| Author |
Message |
|
Timo Nieminen
|
 Posted: Sat 06 Sep, 2014 4:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| X Zhang wrote: | in Ming dynasty(1368~1644), the Chinese bow can be viewed as a variant of Crimean Tatar bow, light arrow, high muzzle velocity, flat trajectory, long range
[...]
And in Qing Dynasty(1644~1912), the Chinese bow has become a radically different kind of weapon, heavy arrow, low muzzle velocity....but high momentum and awesome stopping power..... |
Similar in appearance (just bigger), and very different in performance. Peter Dekker has a nice comparative photo: http://www.manchuarchery.org/bows
I don't know when the Manchu/Qing bow became popular in Manchuria. I've seen it claimed that it was an evolution of the generic Central Asian bow (as used in pre-Qing China, India, Turkey, Korea, pre-Qing Mongolia, etc), with the goal of hunting large dangerous game, such as bears and tigers. In principle, it will do well against large game at close range, since momentum gives penetration into soft tissue.
It's also much more forgiving in manufacture and the field compared with finely-tuned lightweight bows. The cost is that you need heavy arrows to get that energy in the arrow, and that means you sacrifice arrow velocity and therefore range. Given that the pre-conquest Qing army was already heavily committed to gunpowder weapons, and long-range performance was provided by weapons such as jingals (heavy two-man muskets or light two-man cannon), perhaps the gunpowder weapons and the heavy-weight large Manchu bow evolved together.
After the Qing conquest, the Qing basically implemented a lot of the military reforms the Ming had planned, and the infantry became largely pike and musket, with the bow retained as a cavalry weapon. Then the use of the Qing/Manchu bow spread to Mongolia, and further west (through to the Crimea).
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
   |
 |
|
X Zhang
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Sep, 2014 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | | X Zhang wrote: | in Ming dynasty(1368~1644), the Chinese bow can be viewed as a variant of Crimean Tatar bow, light arrow, high muzzle velocity, flat trajectory, long range
[...]
And in Qing Dynasty(1644~1912), the Chinese bow has become a radically different kind of weapon, heavy arrow, low muzzle velocity....but high momentum and awesome stopping power..... |
Similar in appearance (just bigger), and very different in performance. Peter Dekker has a nice comparative photo: http://www.manchuarchery.org/bows
I don't know when the Manchu/Qing bow became popular in Manchuria. I've seen it claimed that it was an evolution of the generic Central Asian bow (as used in pre-Qing China, India, Turkey, Korea, pre-Qing Mongolia, etc), with the goal of hunting large dangerous game, such as bears and tigers. In principle, it will do well against large game at close range, since momentum gives penetration into soft tissue.
It's also much more forgiving in manufacture and the field compared with finely-tuned lightweight bows. The cost is that you need heavy arrows to get that energy in the arrow, and that means you sacrifice arrow velocity and therefore range. Given that the pre-conquest Qing army was already heavily committed to gunpowder weapons, and long-range performance was provided by weapons such as jingals (heavy two-man muskets or light two-man cannon), perhaps the gunpowder weapons and the heavy-weight large Manchu bow evolved together.
After the Qing conquest, the Qing basically implemented a lot of the military reforms the Ming had planned, and the infantry became largely pike and musket, with the bow retained as a cavalry weapon. Then the use of the Qing/Manchu bow spread to Mongolia, and further west (through to the Crimea). |
More probably：
1, Manchu lacked the technologies and material to make a high-muzzle lightweight bow in Northeast Asia when they were rising.
2, Manchu did not have the tradition of light cavalry . And Manchu heavy cavalry need to face to the Ming dynasty regular in heavy armour in the begining. Heavy arrow close-bank shooting was a better choice. But, the enemy of Ming's cavalry was Mongolian nomads during a large part of the time， long-range shooting is more important for them.
PS：
Qing bow is a pretty extreme weapon. Chinese traditional-bow lovers usually call it "spear thrower".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Sep, 2014 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| X Zhang wrote: | More probably：
1, Manchu lacked the technologies and material to make a high-muzzle lightweight bow in Northeast Asia when they were rising. |
Unlikely, since the Manchu bow was made with the same materials and technologies (and needed more of those materials, per bow, since it's bigger).
| X Zhang wrote: |
2, Manchu did not have the tradition of light cavalry . And Manchu heavy cavalry need to face to the Ming dynasty regular in heavy armour in the begining. Heavy arrow close-bank shooting was a better choice. But, the enemy of Ming's cavalry was Mongolian nomads during a large part of the time， long-range shooting is more important for them. |
Possible. The "hunting large game" is the common explanation, but I haven't seen concrete support for it.
Heavy cavalry can use lightweight fast bows successfully, but then they don't get the same anti-armour performance. The Japanese choice of high-energy short-range archery with heavy arrows was the same as the Manchu choice (different bow design, and for fighting each other, rather than fighting the Ming).
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Tue 09 Sep, 2014 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
In at least some periods the Manchus/Qing certainly fielded large numbers of light cavalry with big-ear bows. According to Peter Dekker, the standard Qing kit for privates and corporals was simply bow, arrows, and saber - no armor or lance. Also, it's my understanding - again from Dekker - that the Manchu big-ear bow is fairly finicky animal, and that the ears have to kept properly aligned. I'm not sure it was less trouble to manufacture or maintain than composite styles with shorter ears.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic