Ancient Chinese Warfare-Far ahead of its time? When did they loose the arms race?

reserved said:

Its literally called the "An Lushan rebellion" not the "Invasion of An Lushan" for a reason. An Lushan was a subjects of Tang China as were all his soldiers. The Jianzhou Jurchens who became Manchus were also subjects of Ming when the Nurgan regional military commission was created.

The Jurchen Jin were subjects of the Khitan Liao before they revolted, the Khitan practiced prima nocta on Jurchens when they ruled them.

Click to expand...

You are literally contradicting Heavenlykhagan by saying that the Manchu weren't foreigner to the Ming.
Funny that none of you could agree on who is foreigner or not.
Also by your logic the Khitan Liao ( who were subject of the Tang at one point ) was a Chinese dynasty that invaded China following the end of the Tang dynasty ?
The Jin was a Chinese minority group who rebelled against the Khitan Liao and after winning they went on to have a civil war against the Chinese majority group from the South ( Northern/Southern Song ) in the hope of unifying all of China ?

HackneyedScribe argue that the Manchu were not foreigner as they rebelled against the Ming ( but he doesn't want to take a step further and also argue that the Khitan, Jin and Mongol are also rebel against their former Chinese master ) and his comparison of the Manchu to the Xianbei make no sense as the Xianbei were migrant who settled into China proper meanwhile the Manchu were barbarians beyond the Wall.

Kilotonasteroid said:

What confrontational and rude attitude are you even talking about ? I simply asked whether he ( HackneyedScribe ) considered the 3 Turkic dynasties as Iranian or not ?
I also asked whether he ( reserved ) considered the 5 Barbarians, Tangut Xi Xia, Jurchen, Manchu and Mongol dynasties as Chinese or foreign ?

Why are you getting triggered for nothing ? If you get triggered for nothing then quit being a mod on this forum.

Click to expand...

When I discuss about Nurhachi with people face-to-face we usually say he and his Manchus are non-Chinese but that's all I'm saying here since ethnicity arguments aren't really allowed here. However, the part of your quote I blackened out is not really necessary. It's not like he is siding them on purpose or saying anything to back them up. Just doing what a mod must do. I wouldn't want to see you get a penalty after just 23 posts .Trust me,it's not worth it. Even if you are unable to edit that part in time,you may still have a chance if you take it back.

I want to point out that the Manchus themselves did not consider themselves subject of the Ming, and while the Yuan did admit paying tribute to the Jin, they also downplayed their vassal status (not abject subjects at least, the Manchus did not seem to deny the ritual deference of the early Jurchens to the Ming as a "superior state" and that the later had the mandate of heaven). The Wu Hu on the other hand, never denied they were direct subjects of the Western Jin. Liu Yuan, the founder of Xiongnu Han state, held the title of the Northern Duwei or the Great Dudu of the Five Tribes, a position given by the Jin to the Xiongnu directly under Jin rule . Later when the Xiongnu rebelled at Zuocheng, Liu Yuan was nominated by the tribes as the Chanyu (Xiongnu ruler), the old title of the Xiongnu rulers. However, Liu Yuan quickly declared himself emperor and established the Chanyu Tai to govern the "barbarians". Liu Yuan declared that restoring the Xiongnu state was not ambitious enough, for he wanted to complete the task of Han Gaozu and hence declared his dynasty Han. Different from the Yuan where the emperor was also the Qan, the emperor under the Wu Hu rule was not the Chanyu; the later was by rule, given to the crowned prince. Liu Yuan continued the Western Jin government system over the Jin subjects, but had a parallel system to govern the Hu people. The later Wu Hu states down to the Former Qin all used such a system (even though the Xianbei, Di and Qiang people never had the title of Chanyu before).


With that said, the whole notion that people speaking the same language belongs to the same nation is just a modern ethno-nationalistic construct. While ethnicity did play a part in ancient Chinese politics (note that people speaking a similar language does not imply identifying to the same ethnicity either, much less the same nation state), Chinese notions of imperial succession has never been based rigidly on this line of argument.
How does China's dynastic or regime changes differs from those that exist in other parts of the world? In some ways, they are no different; there is no concept of a continuous nation state in China where the state belongs to a body of citizens and the geo-body of the state is sacred. However, quite different from most other parts of the world, the administrative, ritual, and legal structure of the "Chinese Empire" largely continued (albeit with some alterations) and succeeding regimes are consciously aware and promotes such a continuation.
One thing peculiar to succeeding dynasties in ancient China, at least written down, is the Confucian notion of a continuous succession of orthodox rule（zhengtong 正统)， and for most dynastic changes, an abdication ritual (shanrang 禅让). There is a notion of a continuation of legitimate rule in China (regardless of the origin of the ruler) at least since the Han dynasty, when the last Western Han emperor and Wang Mang had to perform a ritual where the Han emperor abdicated the throne and right to rule to Wang Mang and every succeeding dynasty since had to do it, however much of a ritual farce, when they took over and established a new dynasty. It is more tricky when there was no abdication ritual of shanrang; in such cases, a Confucian notion of succession of orthodoxy, involving the five phase cycle, had to be made to connote which dynasty is the legitimate successor of the previous one. Legitimacy is often based on several things; geographical rule of central plains, legitimate rites and law, and taking over the previous legitimate dynasty. Some native Chinese regimes will denounce the legitimacy of "barbarian rule" with ethno-cultural centrism. However, the idea of the continuity of Chinese rites and law, in addition to territory is often an argument for legitimacy even among the "barbarians". This can be seen when the Xiaowen Emperor of the Northern Wei argued that the Wei was a continuation of the Western Jin and not the Former Qin because the later did not establish mature regulations, rites and law. This notion of continuation of rule in China was expressed in a decree which Qianlong wrote pertaining to the shrine paying homage to rulers of the past that "the line of rulership in China (zhonghua) continues like an (unbroken) line." The Yuan might be the only exception in that Chinese rites were considered less central, or at least merely one of the many traditions no more important than others.

heavenlykaghan said:

I want to point out that the Manchus themselves did not consider themselves subject of the Ming, and while the Yuan did admit paying tribute to the Jin, they also downplayed their vassal status (not abject subjects at least, the Manchus did not seem to deny the ritual deference of the early Jurchens to the Ming as a "superior state" and that the later had the mandate of heaven). The Wu Hu on the other hand, never denied they were direct subjects of the Western Jin. Liu Yuan, the founder of Xiongnu Han state, held the title of the Northern Duwei or the Great Dudu of the Five Tribes, a position given by the Jin to the Xiongnu directly under Jin rule . Later when the Xiongnu rebelled at Zuocheng, Liu Yuan was nominated by the tribes as the Chanyu (Xiongnu ruler), the old title of the Xiongnu rulers. However, Liu Yuan quickly declared himself emperor and established the Chanyu Tai to govern the "barbarians". Liu Yuan declared that restoring the Xiongnu state was not ambitious enough, for he wanted to complete the task of Han Gaozu and hence declared his dynasty Han. Different from the Yuan where the emperor was also the Qan, the emperor under the Wu Hu rule was not the Chanyu; the later was by rule, given to the crowned prince. Liu Yuan continued the Western Jin government system over the Jin subjects, but had a parallel system to govern the Hu people. The later Wu Hu states down to the Former Qin all used such a system (even though the Xianbei, Di and Qiang people never had the title of Chanyu before).


With that said, the whole notion that people speaking the same language belongs to the same nation is just a modern ethno-nationalistic construct. While ethnicity did play a part in ancient Chinese politics (note that people speaking a similar language does not imply identifying to the same ethnicity either, much less the same nation state), Chinese notions of imperial succession has never been based rigidly on this line of argument.
How does China's dynastic or regime changes differs from those that exist in other parts of the world? In some ways, they are no different; there is no concept of a continuous nation state in China where the state belongs to a body of citizens and the geo-body of the state is sacred. However, quite different from most other parts of the world, the administrative, ritual, and legal structure of the "Chinese Empire" largely continued (albeit with some alterations) and succeeding regimes are consciously aware and promotes such a continuation.
One thing peculiar to succeeding dynasties in ancient China, at least written down, is the Confucian notion of a continuous succession of orthodox rule（zhengtong 正统)， and for most dynastic changes, an abdication ritual (shanrang 禅让). There is a notion of a continuation of legitimate rule in China (regardless of the origin of the ruler) at least since the Han dynasty, when the last Western Han emperor and Wang Mang had to perform a ritual where the Han emperor abdicated the throne and right to rule to Wang Mang and every succeeding dynasty since had to do it, however much of a ritual farce, when they took over and established a new dynasty. It is more tricky when there was no abdication ritual of shanrang; in such cases, a Confucian notion of succession of orthodoxy, involving the five phase cycle, had to be made to connote which dynasty is the legitimate successor of the previous one. Legitimacy is often based on several things; geographical rule of central plains, legitimate rites and law, and taking over the previous legitimate dynasty. Some native Chinese regimes will denounce the legitimacy of "barbarian rule" with ethno-cultural centrism...

