Let me first introduce myself. My name is Andreas Baede, and I am active in late Roman military re-enactment. I am also a member of the Roman Army Talk forum (http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/).
Recently, a young Chinese-American student posted the text of a comparison he had made between the Roman and Han armies for a lecture at school. The comparison he made was not very favourable to the Roman army, to say the least, and he raised up a little storm (I later discovered that Han vs Rome threads are apparently quite common on the Internet, and always seem to end in shouting matches between what I suspect are Chinese-Americans vs European-Americans. Not exactly conducive to an objective assessment of the facts).
Still, it did raise some interesting questions regarding archery in the two Imperial armies. The Roman army?s missile weapons (apart from slings, pilae, plumbatae and simple javelins) consisted of varieties of the ballista and of course a type of composite bow used by archers recruited in the eastern Mediterranean provinces like Syria. The contemporary Han armies (we are talking specifically 1st century BC ? 2nd century AD here) were, I understand, equipped with both crossbows and composite bows adopted from the Xiong-Nu and other Central Asian peoples.
What I am interested in, what are exactly the advantages and disadvantages of the weapons involved? One main drawback of a Roman manuballista as depicted on this site http://198.144.2.125/Siege/Aitor/Aitor%20Iriarte.htm is that it?s relatively expensive to manufacture and maintain. However, I think I also understood from discussions on this forum that Han crossbows could have horn-based prods and were both time-consuming to produce, high-maintenance and in risk of breaking. I also read in one of the exchanges of letters that earlier Qin crossbows were actually ?ordinary? bows fastened to a separate stock and firing mechanism, and that the bow itself took three years to manufacture.
To specify my question a bit, how long does it take to make a Han-style infantry crossbow? How far does it shoot? What are the experiences with the bolts? penetrating power? What are the advantages and disadvantages, if any, compared with composite bows used by the contemporary Xiong-Nu, Parthians and Roman auxiliary archers?
Another thing I am rather curious about (but I realize this may not be the place to ask, or that there are no reliable answers yet) is the tactical role of the Han crossbow. Was it a weapon used en masse? Was it effective against the Xiong-Nu, or was it more a legacy of Warring States period infantry warfare? Was its use, as I have seen suggested, connected with the large-scale use of conscript infantry forces (since the use of the crossbow requires not much training) as compared to the use of the composite bow in the Roman army?s professional units of archers and mounted archers?
Again, I know that may be the wrong place to ask, but what is exactly known about Han siege weapons? I have seen claims that very heavy siege crossbows could shoot up to 1 km.
Valete,
Chariovalda / Andreas
Bede
If you wish a detailed description of Chinese siege warfare and weapons, I suggest Science and Civilisation in China Volume V:6, which goes into some detail about various engines.
The predominant siege heavy missile weapon was the man powered trebuchet. The early texts that are quoted are based on Mo Ze who had quite a lot to say about siege warfare.
I have a book on Han Dynasty bamboo slips that were preserved in Great Wall forts that detail the maintenance and checks that were performed on tower-mounted crossbows. So we know they exist. Draw weights are given, but it might be hard to work out effective ranges without testing.
While it was expensive and time consuming to produce composite bows, they were not beyond the reach of nomad armies who were otherwise considered quite poor in equipment. In pre-modern societies, the amount of time to produce something was not so important as it is now. Horn was a by-product of both the raising of cattle and hunting and was probably not that expensive when you compare the cost of making a metal sword.
If, as Stephen has advanced, the majority of Han crossbows had bamboo leaf-spring bows then range and power would be considerably less than composites.
It is possible that Chinese troops did clash with the Romans in Armenia, but I have never been able to track down details of the encounter. Apparently the Persians had a Chinese general in their employ for a time. It might have been the imaginings of military historian.
Chariovalda
Thanks for the reply, Bede.
I did find Liang Jieming's site. Do you think his book and Stephen Selby's together would provide a decent overview of Chinese missile weapons?
If, as Stephen has advanced, the majority of Han crossbows had bamboo leaf-spring bows then range and power would be considerably less than composites.
I did get that impression by reading the thread on Romain's reconstruction of a Han crossbow with bamboo prods. Why does Stephen think that? Does it have to do with his comment that horn composite prods were likely to break?
