Correct. China may have invented gunpowder, and the Arabs may have introduced it to Europe, but it was Europeans who truly innovated in the area and made guns the dominant form of weaponry to this day. European guns were far and away the best out of any region in the world, to the point that Chinese people tried to reverse engineer them and simply couldn’t. They could visually imitate the mechanisms, but they were nonfunctional because they didn’t see the guns in production or understood how they worked.
- The photo shows a weapon called “Hwagang,” which appeared during the Yuan Dynasty. Doesn’t it look very similar? For your information, the firing process is very similar, and a lot of forms of burning bullets were devised during the Ming Dynasty to compensate for the lack of loading speed. (Something like a three gun gun or a ten-eye sword…)
Of course, the Chinese and Korean styles are divided again during the development process. Joseon’s hand canon system evolved into a well-refined form until the Hwaseung gun appeared, but in the case of China, it was not necessary to use it because it was capturing and copying the Portuguese Hwaseung gun in the Battle of Cheonchoman in Xinhui, Guangdong, in the second year (1523 AD).
For your information, hand cannon is called Huo Chong in Mandarin Chinese, not Hwagang.
Yes, I never denied there were many similarities between Chinese and Korean hand cannons, but there were also differences.
Multi-barreled iron hand cannons were indeed developed during the mid to late Ming era to compensate for the lack of firing speed, whereas early Ming hand cannons were mostly made out of bronze and were single-barreled.
In Chinese we differentiate between hand cannons and arquebus, the arquebus that the Ming got from the Portuguese was called Niao Chong (Bird Gun) and not Huo Chong (Fire Gun), unlike hand cannons.
But even before the introduction of the arquebus, hand cannons weren’t that popular in South China. Based on the sources I’ve read, in early Ming armies from South China primarily relied on crossbows and javelins, whereas the ones from the north relied on bows and hand cannons. Rockets and hand mortars seemed to be used by both though.
And the place of that battle is called Qiancaowan / Xicaowan in Mandarin and something like Sincouwaan / Saicouwaan in the local Cantonese language.
1 Like
History of Black Gunpowder
229 AD ~ 618 AD : Wei Boyang, a Taoist priest from the Wu state in the late Han Dynasty in the 2nd century, and Sun Simo, a Taoist priest from the Sui Dynasty to the early Tang Dynasty in the 6th to 7th centuries, who were studying alchemy, discovered that cornerstone and sulfur combusted violently, and added charcoal to them to invent the first black powder.
November 1125 – 9 February 1234 - In the Jin–Song Wars, In the Jin–Song Wars, the Fire Spear, the forerunner of all hand cannons and the ancestor of all personal firearms, was used. In the process, the Fire Spear, which was fired by inserting stones, evolved into the form of a primitive gun, but due to the limitations of technology at the time, its firepower was weak and its range was only about 3 to 5 meters. This form and principle were then transmitted to Europe, giving rise to the hand cannon, the predecessor of birdshot, and it was also known and used by China’s neighboring countries.
After that, the Southern Song Dynasty’s fire lance spread throughout the world along with other gunpowder weapons through the Yuan Dynasty. As it spread in the order of geographical proximity to the Mongol Empire (then the Yuan Dynasty), the Middle East began introducing gunpowder weapons in the late 13th century, and the West in the early 14th century.
Then, in the 14th century, the first matchlock guns (meaning curved guns) appeared in the Ottoman Empire and spread throughout Europe.
For reference, the early matchlock guns that spread to East Asia followed the Snap matchlock (not to be confused with the “Snaplock”), and even before the arrival of Westerners, the countries of South Asia, especially the Malay Archipelago in Southeast Asia, possessed advanced gunpowder technology and rudimentary firearms. Among them, the Majapahit Empire was a country that was founded after destroying the Mongol Empire of Kublai Khan during the process of its founding, and afterwards, they actively used firearms they received through the Mongols to seize maritime hegemony in Indonesia, and built a huge firearms production facility on Java Island, the center of t.And later, after the fall of the Majapahit Empire, as firearms technicians left for the surrounding areas, firearms were spread throughout the Indonesian archipelago, including Sumatra. And starting in the 16th century, the Portuguese, who had advanced into Asia and established trading posts in various places, brought in Western firearms technology and commissioned local technicians to produce firearms, which led to the combination of firearms technology from various parts of the Portuguese sphere of influence. Among them, Indian technicians in Goa modified various parts of the arquebus (reducing the weight and caliber, and even reducing or eliminating the cumbersome buttstock) to make it easier to use on narrow, And the Malay engineers in Malacca who inherited this installed a low-pressure, instantaneous firing mechanism that they used. This was the beginning of the Eastinga gun.
For your information, Tanegashima is not the origin of Japanese matchlock guns, but simply a famous place producing matchlock guns. At the time, Japan was going through a civil war, so the demand was high and a lot of them were imported. In the latter half of the Sengoku period, when a type of weapon called jochup was developed, the firing procedure was simplified and they were classified into three grades according to caliber and charge.