Click to expand...

To build on this. The five phase cycle of Chinese cosmology also shows what dynasties thought about succession, although not necessarily in line with reality. For example, the Qin dynasty was thought to represent metal and because the Han overthrew the Qin with military force (even though Liu Bang was a Qin subject), the Han dynasty represented fire because fire overwhelms metal. Because Cao Wei inherited the Han throne from shanrang, the Wei was earth because fire gives birth to earth. The Western Jin inherited the throne from Wei through shanrang, so the Western Jin was metal, because earth gives birth to metal. Because the Former Zhao, or Xiongnu Han, rose from the Western Jin, it was water, because metal gives birth to water. This is interesting, because no shanrang ritual was performed when the Former Zhao destroyed the Western Jin, but it still considered itself to be the successor of the Western Jin through the phase cycle of birth 生, and not through overwhelming 克. Under the Later Zhao, Shi Le discussed the phase his dynasty should adopt and some suggested to continue as being born from the Former Zhao's Water, but Shi Le thought he destroyed the Former Zhao and it was inappropriate so he adopted the water phase as a successor of the Western Jin instead. All succeeding dynasties virtually adopted the phase cycle of birth until the Song dynasty. The Yuan did not adopt the phase cycle, and denounced the whole theory. The Ming likewise did not make this formal. However, people outside of the government often thought the Ming represented fire. Some thought that Qing represented water to overwhelm the fire of the Ming, but Qianlong also denounced the whole five phase theory.

In another word, from the Han dynasty down to the Song, the dynasties that rose in China considered themselves to be in a line of succession rather than one of replacement through force and one can even say that they viewed themselves as one continuous empire in some way (although in reality there were no shanrang ritual in the north from the Former Zhao until after the Northern Wei).

Industrial Revolution was one reason that the Qing Dynasty and Republic of China (de facto 1927-1949) lagged behind
in military strategies and tactics.

The area under the rule of "foreign invaders" for most of its history is the fertile crescent which was repeatedly conquered for the past 2,600 years by foreign invaders who were not from the native ethnicities.

Mongol rule started in Iraq in 1258 before Southern China, and lasted in Iraq (under the Mongol Jalayirids) after the Yuan dynasty was driven out by the Ming, and Timur continued conquering and ruling the region.

Damascus and Aleppo were sacked twice by the Ilkhanate, Baghad was sacked once by the Ilkhanate, then Timur sacked Baghdad, Damascus and Aleppo all over again and he also sacked Hama and the Safavids committed another sack of Baghdad in the wars between the Safavids and Ottomans over control of Iraq, both of them being foreign invaders.

No Chinese city was subjected to the same level of sacking as Baghdad was for centuries.

The Nile river valley (Egypt) was also ruled by foreign invaders for the past 2,500 years who were openly discriminatory against the natives. The last Albanian dynasty of Egypt privileged the Albanian-Circassian (so called "Turco-Circassian") elite over locals.

I'd say by about 1300s the Chinese were already lagging behind (judging from the outcome of the battles Europeans had vs the Mongols starting in the late 13th century).
Even in the 1100-1200s European heavy knights were probably the best fighting force in the world, however not numerous. They had extremely good performance vs Mongols even heavily outnumbered in defeats.
By the mid-14th century, it is the Europeans who were invading the Mongols, not the other way around. This is before the Europeans started sailing around.

Teslatron said:

I'd say by about 1300s the Chinese were already lagging behind (judging from the outcome of the battles Europeans had vs the Mongols starting in the late 13th century).
Even in the 1100-1200s European heavy knights were probably the best fighting force in the world, however not numerous. They had extremely good performance vs Mongols even heavily outnumbered in defeats.
By the mid-14th century, it is the Europeans who were invading the Mongols, not the other way around. This is before the Europeans started sailing around.

Click to expand...

Europeans weren't invading the Mongols by the mid 14th century. The Golden Horde successors Crimean Khanate and Nogai Horde continued conducting mass slave raids in Europe and even burned down Moscow centuries after the Golden Horde was gone.

Mongolia was also located right above China and borders it while it was halfway across the world from Europe and Mongols made it to Mohi in Hungary in 1241 decades before southern China. The Ottoman empire, Carthage and the Barbary pirates never invaded China for obvious reasons while they did invade or raid Europe.

Timur (though not a Borjigin) destroyed the Knights Hospitaller in Smyrna.

