[Craig Peters]

Reading a little bit about Chinese history, one cannot help but be struck how many things were invented or known about in China centuries before the west. As everyone knows, the Chinese developed gunpowder first, and they were using a type of firearm no later than the 12th century, and there is some evidence firearms were used earlier than this. Given that this is so, and given that the Chinese seemed to demonstrate a high degree of technological ingenuity, why did Europe eventually begin to manufacture firearms of superior quality to the Chinese; what might have been some reasons why Chinese firearms ceased to innovate the way Europeans did?

To help narrow this a bit, when did European firearms become better- was there a single development, or were there several key developments, which helped to propel European guns to the forefront of firearm technology? Did the importance of siege warfare, even in Renaissance and Early Modern Europe, force the Europeans to make advances in firearm technology in order to better destroy castle walls? Was their something about the nature of late medieval and early modern warfare in Europe that lead to firearms assuming a greater importance than they played in China? Are there other factors that I have not mentioned?

[Dan Howard]

You may want to look at the Ottomans. They were more advanced than Europe for quite a while in the development of firearms.

[Lafayette C Curtis]

A great deal of it may have had to do with the stability of Chinese society in the seminal period of firearm development (say, the mid-14th century to the mid-16th or even the mid-17th century). Between the (re)unification of the core Chinese cultural area by the Ming dynasty and the decay of the same dynasty in the late 16th century, there weren't many serious threats to China that exhibited a similar or higher level of technological development, so the Chinese didn't see much need to engage in a technological race against a largely nonexistent rival. It didn't help either that the Confucian bureaucrats who ran the country were really, really fond of red tape; their retrenchment in precedent and tradition was a particularly strong influence after a short period (in the late 14th-early 15th centuries) when eunuchs took over the court and pushed an outwards-looking programme of exploration and experimentation. That must have singed more than a few Confucian beards back then.

In any case, the Chinese didn't seem to have much problem adopting European and Ottoman-style firearms and cannon when these artifacts came (back?) to them in the 16th century or so--not the least because even the most conservative Ming bureaucrat was probably getting alarmed by the dynasty's decay at the time. Between this period and the Manchu takeover in the 1640s, Chinese firearms technology caught up and arguably kept pace with Europe--but afterwards the onset of a new stable period under Manchu/Qing rule removed the incentive for development once again and the Chinese began to lag behind, more seriously this time.

[Randall Moffett]

Craig,

First off the issue is one of relation. China had other missile weapons that just like some places in Europe saw no reason to switch to firearms as their current weapons functioned very well. Another is that many of the earlier 'firearms' are not what most would consider firearms in both use and tactics. Some comparing a bamboo weapon that shoots fire or a small rocket is unlike what most would think of as firearms in their use on the field and likely manner/ability to create casualties.

There have been many academics who now feel China simply had a parallel development of Firearms alongside Europe and that during the 16th century they began importing European arms until they adopted the designs they liked of these new weapons into their own. So whether Europe gives them these firearms and cannons, etc. or simply provides additional technologies I could not say but to me the 16th century looks like a likely candidate.

As far as the Ottomans go.... I have been doing some primary reading on the early Ottoman Empire and I am seriously beginning to think some of their fame as a 'gunpowder empire' is grossly exaggerated. I do not get the impression they are technologically further than the Europeans at any point from what I have seen form the 14th to 20th. The do at points have some fairly significant artillery forces but better than the European counterparts.... I do not think so.They certainly could use them effectively at times but especially the way they were maintained in the state would increasingly become an issue for the empire. To me the biggest advantage the Ottomans have is they raise some insanely large armies.

I know of few secondary sources I could recommend for either Chinese or Ottoman firearms development that present a good comparison to western development.

RPM

[Michael Curl]

Wasn't the Musket an Ottoman invention?

[William P]

regarding the ottomans, we quickly see in the ren period thehuge gap in fortress building and army organization, not only that while the jannisarries may have used them by the bucketload, a crucial group refused to take them up, those being the sipahis and other landed gentry they were worse than the european knights in this regard.

one thing the arabs do get credit for is that they ...APPARENTLY, helped in the 12th and 13th centuries to help refine the mixture,as well as roger bacon i.e the man in that famous illustration showing a vase shaped objct on a table tat seems to be shooting a large arrow.

