[Michael Curl]

So I have heard a lot about chinese crossbows, but I have heard very little about japanese ones. The only thing I know about crossbows is that they were used by the gundan in the heian era. But they seem to have been unused by later japanese armies. Does anyone know more about them?

And while were at it, does anyone have any good info on Chinese crossbows?

[Timo Nieminen]

The Japanese crossbows seem to have come in single-man infantry versions, and a crew-served artillery version (which seems to have persisted a little longer). Essentially out of use c. 900.

Apparently there are no (contemporary) artistic depictions, no detailed descriptions in literary sources, and no archaeological finds. Best bet: assume they're similar to Chinese crossbows.

What do you want to know about Chinese crossbows?

Standard infantry missile weapon of Warring States and Han, and seems to have diminished in importance after that. The repeating crossbow stayed in use as a military weapon, and seems to have been the standard Song, Ming, and Qing crossbow, but was a minor weapon in those times. The main Qing missile weapons were bow and musket, and crossbows aren't common in Qing art (the only one I could see on a first search was being used by a native in Yunnan, in a non-military context; none of 2 dozen or so Qing battle scenes had any crossbow users). Still, the repeating crossbow was still in military use in the late 19th century, and IIRC surviving examples can be seen in Stone's Glossary.

Large artillery crossbows were in use, too, mainly for sieges.

[Michael Curl]

Good info.

So it sounds like crossbows were completely gone in japan by the Kamakura era?

As far as chinese crossbows go, I was interested in several things. First are there any good books on them?

*Did they ever make a crossbow with a metal prod like an arbalest?
*What kinds of different crossbows where utilized by them? Did they have the variety of European crossbows or did it break down into normal, and repeating.
*What kind of multi-person siege versions did they make?
*When, why, and how where chu-ku-nu's used? (You kinda answered that one already).

[Timo Nieminen]

Jonathan Clements' "A Brief History of the Samurai" mentions an isolated late use. Post AD1000, iirc, but the index doesn't help me find the relevant section in the book. Could also be formulaic copying of earlier texts. I think you can safely ignore them after the end of the 9th century.

For Chinese crossbows, I don't know of a good book devoted to them. They get brief mention in many books. Needham covers them well, with about 60 pages on crossbows followed by another 50 pages on mechanical artillery (Science and Civilisation in China, Volume 5, part 6).

There was a lot of variety. Single-piece wooden or bamboo prods, multi-piece "leaf-spring" bamboo/wooden prods, composite prods, no steel prods that I know of. Light and easy to shoot, and heavy long-range high-power crossbows. Some heavy crossbows are described as requiring very strong men to use (just a stirrup, and no other mechanical aids), and some mechanical aids (especially belt-hooks, a.k.a. "belt-claw") were used. The windlass was common on artillery crossbows, and saw some (but little) use on hand-held crossbows.

The Wikipedia crossbow page has some pictures of Chinese artillery crossbows, including a fancy multi-bow one.

Payne-Gallway described the Chinese repeating crossbow. Pretty much just for volume of fire. Short range, and low power.

I haven't heard much of Ming-and-onwards use of powerful crossbows. It may be that firearms pushed them of the battlefield. The repeating crossbow does a different job to firearms, so stayed around. Needham has a number of pictures of crossbows (with "leaf-springs") being used as unmanned weapons for ambushes.

I'd estimate 11-13" for the draw length (from the prod) for crossbows in Ming illustrations.

In earlier times, high-power crossbows were important, and were a key Qin/Han weapon, outranging the composite horsebow. Qin armouries held large numbers of crossbows (like over 100,000).

Crossbows were used as hunting (and sporting) weapons into recent times.

[Michael Curl]

Thank you for all the info, was all this from Needham's book?

[Kurt Scholz]

http://www.atarn.org/chinese/chin_arc.htm
This is a good homepage on the subject plus you can ask the author questions and he'll reply.

[Timo Nieminen]

[Kurt Scholz]

[Randall Moffett]

I know they had occasional use as the Royal Armouries has at least two from the Tokugawa period. It seems they were used for personal home defense by the elite, perhaps where a bow was not so easy yo use but before melee weapons come in. They can also be left spanned before bed and hid close by. From what I gather they were never popular in war.


Timo,

I thought there was a resurgence of the basic crossbow in the Tang and early Song. Admittedly the mid to late Song is mired in all sorts of issues with the government limiting the military for fear of a repeat of the Tang to Song transition so it is possible the decline was a choice over progression. If this is too far off topic I can PM you as I am very interested in this theme. I took loads of pictures of Chinese crossbows at a few museums and have to say I find it an interesting topic.

RPM

[Michael Curl]

While I started this thread to answer japanese crossbow questions, I don't think we have a thread dedicated to chinese crossbows on this forum. I too am very interested in chinese military technology of the Tang-Qing.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

One fascinating thing about Chinese crossbows is that the technology involved apparently declined. Han crossbows have elaborate, space-efficient trigger mechanisms and grid sights mass produced from bronze. Much later Chinese writers (from Song and Qing/Ming dynasties) marvel over the Han-era devices.

[Timo Nieminen]

[Timo Nieminen]

[Kurt Scholz]

The Song had the biggest iron production in a pre-industrial society and most of the iron went to the armed forces. So I doubt very much that there was a reduction. Crossbows were perhaps less elaborate than the Han examples, but what about effectiveness and missile power (using multiple arrows per shot and other tricks)? In my opinion the Chinese had a very different approach to the crossbow than Meideval Europe by turning this into a weapon for massed archery and making crossbowmen and bowmen the dominant composition of armies. The brief Mongol incursions into europe show that the European crossbow system also worked against the same enemy and the Song were just defeated when the Mongols were able to get new artillery with more power, precision and range.

[Michael Curl]

The Song were absolutely a militarily week dynasty. In my opinion the most. I will post some of the reading I used for my paper when I have the time to look them up.

In short, the Song suffered from trying to prevent a military take over like what happened to the Tang. For example, great generals like Yue Fe would find themselves being screwed by the government, and I think Yue Fe was forced to commit suicide.

Note: While this is mostly after the Jin invasion, they failed in many of their western campaigns even before the Liao fell.

[Randall Moffett]

Timo,

I think most of it Michael hit. The major issue was the government limiting funds and power to the military-indeed at some of the worst times possible. It might tie into angst between the scholar-gentry in generalwho often seem to be at ends with the military leadership.

They seem to have furthered the problem with large payments to the Liao, Xi Xia (Tanguts), Jin and others which gave their enemies incentive to attack and took money from other uses.

RPM

[Kurt Scholz]

[Randall Moffett]

Kurt,

I do not know. Fragmentation of power in a single state is likely one of the biggest weaknesses a entity could experience for military or many other aspects. Does not matter how great your forces, tech or otherwise, division and worse in-fighting in any dynasty will make it a weak one. From the start of the Song this infighting has them paying off the Liao as their first encounters are failures due to the fear of creating a strong enough military to deal with them would be strong enough to defeat the scholar-gentry. Part of the reason for the duration of time from the fall of the Jin Kingdom is tied to the fact that between the 1230s and 1270s the Mongols are divided in interest and increasingly separate states and they are shifting toward decline. The Southern Song put up a good fight for almost a half century but ultimately their fall still goes back to inability to allow a strong enough military to reverse their situation.

RPM

[Eric S]

A picture of the ancient Korean crossbow which would probably be close to the Japanese crossbow of the time if the Japanese used one, also a quote from Ian Bottomley on the Japanese crossbow and some pictures of an Edo period Japanese crossbow.

[Michael Curl]

I'm going to disagree with your Kurt. I never said that the Song didn't have a powerful economy, or a large military. They had a army of over a million men and greatly outnumbered all their foes, yet they still repeatedly suffered fantastic defeats at the hands of the Tanguts and the Jin. I don't see your argument that they had a capable military. Yes the Southern Song were able to hold of the Mongols, but that is largely due to the terrain which required a powerful navy, and it took time for the Mongols to build said navy. Also while Kublai was struggling to subdue the southern Song, a political alliance was formed between several generals and the prime minister. While that was in effect the Song could successfully mount a defense, but once court politics shifted against that political clic the war turned decisively against the Song.

Admittedly much of this comes from my recollection of my old paper (which I can't find) but my sources included
*War, Politics and Society in Early Modern China, 900-1795 by Peter Lorge
*"The Great ditch of China" by Peter Lorge in Battlefronts real and imagined: war, border, and identity in the Chinese middle period, by Don Wyatt

Edit: I'm in agreement with Randall.