The fixed crossbows in Han towers are a nice detail, parallels a similar use of ballistae in Hellenistic and Roman fortifications. Are those fixed crossbows the ones that are supposed to have draw weights of 350 pounds and so?
Bede
I think that Stephen's book is probably the best source for the Chinese traditon of archery. "Science and Civilisation" has a different emphasis in that it tries to show the potential cross-fertilisation of ideas between East and West.
From what I have read, I think that the fixed crossbows in the Han forts were similar in use and intention to Roman ballista. I will dog out the references and recheck the details.
Stephen's theory is cutting edge and prompts several questions. One is the weight of arrows. The Qin crossbows shot heavy arrows and perhaps their main targets were other armoured infantry. Perhaps after the consildation of the Han state, the main enemy were nomadic horse archers withoutrge amounts of armour. The Han military was often bedevilled by economic restrictions. There may have been a winding down of investment in armament.
jack farrell
What has always bothered me about Chinese crossbows is that I cannot remember seeing an illustration of a cocking device. European crossbows which were hand cocked were relegated to sporting use, target and hunting. Those using a goat-foot levers were considered military and others using the windlass were the best. The short stock on Chinese types make them more like pistols rather than rifles.
The most powerful crossbow that I have seen is in the mariner's museum, Virginia. An "Arbalis", a missle throwing engine. the massive steel bow must develop thousands of pounds of pull. Nevertheless, the museum estimates that this boat- mounted crossbow capable of throwing a fire arrow one half mile.
If you have shot a crossbow you may have noticed that the bolt does not sail as well as an arrow or as far, despite its penetrating power.
I would not dismiss a bamboo powered crossbow as inferior. After all a Bhutanese archer shoots a bamboo self bow at the same range as a Korean hornbow archer! -j-
rob
I am not an expert on ancient crossbows but a composite bow prod would perform better then a bamboo one of equal weight because it would have a strong reflex and siyahs and would not follow the string like a bamboo one could.
Bede
Jack,
European crossbows often had an effective string travel of only four inches. In order to get sufficient energy transfer, they needed very high draw weights, This is a design fault that can only be explained by the peculiarities of historical development. They had reasons for going along the way that they did.
Judging by the surviving Han stocks, the Qin models and the shadows of the Qin stocks seen in the earth by archaeologists, the Chinese originally used a longer draw. It probably had four times the length of string contact. It is doubtful that any hand-braced Chinese crossbow exceeded 350 lbs in draw weight. (Look at some of Harry Drake's free-style flight bows for comparison. They were drawn and shot with both legs and both hands.)
I agree with you about the flight of a short crossbow bolt like a traditonal European one. They seem to use up a lot of energy straightening up and even Payne-Gallwey noticed they could tumble at high elevations.
In an edition of the archer antiquaries journal, there was a picture some traditional European crossbowmen with mediaeval style bows that had a 2500 lb draw weight and were spanned with a crannequin. They were sighted in at thirty yards. Woe betide the armoured horseman that got close to these guys.
I have found that fire arrows blow out if shot at sufficient velocity for long ranges. I wonder if the museum conflated several stories to come up with the half mile shot. Of course, they could have been talking about a much more sophisticated incendiary than used in the Middle Ages.
Chariovalda
Bede wrote:
The Qin crossbows shot heavy arrows and perhaps their main targets were other armoured infantry.
I suppose there have been no experiments using reconstructed Qin armour and crossbows?
I ask because there's currently a discussion on RAT about the validity of the results of an experiment involving simulated Roman riveted chainmail (lorica hamata) and platemail (lorica segmentata).
It's in German, I am afraid. If there is any need, given time I could try to translate it for those who are interested.
jack farrell
Bede; It is best to differentiate between military crowwbows and sporting ones. Well to do persons hunted from horseback with powerful crossbows spanned with the help of a geared cranequin ( a device like a car jack, for those who do not know) the cranequin is solely a sporting device for ease and comfort. It was more valuable than the weapon and unavailable to soldiers. Once more, the powerful crossbows were short to faciliate use on horsevack. None of this has anything to do with military usage. Once more, sporting crossbows were preserved much more commonly than military versions.