And military skills ≠ weapons technology. Ottomans had nearly zero military technology advancements over Europeans when it started invading Europe but it won massive territories against people it had no technological superiority to. The Mongols were the ones who drove the Ottomans into Anatolia.

China was never invaded by a steppe force coming from the European steppes but Europe was invaded by nomads originating from the Mongol steppe like Huns, Avars and Turks.

reserved said:

Europeans weren't invading the Mongols by the mid 14th century. The Golden Horde successors Crimean Khanate and Nogai Horde continued conducting mass slave raids in Europe and even burned down Moscow centuries after the Golden Horde was gone.

Mongolia was also located right above China and borders it while it was halfway across the world from Europe and Mongols made it to Mohi in Hungary in 1241 decades before southern China. The Ottoman empire, Carthage and the Barbary pirates never invaded China for obvious reasons while they did invade or raid Europe.

Timur (though not a Borjigin) destroyed the Knights Hospitaller in Smyrna.

And military skills ≠ weapons technology. Ottomans had nearly zero military technology advancements over Europeans when it started invading Europe but it won massive territories against people it had no technological superiority to. The Mongols were the ones who drove the Ottomans into Anatolia.

China was never invaded by a steppe force coming from the European steppes but Europe was invaded by nomads originating from the Mongol steppe like Huns, Avars and Turks.

Click to expand...

That is why I said mid-14th century, not middle 13th century. That is when Mongol armies couldn't really match the European armies in the field in serious battles. This is when Europeans were pushing back and capturing more land to the East. By about 1280-90s, the Mongols had to outnumber the Europeans at least 2 to 1 to even hope to achieve a victory. During the 1280s, the Mongol force that invaded Hungary was virtually annihilated.

Notice how Smyrna is not even on European mainland. That is the equivalent if a Chinese expeditionary force lost in India or something (there is no good equivalent here since China is fairly isolated geographically). This is a testament of the reversal of initiative. In 1250s the Mongols were pushing into Europe, but a hundred years later it was the Europeans capturing previously lost lands and pushing into Asia.

Teslatron said:

That is why I said mid-14th century, not middle 13th century. That is when Mongol armies couldn't really match the European armies in the field in serious battles. This is when Europeans were pushing back and capturing more land to the East. By about 1280-90s, the Mongols had to outnumber the Europeans at least 2 to 1 to even hope to achieve a victory. During the 1280s, the Mongol force that invaded Hungary was virtually annihilated.

Notice how Smyrna is not even on European mainland. That is the equivalent if a Chinese expeditionary force lost in India or something (there is no good equivalent here since China is fairly isolated geographically). This is a testament of the reversal of initiative. In 1250s the Mongols were pushing into Europe, but a hundred years later it was the Europeans capturing previously lost lands and pushing into Asia.

Click to expand...

The Mongols in Europe were the "expeditionary force" halfway across the world from their home. The Mongols led by the Jochids in the Golden Horde were a minority in a midst of Kipchak Turks and other peoples. Those Kipchak Turks themselves had migrated from the east centuries earlier.

The Crimean Khanate and Ottomans expelled the Italians completely from Crimea and Crimean Khanate and Ottomans continued raiding all the way to Vienna until 1683 just like the Jochid ancestors of the Crimean Khans did when they first invaded Europe. The Jochids of the Crimean Khanate helped the Ottomans conquer Hungary which their ancestors aspired to do. The Jochids burned Moscow in 1571.

The Jochids continually terrorised the area between Crimea and Vienna for centuries from the 13th to 17th centuries (1240-1683) while the Toluids were completely conquered in Mongolia itself. The last Jochids didn't lose their independence until the 18th and 19th centuries.

Poland itself had a force of defected Turco-Mongol Tatars from the Golden Horde, the Lipka Tatars.

reserved said:

The Mongols in Europe were the "expeditionary force" halfway across the world from their home. The Mongols led by the Jochids in the Golden Horde were a minority in a midst of Kipchak Turks and other peoples. Those Kipchak Turks themselves had migrated from the east centuries earlier.

The Crimean Khanate and Ottomans expelled the Italians completely from Crimea and Crimean Khanate and Ottomans continued raiding all the way to Vienna until 1683 just like the Jochid ancestors of the Crimean Khans did when they first invaded Europe. The Jochids of the Crimean Khanate helped the Ottomans conquer Hungary which their ancestors aspired to do. The Jochids burned Moscow in 1571.