Also, the rank of the Japanese ashigaru was not much different from that of the common soldiers that existed in other countries, except for their status as warriors. Ashigaru was not treated as a class until the Azuchi-Momoyama period (1573–1603 AD). As a side note, the lowest rank among samurai was the gokenin (御家人) and kachi (pedestal) samurai, so ashigaru were not samurai. They were just “commoners”.
Japanese samurai ranks (Ashigaru < Gokenin/Kachi < Kiba < Hatamoto < Daimyo)
Daimyo (大名) = Hatamoto (旗本) - In principle, an independent feudal lord equal to a daimyo
Gokkenin (御家人)/ Kachi samurai (lower rank)
Other ranks
Shogun (將軍) -A rank that is a warrior but not a “samurai”
Ashigaru (足軽) - 1. Not a samurai. / 2. Commoner by law / 3. The promotion limit was the Ashigaru Kogashira (足軽小頭) who commanded the Ashigaru/ 4. The Ashigaru Daisho (足軽大將) who commanded several Ashigaru Kogashira was a lower-ranking samurai./ 5. As the Edo period began, the mobilization of troops itself was abolished, so the Ashigaru class became meaningless, and when the samurai became bureaucrats, the Ashigaru were assimilated into commoners and disappeared, taking on roles such as constables or firefighters.
Bukebokonin (武家奉公人)
- A member of the samurai society but not a warrior. The ranks of Wakato (若党)/Chūgen (中間)/Koja (小者) belonged to this class. This class was the lowest rank among the Japanese warrior classes.
First, if we analyze in depth to compare the firepower of East Asian countries and European countries, the East Asian matchlock gun that was introduced to Japan through Portugal (and also adopted by Joseon) is of the arquebus series. On the other hand, the matchlock gun of the Ming Dynasty, including the Lumipo, is of the musket series. Of course, the best way to distinguish them is the gunstock.The word Arquebus itself means a curved gun, and the fact that it is a welcome relationship and agrees to handnon is a unique characteristic of Arquebus, but the later symbolic Kitmouth has a large recoil adjustment plate attached to the back of the gun. However, these improvements began to be applied to later Arquebuses, and depending on the case, it can be seen in the circumstantial evidence with a monopod that moves or not, so the power of the gun that is distinguished to be connected, that is, the “caliber”, becomes the standard.
Only 65 food carried by a Chicken, less than a Goat. If so, the wood should still be kept at -50.
Lacking Fervor or Sanctity would still weaken them in Relic contest in Arena.
When they face a large group of monks, lacking Faith would still be a weakness even though it’s seldom researched.
Or take away chu ko nu 0 melee attack to make rams can tank fire from chu ko nu and rocket carts/ scorpions at least. Adding siege engineers or bbc is historically accurate but … Chinese may require more changes.
1 Like
Never denied that gunpowder was first invented by the Sinitic people.
However, the fact remains that by the 16th century Europe had largely surpassed East Asia in terms of firearms. For instance, hand cannons were common in Europe in the 14th and 15th centuries, however by the 16th century they were largely replaced by the arquebus. However in East Asia they continued to be used in armies up until the mid 17th century or possibly even later. I get it that late Ming hand cannons were mostly multi-barreled and iron-casted, however similar types of multi-barreled iron hand cannons were already in use in Europe in the 15th century, and by the 17th century they were more than obsolete and had long retired from military usage.
The arquebus was invented in Europe there’s no contest about this, the fact that it spread to South and SE Asia before spreading to East Asia doesn’t make it a South or SE Asian invention.
Moreover, the gunpowder invented by the Sinitic people was serpentine gunpowder, whereas the more powerful corned gunpowder was again invented in Europe.
1 Like
The problem of the pocket watch mainspring is a symbol of the insurmountable gap in Eastern and Western technology. Although craftsmen in Asia, including Joseon, somehow managed to make a chime using a weight, they were never able to make a pocket watch that required spring steel and a mainspring, and eventually had to replace the spring with whalebone. Of course, the technologies used in wheel locks were also unfamiliar to Asia. There were also many differences between Asia and the West in firearms doctrine. The frequency of Asia utilizing the Western-style line infantry formation was considerably lower.In the West, the period when they were actively changing from wheel lock to match lock to flint lock was a time when they were expanding outward, whether through war, colonial development, or trade, causing many conflicts and demanding weapon reform. On the other hand, Joseon and Northeast Asia were relatively politically stable except for the period of transition between the Ming and Qing Dynasties, and war itself was not a frequent occurrence, so they did not feel the need for large-scale weapon reform. In the end, the history of firearms in Asia, which had less external stimulation than the West, had no choice but to settle for wheel lock to match lock. Of course, these differences are also part of their history and a good thing.