Surviving military crossbows are larger and most frequently drawn with the help of a device. The proof is often seen on the stock. If there are lugs behind the lock or if the weapon is decorated, it may be a sporting item. If the butt of the stock is rectangular, this would form a tennon for the windlass.
My modest #400 crossbow can penetrate formidable objects, and the flight of the bolt cannot be seen.
The efficiency of the bow is much less important on a military crossbow drawn with a device.
Stephen Selby
You're right that discussions about the comparison between Han and Roman forces is a common subject. Lots of people try to get me to rise to the bait in discussions in China; but I always refuse. One reason that it has been a hot topic lately is that a few hotheads in Shanxi province claim to be the descendants of Roman soldiers brought back to China as prisoners. (The Chinese have great difficulty even today in accepting that they are and always have been a multi-racial society.)
If, as Stephen has advanced, the majority of Han crossbows had bamboo leaf-spring bows then range and power would be considerably less than composites.
We probably don't need to get too much into this aspect. Han literary sources suggest that 200-300 paces was the expected range of the hand-held crossbow. They were used with saturation fire from three ranks of crossbowmen. I estimate the draw-weight at about 160#. The bows were braced against the feet.
It seems that this tactic was very effective at breaking cavalry attacks. The main objective was to disable the horses, as the Xiongnu were perceived to be weak fighters on the ground. (See Han author Chao Cuo.)
S.
MJuingong
Chariovalda, thanks for telling of Roman Army Talk, I was completely unaware of it. I expect to visit it often.
About the effectiveness of Han Dynasty army and Roman of the equivalent time period (approx 206 b.c. to approx 300 A.D.?)-is there enough known about the Han to start a comparison?
Armor penetration-at least formidable enough that it had to be dealt with.
Btw: my store of knowledge is limited, but in Western literature, I think we go from Teucer and Pandarus's penetration of armor with their bows, in Homer's Iliad, all the way to Plutarch's account of Carrhae, with no reference to armor-piercing arrows in the interim. I hope to stand corrected soon.
Bede
200-300 paces is a long range with the heavy crossbow bolts the Han and previous dynasties favoured. I am assuming here that we are writing about the 5 foot pace common in Chinese writings. I would think that that would be at the extreme limit of effective longbow range.
The comparisons of effectiveness of troops from different areas really is only of significance to wargamers and novelists. For the rest of us it is purely academic. If they didn't meet in the past, they are not going to meet now.
Jack is right about the difference between sporting crossbows and war bows. Racks were expensive as he wrote. The windlass would have been much more common on the battlefield, but all the windlass operated crossbows I have seen had the same short draw. They also did not have rear sights which indicates they could not be elevated too far and still be aimed.
Adam Karpowicz
I am no expert on crossbows, but it seems it was an extremely effective weapon. Strickland in his book on longbows ("The Great Warbow") states the demise of longbow was partly due to the proliferation of crossbows, better suited to penetration of armour. I understand the composite laths were considered better, but more expensive to make than later steel.
The relively light weight at 160lb Han bamboo laths could not be a good harassing weapon from up to 200 yards.
Adam
Chariovalda
MJuingong wrote:
About the effectiveness of Han Dynasty army and Roman of the equivalent time period (approx 206 b.c. to approx 300 A.D.?)-is there enough known about the Han to start a comparison?
Actually, I don't think there is even enough known about the Roman army to make a good comparison. There's plenty of discussion and experimentation going on about even the most basic items, as well as tactics and strategy. I assume the situation is even worse in the case of the Han military.
I am interested in comparative history, but I have to admit this is more on the strategic / political level, rather than the technological / tactical. I think we can compare Han policies and strategies with those of the Romans, since in many ways they shared similar problems. But when it comes to actual arms, armour, tactics, even the art of fortification, there are substantial differences. My questions about the Han crossbow, while prompted by one of those Han vs Rome threads, have more to do with getting a realistic idea of what the thing was capable of. Also handy if I ever get a question at some re-enactment event, we sometimes get the strangest kind of questions :wink: .
Stephen, I remember reading you were trying to get replicas of Qing crossbow commercially available. Any progress in that?
