and negative. Red counting rods are positive, black counting rods are negative

And you just had to pick that singular example in my batch of examples, huh? Here's the rest of the batch:

Negative numbers were discovered in the Han dynasty and used as actual numbers. Most European mathematicians considered negative numbers to be "absurd" until the 17th century.

The Rotary Winnow Fan was invented in the Han dynasty and distributed to Europe in the 18th century

The Multi tube Seed drill invented in the Han dynasty and wasn't invented in Europe until the 17th century.

Drilling rigs was invented in Han China (extracting brine and natural gas), developed further by the Song dynasty, and was first used by the West in the 19th century for oil

Adjustable depth ploughs, invented in Han China, didn't arrive in Europe until the 17th century.

And of all the other mathematical concepts I mentioned for Medieval China, you had to focus on negative numbers because you probably thought that's the 'unpractical' one:
Fractional numbers
Irrational Numbers
Negative Numbers
Greatest Common Divisor
Progressions.
Proportion
Extracting square and Cube Roots.
Method of Double False Position
Surveying

Bart Dale said:
(it would be an interesting topic to find out why the Chinese did not accept a view of a spherical earth on their own, when all their contemporary Old World civilizations did. It isn't a lack of intelligence or skill, but must be deeper. What is it in the Chinese psyche that so resisted the idea of a spherical earth.
I don't know, maybe the same pysche that caused Europeans to resist the concept of negative numbers even when all their contemporary Old World Civilizations did. Your point?

Bart Dale said:
And clearly the Persian astronomers at the Ming court did not share the idea of a spherical earth with the Chinese, otherwise Yang Guangxian would not have associated it so strongly with the Jesuits. Was it because their were afraid of the negative reaction and hostility such as Guangxian directed toward the Jesuits? That implies there was some important emotional attachment by the Chinese to the idea of a flat earth. Or was it because the knowledge of a spherical earth gave them a leg up on their Chinese counterparts?. A spherical earth will lead to different predictions of when astronomical events will occur at different locations, such as when an eclipse will occur. The Jesuits were not worried about losing their jobs, they only took the jobs to try to impress the Chinese to win converts. Anyways, Yang Guangxian's actions show that the idea of a spherical earth must not have been held by even a small minority of Chinese scholars before Jesuit contact, otherwise Guangxian could not have been so vocal and fierce in his criticism of the Jesuits if even some Chinese held such views. The very superiority of the Persian and Jesuit astronomers indicate the lack of a spherical view of the Chinese, that is what helped make their astronomy better than the Chinese. Just in case someone tries to argue that perhaps some minority of Chinese held the view.)
Yang GuangXian was the minority, he was the head of the astronomical bureau for like 2 years before Verbiest replaced him and Yang died in exile. How is that representative? That's 2 years out of like, 300 years of the Ming dynasty.

And agian, this isn't the Medieval era. Whenever your argument gets tackled into a corner you start ranting about random Chinese failings that's outside the realm of the discussion. You can say Medieval Chinese didn't understand negative numbers, but bringing up what a jerk some post-Medieval Chinese guy was, have nothing to do with the discussion.

Last edited:

• B

#### Bart Dale

What you say about horizontal axis windmills is only true for small versions like those of the Chinese.
The Chinese did not use horizontal axis windmills in the middle ages, I have already told you this, and I asked you for your sources. I have provided you with the sourcces you asked, even though everything I said is common knowledge to anyone who did the slightest amount of research on the subject of medieval windmills. Now, you are required to provide you sources for you claims, which you have repeatedly made.

Chinese Vertical-Axis Windmills

....The eminent scholar Joseph Needham, whose monumental work in many volumes, Science and Civilization in China [1965], is the recognized classic text in the field, states that the earliest really important reference dates back to 1219. .. . Later Chinese references to the windmill again all point to its transmission from lands adjacent to western China as being the most likely supposition, and that it was carried there by sailors or merchants from Central and Southwest Asia. Needham points out further that the references suggest that the introduction of the windmill took place no earlier, because it never before received a specific character or specific wording; it might have been confused with the rotary winnowing fan, however, which is much older. The first European to report windmills in China was Jan Nieuhoff in 1656. These mills had a distinctive form, with eight junk slat-sails mounted on masts around a vertical axis http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.656.3199&rep=rep1&type=pdf
There is no evidence of a Chinese horizontal axis windmill dating to before the Ming dynasty and the arrival of the Jesuits that I have ever seen referenced in any source or seen any illustration of. It is entirely possible that the Jesuits transmitted knowledge the horizontal axis windmill, or other Europeans traveling to China. Unlikely to be Muslims thought, since Muslims favored the Vertical Axis windmill.