Correction for this: It is istinggar not eastingar. Also, we have no evidence it was independently improved by Malays or Indian, as the Indo-Portuguese matchlock only seems to be appearing after the Portuguese built House of the Ten Thousand Guns in Portuguese Goa, not in Portuguese Malacca. Of course this only happened AFTER the Portuguese conquered those 2 cities. Wan Mohd Dasuki Wan Hasbullah (A Malaysian historian focusing on Malay firearms and gunpowder weapon) has investigated istinggar for more than a decade, he said that while the peninsular Malay has matchlock arquebus, those guns are imported from the Minangkabau region in Sumatra. It is not sure whether they have matchlock-maker in the Malay Peninsula, what is sure is that the peninsular Malay imported them from Sumatra.
After Portuguese Malacca was conquered by the Dutch, they noted that the locals used Minangkabau guns, not Malay guns (Minang is an ethnic group from Sumatra, not Malay peninsula). The Dutch in Malacca called it the “lange Menangkabausche geweren” meaning, long Minangkabau muskets. In the report of the Bugis attack of Malacca, the Dutch official Daily Journals of Malacca from the year 1756 reported that: [The enemy] “began to shoot their long Minangkabau muskets which came on to us like hail from a great distance." Something to note during this event is that while South Sulawesian (Bugis and Makassar) people could build their own musket, they used Minangkabau muskets instead, meaning that the Minangkabau guns have been widely exported, at least around the Malacca strait area.
and Japan’s teppo was also a rapid-fire Eastingar.
No, Japan’s teppo was modeled after Indo-Portuguese matchlock, not directly from Istinggar, in fact Malay istinggar has a different mechanism from Japanese teppo: Teppo/Tanegashima uses V-shaped mainspring or internal coil spring, Malay istinggar uses single-leaf mainspring. So it could not be claimed that Japanese teppo is an istinggar, let alone a rapid fire one.
the common ancestor of all matchlock guns that spread to East Asia was the Southeast Asian Eastingar gun,
I would argue that not all matchlock guns in East Asia was based on the Southeast Asian istinggar, the reason is the same as I mentioned above, the mechanism simply does not necessarily matching. It may have the same body plan, but some uses different mechanism than the others.
3 Likes
Btw, I found the below pic. It seems that not so good to nerf Chinese cavalry for the sake of Siege Engineers or Bombard.
The Song horsemen carried different types of weapons, even carried crossbow on horseback. Cavalry in Song Dynasty should be the weakest?
Maybe need another way then.
I’m not that familiar with SE Asian arquebus, but based on the Ming records I’ve read, the Ming distinguished 4 types of arquebus:
Zhua Wa Chong / Java Arquebus: arquebus used by the Javanese
Jiao Chong / Vietnamese Arquebus: arquebus used by the Vietnamese
Niao Chong / Bird Arquebus: the most common type of arquebus in China, having a debated origin; some say they were obtained from captured Portuguese sailors in the Battle of Qiancaowan and subsequently copied, others say they were obtained and copied from the Teppo used by the Wokou
Lumi Chong / Ottoman Arquebus: obtained from Ottoman traders or merchants in China
Zhua Wa Chong and Jiao Chong only saw limited usage in China; they were mostly used by regional armies or pirates in Far South China (the Lingnan region), whereas most others used Niao Chong. And the Lumi Chong was also relatively rare.
I’m not sure why, but I’ve seen a recent trend of history revisionism in East Asia where people are trying to claim SE Asian heritage / cultural artefacts / languages etc.
The truth is historically SE Asia only had a very limited influence in East Asia, and the same is true vice versa, East Asian influence in SE Asia was also limited. SE Asian cultures got influenced much more heavily from South Asian or Indian cultures, whereas East Asian cultures largely developed in isolation from others.
The only region in East Asia where there are some SE Asian influences as well as some genetic and linguistic connection to SE Asia is the Far South of China, more specifically Yunnan and Lingnan. All other East Asian regions including the majority of China as well as Korea and Japan have little to no connection to SE Asia.
1 Like
History cannot be revised. Because no theory is perfect, and eventually it will be overcome by new research by later scholars. Even if it is revised, it is just an opinion that is unverified or lacks data, and is not “history.” “History” does not change with a stroke of a pen. Only actions change it.
In the past, existing historical theories were accepted as the majority theory in academia and were included in textbooks, but some theories had to be revised because new relics were discovered, and some were completely revised because errors in the accuracy of the existing theories were discovered. A representative example is the case of the turtle ship of East Asia. In the past, the turtle ship was referred to as the “world’s first ironclad ship” in the West, but in Korea, it was discovered that the source of the theory itself was “Corea, The Hermit Nation” published in 1882 by American missionary William Elliot Griffith in the United States. So, as a result of re-examining the existing theory, the shape was different and most of the papers that said they were not ironclad ships have been published since the 2000s, and we were able to find out new facts that the type and structure of the ship were similar to galley ships and the hypothesis that they had 2-3 floors.
That is, there is only reexamination in history, not revision, because the history of mankind is so young compared to the age of the Earth.
1 Like