In due time, my little group might cough up the necessary cash to have a manuballista reconstructed, I personally would LOVE to have a Qing / Han crossbow as well :D
Stephen Selby
Ju Yuan Hao can make crossbows; but only if someone supplies a mechanism for him. Romain has one which works well; but the tillering is poor. (If you go for a bamboo leaf-spring prod model, then that should not be such a problem. ) I'll ask him if he can make a mechanism.
On the issue of range/penetration of armour: is that really the point? The point is: how well can you ride a formation of unarmoured horses through a shower of crossbow bolts fired from 200 metres?
Rather you than me. 8)
MJuingong
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the issue of range/penetration of armour: is that really the point? The point is: how well can you ride a formation of unarmoured horses through a shower of crossbow bolts fired from 200 metres?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It might be advisable of the crossbow-shooters to figure out how to keep that shower steady.
How quickly could an ordinary crossbowman of the Han Dynasty reload?
Romain
jack farrell wrote:
My modest #400 crossbow can penetrate formidable objects, and the flight of the bolt cannot be seen.
Jack, could you show us your modest 400 pounds crossbow ?
Ju Yuan Hao can make crossbows; but only if someone supplies a mechanism for him. Romain has one which works well; but the tillering is poor. (If you go for a bamboo leaf-spring prod model, then that should not be such a problem. ) I'll ask him if he can make a mechanism.
Yup, that's easy, just buy an original Han dynasty mechanism and Juyuanhao will build the crossbow around it for you
Chariovalda
Stephen Selby wrote:
On the issue of range/penetration of armour: is that really the point? The point is: how well can you ride a formation of unarmoured horses through a shower of crossbow bolts fired from 200 metres? Rather you than me. 8)
Yes and no; yes because I'm just curious given the claims sometimes made in those silly Han vs Rome threads (and yes, I understand that question is hard to answer without proper field testing of reliable reconstructions of the weapons, armour and field conditions involved) and no, because I perfectly understand that, in the Han context, it's a weapon used in volleys against largely unarmoured cavalry.
The military historian in me is a bit curious, though (this applies to all missile weapons): would a volley really be effective up to 200 metres (dispersal of the bolts and so on. I am no archery expert, I admit :( ), or is that just the maximum range of the weapon? :?
It might be advisable of the crossbow-shooters to figure out how to keep that shower steady.
They did it by rotating three ranks of crossbowmen. In Chinese literature, the phrase 'the sound of crossbows being fired was unceasing; the anemy can get nowhere near us.' (弩发不绝声， 敌不与我。).
Reto
Q?n Shǐhu?ngd? (chin. 秦始皇帝 also Y?ng Zh?ng (chin. 嬴政), first emperor of China (from 259 to 210 BC) revolutionized also his Army. Having a look of his Terracotta Army in Xi'an you can see the deployment. Here the troops start with 4 ranks of crossbowmen (rotating), followed by other forces (using bows, lances, swords, chariots). Historical sources also say, the day became dark of the arrows....
The excavations at the Qin Emperor's mausoleum have not so far produced any clear evidence of ordinary bows and arrows: only crossbows. Although many Chinese sources about the site refer to 'archers', 'bowmen' and 'bows and arrows', they do so without any archaeological evidence.
rob
[Yup, that's easy, just buy an original Han dynasty mechanism and Juyuanhao will build the crossbow around it for you]
Romain, are original han dynasty mechanism really that common in chinese antique markets? Do you know any good places in the hong kong area?
Rob
Romain
I was being a bit sarcastic, but were you in Beijing and going regularly to Panjiayuan and Curio City, you would find one quite easily sooner or later.
I have no clue about Hongkong dealers, maybe Stephen knows more...
Diana
Hi I'm back after a long absence.
Stephen, didn't that Han Crossbow stock and lock you sold me have an original lock?
I have had some chance to shoot with the 52# Hwrang bow mounted in it.
It is very accurate despite the lack of sights.
It hits far harder than my 75# New World Arbalest 14th Cent Finn Crossbow using the same weight arrows.
The much longer draw has a lot to do with this.
Sadly, no indoor range in my area will allow crossbows.
I have to visit my friends ranch to shoot it.
I have gotten so little shooting of any kind in a long while.
A bad fall damaged my right shoulder and knee 2 months ago. Only just now back at 100%.