• #### HackneyedScribe

My statement: In all probability China used both the vertical and horizontal axis windmills.
I said it's a probability, and I gave you the reasons why with source and quote. I clearly mentioned that we don't know what type of windmill they had in Medieval China, but I gave my case on why I think they had both.

Your statement: Medieval China did not use horizontal axis windmills from everything I have read
Here you made a clear claim and you also claim you have the source to back your claim. I already asked for this source and quote the sourcing you claim to have read. You say you "provided" the source, but said source is about a separate claim entirely. So it's just an attempt to go on the offensive and slither out of it.

Just because you responded with sourcing about one singular thing does not mean you responded with sourcing for everything you claimed. Don't use that to hide your responsibilities.

For example you ignored the following:

Lastly, Bart, you claim there is large use of private watermills not used for milling grain in Medieval Europe. If what you say is true, and if your logic about archaeological excavations is true, then you should easily give a list of archaeological excavations on these non-milling Medieval waterwheels spread across the major countries of Europe. Remember to give source and quote, and don't be stuck giving examples from just one or two countries.
^So far you have not addressed that. And no, I don't consider your excuse of "not speaking French" as valid, no more now than before.

When you said the following: As far as I have seen, the evidence shows only vertical axis windmills used by medieval Chinese.
I asked of you: Then show the evidence that only vertical axis windmills were used by Medieval Chinese.
^So far you have not addressed that.

When you said the following: Note the author of the paper on windmills, not just me, states that gearing is required for horizontal axis windmills. You were wrong to criticize me as you did. Are you going to apologize for being wrong? (I won't hold my breath)
I asked of you: Show the post number and quote in which I supposedly stated that horizontal axis windmills don't require gearing.
^So far you have not addressed that.

Last edited:

• #### HackneyedScribe

Now here's the list of the more practical technologies that Medieval China utilized that has great potential for importance to its society (being mostly farmers):
Precision Seeding or Planting in Rows
The Rotary Winnowing Fan
The Multi tube Seed drill
Drilling rigs for extracting brine and natural gas
Crank and connecting rod for querns
Complicated drawlooms
Double-Piston Bellow
Borehole Drilling

Things like this either increase everyday farmer production output or cheapen cost of living for them.

• B

#### Bart Dale

What I said: Show sourcing that such windmills could do what you claim it could do.
Your interpretation of what I said: Rather hypocritical to accuse me of needing to do research before i post, where you are the one who clearly has done no research at all on the subject.

The whole point of me asking your for sourcing is so I don't have to do research. You realize that, don't you? You made the claim, so the responsibility of research belongs to you.
I did you research, and demonstrated that research multiple times. YOU HAVE DONE NO RESEARCH, NOR HAVE YOU PROVIDED ANY RESEARCH.

A. That horizontal axis windmills can't handle wind from any direction. WRONG!

B. That vertical axis windmills need gearing, WRONG!

C. That the top of the tower windmill can't rotate. WRONG!

D. That the medieval Chinese used horizontal axis windmills. WRONG!

I have provided sources for for everything I said, you have provide source for NONE OF WHAT YOU SAID. And everything you said is wrong! So if important for me to do research, while you have done known at all. Go ahead, tell me your sources for all your wrong claims.

The Chinese knew that the Earth was curved by the Tang dynasty. I've told you this before many times. That is enough for astronomical calculations unless if you want to circumnavigate the globe.

Liu Hui: Now there are two opposite kinds of counting rods for gains and losses, let them be called positive and negative. Red counting rods are positive, black counting rods are negative

That does not say the earth is a sphere, that is you interpretation. it doesn't mention any thing about the shape of the earth, or that it is talking about the earth. That is not in any way prove of anything but your desperate desire to show that the Chinese were not wrong, because you are too arrogant, too prideful, too conceited to admit that the Chinese could be inferior or wrong in anything, unless it was absolutely impossible to deny, like getting beaten because your opponent has steam ships and you have weapons 100 years out of date. You have repeatedly demonstrated that attitude in this thread. Why else were you so desperate to show that horizontal axis windmills couldn't handle wind from different direction. Why else did you consist that vertical axis windmills must have gearing, but to try to show Chinese superiority, since Chinese used vertical axis windmills, you needed to show them superior, more advance, more versatile. And why else would suddenly, and without any support start claiming that Chinese had horizontal axis windmills, but because you were losing the argument to show the superiority of vertical axis windmills, the Chinese must have used horizontal axis ones as well?