Dated around 1257 AD, among the earliest extant written references to gunpowder in Europe, are Roger Bacon's texts Epistola, "De Secretis Operibus Artis et Naturae et de Nullitate Magiae," dated variously between 1248[33] and 1257,[34] he states:[33]

We can, with saltpeter and other substances, compose artificially a fire that can be launched over long distances... By only using a very small quantity of this material much light can be created accompanied by a horrible fracas. It is possible with it to destroy a town or an army ... In order to produce this artificial lightning and thunder it is necessary to take saltpeter, sulfur, and Luru Vopo Vir Can Utriet.


but in regards to gunpowder and europe, the difference between them and china, isthat imperial cina stayed, well. imperial, with not much autonomy in the hands of local rulers,
whereas in europe at the end of the middle ages, we had numerous princes burghers and other minor nobles, who were keen to look good and fashionable, often taking great pains to ensure they had the latest artillery,
this is all taken from the wars of the renaissence by thomast f arnold which book is divided into these sections, a brief introduction and a quick skim into why gunpowder helped change europe so much.
but the main chapters are
1 the new fury (looking at updates in artillery and fortification science)
2 the new legions (changes to infantry drill and the rise of pike and shot warfare)
3 the new ceasers, (the change in the role of cavalry and leadership roles, from the front line hero to the officer)
4 cross verses crescent, (self explanitory)
5 duelling kings (following the conflicts such as the italian wars and such)
6 catholic V protestant. (also selfexplanetery, looking at the reformation and the conflicts that popped up as a result)

all in all an excellent book.

[Craig Peters]

This subject seems to have been the focus of Dr. Kenneth Cole's book Firearms: A Global History to 1700. According to one review of his book:

"This author's analysis is one of the best pieces of history I have seen in recent years. He asks a simple question--why was it the Europeans who perfected firearms when it was the Chinese who invented them?--and then proceeds to answer it through no-nonsense discussions of the geographic, cultural, technological, economic and security threat conditions experienced by the main civilizations during the developmental period of firearms. After the Chinese first invented these weapons (probably in the 1100s) and the Mongols, probably, helped diseminate them throughout Eurasia/Europe in the 1200s, it would seem like anybody's game to develop them. But, he argues, that Western European ascendancy in firearms development, which reached the point of no-return in the 1700s, was due to the TYPE of warfare prominent in that part of the world, i.e. infantry warfare. He describes, in great detail, the peculiarities involved when an agrarianate state--like empires/kingdoms in China, India, Russia, the Middle East, etc.--have to fight against nomadic horsemen, or a combination of nomadic horsemen and infantry.

In the beginning, firearms could not compete with bows in terms of rate-of-fire, accuracy, easy maintenance, ability to be used on back of a horse, hence, the author argues, states that had to fight highly-mobile cavalry couldn't rely on firearms for their primary weapons. But, in states where the main thrust of battles were infantry on infantry, usually massed and fairly static, it was natural that firearms became the primary weapon. After all, even if your musket was only accurate up to 50-75 yards, you could still probably hit someone, if he was standing in a group of infantry-men behind a wall of pikes used to fend off cavalry. In addition, Western Europe was densely populated, and had castles. Castles were great for using gunpowder artillery against, b/c even if your cannon was enormously innaccurate, it's pretty hard to miss a castle.

By contrast, though the Chinese themselves had magnificent fortifications, artillery didn't do them much good againts Mongol or Manchu cavalry who could appear, strike, and then melt away at will. Japan, like Western Europe, was densely populated, had castles and made extensive use of firearms, but from the 1600s onward civil war ceased in the country and it was too remote to be attacked from the outside. Hence, there was no real need for firearm development. The Savafids, the Mughals and especially the Ottomans all adopted and used firearms, but they each faced a combination of threats, including neighbors with infantry, and neighbors with cavalry. Hence, their firearms development only reached so far, and then they, as well as Japan, China and all others relied on Western European developments instead of devising the technoloy themselves. Western Europeans also took the idea of drilling/training groups of firearms users and turned it into in artform."

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/17070252

[Craig Peters]

According to the ever-reliable Wikipedia, ;-) the Chinese developed early fire-lances, and then later hand cannons, which were subsequently introduced to Europe in the 13th century. It also appears that the Chinese developed a forum of arquebus, or at least, posessed arquebuses during the Ming Dynasty. However, in the section on the matchlock firing mechanism, it mentions that matchlocks appear in Europe in the 15th century; it gives no direct indication if they were a European invention, or whether they existed in China, too. Does anyone know more about who actually created them?

Two other questions:

Did the Chinese create an equivalent of the ribauldequin? Or was this a European invention?

Also, it seems that the pierrier à boîte was developed in the early 15th century, around 1410. Is this the oldest breech-loading firearm, or not?

