Ancient Chinese Warfare

[Mr. Mantis]

The history channel has a program they call "Ancient Discoveries." On this program they show weapons and battle tactic of ancient people. It's on every Tuesday night. Last Tuesday was the ancient Egyptians. They went over the shields, swords and chariots. How they were used in battle, and what the enemy had. It's cool, If you like weapons/warfare, etc.

Anyway, next Tuesday, March 6, 2007 at 9pm EST, they will air an episode on Chinese weaponry and warfare. http://www.history.com/minisite.do?mini_id=52979 Should be interesting to discuss. Along this same vein, there are many shows on history and discovery channels regarding CMA, we should consider watching and reviewing these programs.

[Ming Loyalist]

must... set... DVR!

[Mr. Mantis]

Remember: Tonight at 9pm!

[Neildo]

Thanks Mista Mantis!

[It is Fake]

This better be more fun than that train wreck I watched the other week.:ingun:

[Mr. Mantis]

It was really fucking cool.

The technical advancements of the Chinese back in the 13th century were really cool. They went over the cross bow, and another siege weapon that could shoot a bolt a mile. They had a repeating crossbow too. They used rockets and bombs in battle too. They invented the flame thrower. They had a sword that was I think nearly 2000 years old that had not rusted, and stayed sharp based on the octagonal design. I'm a little fuzzy in the details because I was doing stuff when that part of the show was on.

I was very educational and facinating to watch.

[Zendetta]

THe repeating crossbow is super sweet.

[Ronin.74]

I thought the coolest weapon they talked about was the ballistic/cruise missle used for naval battles.

[Naszir]

I was amazed by the landmine.

[meataxe]

Good to see some stuff on Chinese swords. Most of the time you only hear that the katana is the OMFG deadliest weapon in history, totally ignoring the innovations in China, India, Middle East and Europe.

[Ming Loyalist]

i liked how they were sure to point out that the psychological impact was the most devastating part of most of the weapons.

i caught it on my DVR and am going to burn a dvd for the future

[Hitman]

i liked how they were sure to point out that the psychological impact was the most devastating part of most of the weapons.



David Grossman's On Killing and On Combat both repeatedly mention that most killing on battlefields back then (and now to an extent) occurred after one side had been scared shitless and was running away. Thus a weapon's psychological impact was WAY more important than it's actual killing ability (mention was made of the move from the bow to gunpowder which occurred even though early gunpowder weapons were vastly inferior in killing capacity compared to bows in the hands of skilled archers).

[socratic]

hey had a sword that was I think nearly 2000 years old that had not rusted, and stayed sharp based on the octagonal design. I'm a little fuzzy in the details because I was doing stuff when that part of the show was on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_of_Gou_Jian

Unless they found another, similar national treasure, I think this is the sword that must have been mentioned.

[DAYoung]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_of_Gou_Jian

Unless they found another, similar national treasure, I think this is the sword that must have been mentioned.

OMG ITZ TOTTALLY CONFICIUS' SWORD!11!!!

No seriously. That is fantastic.

[Guizzy]

David Grossman's On Killing and On Combat both repeatedly mention that most killing on battlefields back then (and now to an extent) occurred after one side had been scared shitless and was running away. Thus a weapon's psychological impact was WAY more important than it's actual killing ability (mention was made of the move from the bow to gunpowder which occurred even though early gunpowder weapons were vastly inferior in killing capacity compared to bows in the hands of skilled archers).Actually, historical reports of soldiers fighting against bow-wielding amerindians tell that bow have a higher psychological impact than firearms, because of the fact that you can actually see the arrow come at you, which is apparently an incredibly unconfortable sight. I'll see if I can dig up the sources.

The adoption of firearms has more to do with how easy it was to train someone in their use (which the bow was lacking) and the ability to mass-produce them (which the crossbow was lacking).

[Hitman]

Actually, historical reports of soldiers fighting against bow-wielding amerindians tell that bow have a higher psychological impact than firearms, because of the fact that you can actually see the arrow come at you, which is apparently an incredibly unconfortable sight. I'll see if I can dig up the sources.

The adoption of firearms has more to do with how easy it was to train someone in their use (which the bow was lacking) and the ability to mass-produce them (which the crossbow was lacking).

I'd be interested to see your sources. Grossman has an extensive bibliography attached to each book along with the numerous interviews he conducted.

It should be noted that mass production of anything really didn't occur until the invention of the assembly line. Firearms require very specific engineering knowledge to create (something only known to a handful of proto-scientists) along with a complicated supply chain brought about by the need to source multiple parts, many requiring specific and (at the time) rare knowledge to create. In essence I disagree with your assessment of mass production. Both the crossbow and longbow do not require nearly as many tangible and intangible resources to create as firearms.

The question of training is really a cost/ benefit kind of question. With the bow and arrow and the crossbow you have weapons that require a good deal of skill to achieve and appreciable effect, due to the fact that neither produces a sound that is as appreciably horrifying as the sound of a firearm discharging. Coupled with the ability of the powders of the times to produce much smoke and fire (psychologically debilitating elements in and of themselves) and the early firearm is now the battlefield weapon of choice. Well what about performance? Simply put, early handheld firearms were largely ineffective (while artillery pieces with exploding shells were absolutely devastating as afar as casualties go when in the hand sof a competent artillery officer) and arrow based weapons were very accurate and quite deadly, especially when used en masse. So if bows and arrows were so combat effective, casualty inducing-wise, then why did ALL developed countries switch to firearms? Firearms produce a much higher psychological toll on the battlefield resulting in MANY more casualties (especially mental) than the bows and arrows could ever hope. If most kills occur during the "rout" stage of an engagement, then clearly the advantage goes to the side can induce a rout in the opposing force.