Take a look at the spherical earth argument. You only acknowledge that "some" Chinese believed the earth was flat only because it is impossible to deny it. For the spherical earth, do we have in China:

a. In plain, unambiguous language the Chinese sources saying the earth was a sphere, and comparing it to a clearly and unambiguously spherical object like a round ball (and not just a dome)? No.

b. Do have examples that clearly and unambiguously use the knowledge of the spherical earth to explain phenomenons? No for all below.
- Why the body of the ship disappears first, then gradually the mast?
- When as you go south the stars in the northern hemisphere sink lower in th sky until they completely disappear, and new start appear when you go far enough south?
- Why at the summer solstice the shadow cast by a stick at noon is different for a location further due south?
- Why does the length of daylight change with the changing seasons?

c. Did the Chinese ever calculate the complete size the earth? No.

d. Any artist depictions showing a spherical earth? Atlas holding up the earth, a world globe, globes similar to the globes of medieval regalia?

And you just had to pick that singular example in my batch of examples, huh?:
Negative numbers were discovered in the Han dynasty and used as actual numbers. Most European mathematicians considered negative numbers to be "absurd" until the 17th century.
And the Europeans knew, and used the fact the earth was a sphere, and the Chinese thought it was flat, and insulted those that thought it was round.

The Rotary Winnow Fan was invented in the Han dynasty and distributed to Europe in the 18th century
And European invented mechanical clocks with oscillating escapements, the basis of all modern clocks. And the ancient Greeks invented the screw, and the Archimedes screw pump, and gave the idea to the Chinese in the modern error.

Rotary winnow fan versus the screw? Screw wins

The Multi tube Seed drill invented in the Han dynasty and wasn't invented in Europe until the 17th century.
Yes, Chinese agricultural was more advanced, until the 19th century, no question. But Europeans were more advance in others. Chinese ceramic (porcelain) was more advanced, but European glass making was more advanced. It wasn't all one way as you try to imply.

I don't know, maybe the same pysche that caused Europeans to resist the concept of negative numbers even when all their contemporary Old World Civilizations did.
Actually, not all their contemporaries used the concept of negative numbers. The ancient Persians did not have the concept of negative numbers, nor did the Egyptians, and it was in the early middle ages in India that I see negative numbers. So your statement isn't true.

The ancient Greeks did have a problem with negative numbers, it was known, and is no secret:

The ancient Greeks did not really address the problem of negative numbers, because their mathematics was founded on geometrical ideas. Lengths, areas, and volumes resulting from geometrical constructions necessarily all had to be positive. Their proofs consisted of logical arguments based on the idea of magnitude. Magnitudes were represented by a line or an area, and not by a number (like 4.3 metres or 26.5 cubic centimetres). In this way they could deal with 'awkward' numbers like square roots by representing them as a line. For example, you can draw the diagonal of a square without having to measure it (see note 2 below).
.
.
.
Negative numbers did not begin to appear in Europe until the 15th century when scholars began to study and translate the ancient texts that had been recovered from Islamic and Byzantine sources. This began a process of building on ideas that had gone before, and the major spur to the development in mathematics was the problem of solving quadratic and cubic equations.

As we have seen, practical applications of mathematics often motivate new ideas and the negative number concept was kept alive as a useful device by the Franciscan friar Luca Pacioli (1445 - 1517) in his Summa published in 1494, where he is credited with inventing double entry book-keeping. The History of Negative Numbers : nrich.maths.org
As can be seen, the medieval Europeans did not think negative numbers were absurd until 17th century. They were aware of them in the 15th century, and found practical applications by the 15th century, during the middle ages as a matter of fact. (It meets the 1500 cutoff commonly used for the middle ages). One ancient Greek did think negative numbers were absurd, but that did not mean all of them did as you claim. Please provide evidene for more than just one Greek who though negative numbers were absurd.