[Randall Moffett]

I would;d be very cautious with wiki but that concept in general. We have 2-3 accounts that indicate something that might be hand firearms but from the translations I have seen I seriously do not see evidence to support them being real firearms. Really they could just as easily be several other types of gunpowder weapons over handguns.

Now the transfer of gunpowder and its development during the 13th seems very much to be what happened. We have a large amount of middle eastern accounts and Chinese for this time that are relatively clear. To me this is the best assurance that these accounts were not firearms. Why would they be so clear and descriptive about related arms but not these others. Just does not make rational sense.

One danger in this is one that has gone on since the start of firearms. Everyone wants the earliest example of firearms and people are willing to take shaky to outright incorrect evidence and make it look they way they want it to be. For me I want to have much more tangible evidence. It would be odd that in the Middle East if they had these early guns in the 13th that they would take so long to employ them and then when they do many of the early technological links are from Europe. Seems unlikely.

Now did they have gunpowder based weapons in Asia and the Middle East, of course, what I and most would call true firearms not from the evidence I have seen.

RPM

[Timo Nieminen]

"When" has already been mentioned: the mid-Ming peace in China (followed by a catch-up in/by early Qing), followed by dropping behind again mid-late Qing.

So the obvious "why" that follows from this is that Europe had plenty of internal war to continue driving development. A key European development was corned powder.

But this isn't the whole "why". In Ming/Qing China, cannon was seen as essential for siege warfare, and useful in the field. It doesn't look like cannon radically changed Chinese fortification design; cannon-proof (or at least highly cannon resistant) fortifications preceded cannon by perhaps a millenium, so what change would have been required?

I don't know whether retention of the bow as a front-line weapon in China retarded firearms development. The MIng used plenty of firearms, as well as plenty of bows.

[Craig Peters]

[Randall Moffett]

I was referring to Middle Eastern accounts , though I still have major doubts about any true firearms in the 13th century. For the second part of the question, how are these being dated? The only ones I know of could be anything coming out of the tube. As well what projectile is coming out? Is the cannon for shooting projectiles or Greek fire nafta like material. The push for China having the first cannons has been highly fraught with all sorts of questionable and doubtful claims. I do not just accept an object someone claims is form a certain date I want to know how they arrived at the date.Who dated it is another important question. David Nicolle for example has been pushing a large bolt as something used with cannons for years solely off the assumption that it looks like that is what it is for. Like I said this is one of those topic that people love to claim to be the first and a bit of ink splatter later history has been changed.... have you seen these pictures? Do you know how the date has been established? Several middle eastern texts with accounts of early firearms usage have been doctored at a later date. Same thing happened in Italy to add in a lovely 13th century use of firearms only it was added later, likely the end of the 14th.

The earliest one I know of was IDed by Lu, Needham, and Phan in 'The Oldest Representations of a Bombard' which is from a carving from 1128. Honestly having seen the picture I am a bit doubtful on a number of points. One is I am not sure what they are claiming is a bombard is not some other sort of incendiary machine. The other is a handgun dated to 1288 in China that is dated by them using some indirect supporting evidence. So should we be critical? Of course. Their reason why these weapons do not take place is shaky at best, a lack of salt petre of high quality, which considering Sal Petre comes from animal manure seems highly unlikely. I just get the impression they want to push the date back using less than solid evidence. To me we are seeing one of likely hundreds of incendiary and explosive devices that are not true firearms.

RPM

[Vue QT]

Gentleman I've came across this a while back, the paper discuss some interesting points about the Chinese Ming firearms.

http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/docs/wps/wps03_011.pdf

[Timo Nieminen]

[Randall Moffett]

Timo,

Do you have the full account of Schlegel's example for the earliest gun. To be honest it has been more than half a decade since I read Schlegel's work but when I did read it nothing in the record really was to me definitively a gun for pre-1300. I would inter-library loan it but I got 20 books on my waiting list at the moment. I'd have to look at the entire account but depending on the specifics of the account I can see other gunpowder weapons or traditional weapons capable of piercing a cuirass. If the definition you have here of his argument to prove it a gun it seems rather odd logic as penetration of the armour has nothing to do with true gun-ness, though it follows at least the right tactical use the Chinese were using explosives attached to crossbow bolts through this period that had to be lit before loosing the projectile. Another question on the account is when was it written? Is it contemporary or written 25, 50 or 100 years after the event?

To me the evidence seems to be at earliest for what I'd call a firearm gun to be late 13th but more so 14th century as a period of experimentation among all the early contenders for the title to first gun. It would be odd is China or any one had a true gun or cannon for hundreds of years with nearly no change as during the 14th century every has very similar handguns and cannon and follow along similar developmental stages and patterns along similar lengths of time. The fact that the first real trend of unambiguous accounts for the leaders in firearms technology is the 14th century seems to be very good evidence that this was really the period of its real development and increasing use. Even then in many cases we see the increase a slow one but still the accounts, art and archaeological records all all rather cohesive.