PS - I asked you for a practical application the ancient/medieval Chinese found for negative numbers. Please provide me with that.

Yang GuangXian was the minority, he was the head of the astronomical bureau for like 2 years before Verbiest replaced him and Yang died in exile. How is that representative? That's 2 years out of like, 300 years of the Ming dynasty.
Please provide evidence for you claim that he was just a minority. I have already shown logically why Yang Guangxian's views of a flat were not a minority view. You, as you have done throughout your discussions on windmills, have just made unsupported claims.

One of the fact that shows that the flat earth was not a minority view, is the fact the Chinese needed Persian and other outsider's help with their astronomy, It is precisely because they believed in a flat earth that they needed help.

We know that the ancient Chinese believed in a flat earth. And we know early modern Chinese believed in a flat earth. And we have no logical arguments from nature that show the Chinese believed in a spherical earth. Other than your Tang dynasty evidence, which requires the most convoluted logic to say it is showing the idea of a spherical earth, you have nothing to show the Chinese thought the earth was spherical. If the ancient and modern Chinese believed in flat earth, then it is up to you to prove that the medieval Chinese believed in a spherical earth, not me to disprove it.

Several second century (B.C.E.) Chinese texts use gnomon shadow lengths to calculate terrestrial and celestial distances, including the distance from the earth to the sun. They assumed that the earth was flat and the sun at a measurably finite distance. http://www.eastm.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/311/245

• B

#### Bart Dale

Now here's the list of the more practical technologies that Medieval China utilized that has great potential for importance to its society (being mostly farmers):
Precision Seeding or Planting in Rows
The Rotary Winnowing Fan
The Multi tube Seed drill

Lighthouses
Use of waterwheels for mining
artificial harbors
Archimedes screw pumps and the very concept of the screw
Screw presses, used for making oil from olives and later used in printing among many applications.

Drilling rigs for extracting brine and natural gas
Waterwheels for pumping out mines
hydraulic mining (gold, etc.)

Crank and connecting rod for querns
Romans had sawmills water powered crank and crankshaft, same thing.

Complicated drawlooms
Antikythera Mechanism.

For every invention you name, I can name another for the Greek and Romans. And unlike for the Chinese, whose evidence rest often on things that any good counterfeiter can fake, the Roman mostly rest on evidence that is virtually impossible to fake. A model wooden draw loom, in perfectly condition, found in a looted tomb, is exactly the kind of thing any good forger can fake. But a rock encrusted mechanism that can't been seen without x-rays, is the stuff impossible to forge.

T

• #### HackneyedScribe

I already admitted I was "WRONG" in some parts. You really know how to show grace. Believe me I can easily latch on to where you are wrong and not let go either.

Bart Dale said:
B. That vertical axis windmills need gearing, WRONG!
I said chinese vertical axis windmills that lift water require gearing. Where did I say that vertical axis windmills in general require gearing?

And the source is: Ancient Chinese Windmills by Baichun Zhang
It showed them building a replica of a vertical axis windmill that uses gearing to lift water. Without the gearing I can't imagine how the machine could function properly in order to lift water. You are welcome to give a pictorial example in which vertical axis windmills could operate Chinese water lifting devices without gearing, much like the pictorial example in the above source.

Bart Dale said:
D. That the medieval Chinese used horizontal axis windmills. WRONG!
I said they probably used horizontal axis windmills and I gave the reason why. You said that Medieval Chinese used vertical axis windmills. Again, where is your source? This is like my third time asking.

Bart Dale said:
I have provided sources for for everything I said
You refused to provide sourcing on the basis that you couldn't speak French, remember?

When you said the following: As far as I have seen, the evidence shows only vertical axis windmills used by medieval Chinese.
I asked of you: Then show the evidence that only vertical axis windmills were used by Medieval Chinese.
^So far you have not addressed that.