RPM

[Timo Nieminen]

[Randall Moffett]

Timo,

Testing done on the explosives attached to bolts appear to be able to defeat armour. Now whether this is possible for this account I do not know as I have not seen it recently. The fact the earliest account with this story is over a hundred years later also seems questionable as well, much to late to be a good 'evidence' of earliest use.

I think that in part the transmission would be rather quick as certain technologies that were similar were already in use. The tubes for Greek fire for example seem to be very much like what early firearms are based on. So if these cultures had use a previous technology that is similar to the new then it would easily be something that could take place in decades over a century or centuries. In China they had a much wider use of nonfirearms incendiary weapons than Europe but the one(s) they did have were already the foundation needed for step two, add powder and projectile. As well the main power behind the weapon, gunpowder was developing increasingly better as well. One of the main points of Lu, Needham, and Phans' article is that Chinese gunpowder was often at a disadvantage to the lack of good quality salt petre. I am not sure I support it but there are a great deal of accounts showing firearms, guns and cannons, as still being somewhat experimental in this period of 14th-15th century.

For the Ming defeat of the Yuan...I have not been over the sources in years but it seems to me true cannons still are very much developing during the first 100 plus years of the Dynasty. There were many factors that seemed more influencial that firearms to the ejection of the Yuan.

RPM

[Timo Nieminen]

[Randall Moffett]

Timo,

I will look into it. I have only seen a handful of written accounts really covering conclusive evidence for cannons but clearly they were in use but I never go the impression to such a large level or vital over the other artillery in use of the time. Could be though. I have not seen Lorge's work so I will track it down. I am by no means familiar with a vast quantity of Chinese prmary sources from this period as I am limited to translations. My readings are just as you said, the Yuan were on their way out and once many realized this it was over.

Just read Schlegel's article and I think my previous statement is pretty much accurate still. He first off seems to have an interesting issue with thinking that because fire comes out of a machine it is a gun or cannon which is simply wrong. The Chinese had hundreds of not thousands of incendiary devices that were used before and concurrent to guns and cannons. I think almost every account he uses for 13th century 'proof' of guns or cannons is clearly some time of tube pushing flammable materials out, like Nafta. The one the Mongols bring to Java for example is described in this exact way, tubes with inflammable material, to which he turns around and states it is irrefutably a cannon, eh? Considering they use the word explosive for their bamboo grenades why would they use inflammable over explosive? And the fireball tube term he also states has to be a gun, once again a fail to me and just as easily if not more being Greek Fire. That said the one example you brought up first does indeed seem to be a gun but being from the late 16th century on an early 13th century event seems dubious to say the least, which is another of his major flaws in the paper, most his sources are well over 100 years after the date of the event. It is like taking Tudor accounts on the battle of Agincourt and thinking they are accurate.

This is the same as many European focused scholars on the same subject. Several of Froissarts accounts seem to indicate cannons lighting things on fire. If you are simply shooting rocks into a town this will not likely happen, not you get Greek Fire/Nafta instead and this is what will likely happen.

I think his article shows the same relationship I was mentioning earlier with China having a massive range of nongunpowder weapons at their disposal that would make for a easy transmission of the skills needed to make the weapons, men to use them and tactics to employ them in.

RPM

[Timo Nieminen]

I (or you) would need to look up de Mailla, and see which source he used. Schlegel says de Mailla's French translation is from "History of the Sung-dynasty", and the only candidate text I can think of is "Song Shi", which is AFAIK a Yuan dynasty compilation (compilation rather than a re-writing). The 1581 work is different (I see that the Chinese text is different). I don't know if any sources are given in Song Shi or known for it, but the compilation date of 1345(?) is the latest possible date.

Isn't it nice that such a major development comes at the time when historical reports and records become sparse and unreliable!

Tubes belching fire and smoke are common artwork for cannons in action, so I expect it features in literature too. Literature can give us an impression of the noise (or how much the noise impressed the reporters). Still ambiguous with an explosive-powered flamethrower. "P'ao" being used for mechanical artillery and cannon, and mechanical artillery being used to hurl explosives and incendiaries means that the standard short description tells us very little. So the more detailed accounts like this Kaifeng "gun" matter. Schlegel is correct to place a lot of emphasis on it. Whether Schlegel's scholarship has stood the test of time, I don't know.