Bart Dale said:
, you have provide source for NONE OF WHAT YOU SAID. And everything you said is wrong! So if important for me to do research, while you have done known at all. Go ahead, tell me your sources for all your wrong claims.
When you asked me where I got my pictures from, I gave the Nongshu. Do you deny that? If not you should apologize.
I quoted passages in the Nongshu on the two types of Chinese water powered blast furnaces. Do you deny that? If not you should apologize
I gave the names of the pictorials of the Song era paintings. You question their validity, where is your source that any of them are fake?
I quoted Needham on European non-mechanical sowing methods. Do you deny that? If not you should apologize.
I quoted Travel diary (San Tendai Gotaisan-Ki) of a Japanese visitor (+1072 AD). Do you deny that? If not you should apologize.
When you expressed doubt about said Japanese visitor, I confirmed his existence with a link. Do you deny that? If not you should apologize.
I quoted from Cui Wei Xain Sheng Bei Zheng Lu of the Song dynasty. Do you deny that? If not you should apologize.
I quoted from The Chinese Roots of Linear Algebra by Roger Hart. Do you deny that? If not you should apologize.
I quoted from the Book of Jin. Do you deny that? If not you should apologize
I quoted from the Jiu Tang Shu. Do you deny that? If not you should apologize
I showed a table from "Wind, Water, and Work" when you doubted that fulling mills were the second most abundant mill in Medieval Europe. Do you deny that? If not you shoud apologize.
I quoted from Ancient Chinese Windmills by Baichun Zhang . Do you deny that? If not you should apologize
I quoted from the Wu Bei Zhi. Do you deny that? If not you should apologize
I quoted from Asia Research Institute. Do you deny that? If not you should apologize.

Now considering the crapload of sourcing I've given in just this thread, and you have the gall to exclaim I provided sourcing for "none of what I said", I'm not going to let this go. I'm going to make you face this fact until you apologize.

Last edited:

• #### HackneyedScribe

Bart Dale said:
That does not say the earth is a sphere, that is you interpretation
Where did I claim the Medieval Chinese saw the earth as a sphere? Quote just where I said that. Also, read carefully. The rest of your post is based on this false assertion.

Precision Seeding or Planting in Rows
The Rotary Winnowing Fan
The Multi tube Seed drill
Drilling rigs for extracting brine and natural gas
Crank and connecting rod for querns
Complicated drawlooms
Double-Piston Bellow
Borehole Drilling

You responded with
-Lighthouses: How does this directly affect farmers?
-Use of waterwheels for mining: Comparable to use of borehole drilling and extraction of natural gas in ancient-Medieval China
-artificial harbors. How does this directly affect farmers more than Medieval Chinese pound locks?
-Archimedes screw pumps and the very concept of the screw: How is Archimedes screw pumps more efficient than Dragon Bone water lifting device that the Medieval Chinese had?
-Screw presses, used for making oil from olives and later used in printing among many applications: How does this affect farmers more than the treadle (foot) operated spinning wheel?
-Waterwheels for pumping out mines: How does this affect farmers more than Borehole Drilling?
-hydraulic mining (gold, etc.): How does this affect farmers more than Adjustible
-Romans had sawmills water powered crank and crankshaft, same thing: Roman sawmills used a crank and oscillating rod, but Medieval Chinese blast furnace watermills not only used a crank and connecting rod, but also a belt drive
-Antikythera Mechanism: This isn't even Medieval. I could just as well point to Su Song's mechanical waterclock, which utilized the escapement prior to Europeans. On the other hand, how do the Antikythera Mechanism affect farmers more than complicated drawlooms?

^In fact, how do any of the above affect farmers more than planting in rows? Medieval Chinese farmers actually have a GREAT chance of practicing planting in rows. The chance of a Medieval European farmer using any of those things you listed in their everyday life pales in comparison. I made my list to show what most affects everyday farmers, not to show things like the Antikythera Mechanism which average medieval European farmers wouldn't see for their entire life.

Last edited:

• #### HackneyedScribe

Bart Dale said:
A model wooden draw loom, in perfectly condition, found in a looted tomb, is exactly the kind of thing any good forger can fake.
Provide sourcing that the specific Laoguanshan tomb in which the drawloom was found was looted. Not other tombs in the area.

Bart Dale said:
But a rock encrusted mechanism that can't been seen without x-rays, is the stuff impossible to forge.
I see you ignore excavated Han blast furnaces with their ton of iron slag then. Or the evdience for the earliest Roman sawmill or treadwheel crane which is just a stone pictorial found at a later date. How is that different from the pictorials I've given?

^If you thought that picture was excavated in China, you'd probably dismiss it as fake art or abstract art given your unreasonable standards when you don't want to admit non-European inventions.