The Jochids continually terrorised the area between Crimea and Vienna for centuries from the 13th to 17th centuries (1240-1683) while the Toluids were completely conquered in Mongolia itself. The last Jochids didn't lose their independence until the 18th and 19th centuries.

Poland itself had a force of defected Turco-Mongol Tatars from the Golden Horde, the Lipka Tatars.

Click to expand...

A lot of those were just raids on defenseless towns/catching people by surprise. Whenever they met a competent force, they were repelled. Also, arguably those were not premier European forces of the day. The Mongols and other Tatars could only get to periphery of European powers, unlike what they did in China.
The steppe was a lot easily traversable for the nomads than a lot of desert and mountainous terrain in China. The terrain in China in general is very challenging, outside of the Central plains.

Teslatron said:

A lot of those were just raids on defenseless towns/catching people by surprise. Whenever they met a competent force, they were repelled. Also, arguably those were not primier European forces of the day. The Mongols and other Tatars could only get to periphery of European powers, unlike what they did in China.

Click to expand...

Again, Mongolia is on the border of China. The Huns conquered the Pannonian plains and Germany while originating all the way from Mongolia and the Avars later followed them.

The Ottomans (who originated in Central Asia) and Carthiginians (who originated in the Levant) conquered inside Europe itself while bordering Europe but none of them invaded or raided China.

Ottomans and Crimean Khanate conquered Hungary including its cities and towns and ruled it.

China was never conquered by Scythians from the Ukrainian steppes or by Moors from North Africa while Mongols, Huns, Avars and Turks made it all the way from the Mongolian steppe to Europe.

This reminds me of people bragging about Talas, a battle which took place outside of China, when the Umayyad caliphate was occupying Spain and the same people conquered Sicily and also the Emirate of Bari.

reserved said:

Again, Mongolia is on the border of China. The Huns conquered the Pannonian plains and Germany while originating all the way from Mongolia and the Avars later followed them.

Click to expand...

You are talking about things ~1000 years before the events I am talking about. Stop it.
Completely different peoples, levels of technological development, etc.
We are talking middle 14th century European armies.
Hungarians are just one, relatively middle of the pack, European power at the time. Thats the equivalent of Shuidong chiefdom in China or something.

Teslatron said:

That is why I said mid-14th century, not middle 13th century. That is when Mongol armies couldn't really match the European armies in the field in serious battles. This is when Europeans were pushing back and capturing more land to the East. By about 1280-90s, the Mongols had to outnumber the Europeans at least 2 to 1 to even hope to achieve a victory. During the 1280s, the Mongol force that invaded Hungary was virtually annihilated.

Notice how Smyrna is not even on European mainland. That is the equivalent if a Chinese expeditionary force lost in India or something (there is no good equivalent here since China is fairly isolated geographically). This is a testament of the reversal of initiative. In 1250s the Mongols were pushing into Europe, but a hundred years later it was the Europeans capturing previously lost lands and pushing into Asia.

Click to expand...

You speak as if the Mongol armies in the Golden Horde in the late 13th century is the same force as the Mongol force that invaded Europe in the 1240s. Decades have passed and plenty of Russian and other units have been enrolled into the Golden Horde. Furthermore, Mongol forces in the west are also not as heavily armored as those in the east (Peng Daya noted that about 30% of the Mongol forces in the east itself is composed of cataphract lancers). Let's not forget that a fraction of the Oirat forces from Mongolia in the 1450s was able to completely annihilate the Uzbek Khanate that rose and controlled the eastern part of the Golden Horde. As for European armies pushing east （not even on steppe land), why do you think thats something special? Even Burma and Korea were pushing out the Mongols from their home territory in the 14th century. The Ming was pushing north and capturing lands from the Mongols throughout the late 14th and early 15th century, even razing Qaraqorum to the ground and capturing the Kherlen river and the land north of it, the birthland of Chinggis Qan.

Teslatron said:

I'd say by about 1300s the Chinese were already lagging behind (judging from the outcome of the battles Europeans had vs the Mongols starting in the late 13th century).
Even in the 1100-1200s European heavy knights were probably the best fighting force in the world, however not numerous. They had extremely good performance vs Mongols even heavily outnumbered in defeats.
By the mid-14th century, it is the Europeans who were invading the Mongols, not the other way around. This is before the Europeans started sailing around.

Click to expand...

Both the Song and Jin also put up good fighting, even outright routing the Mongols several times with inferior numbers, and that's against the Mongols at the height of their power under perhaps the best general in Subutai: Did the Chinese win any battle against the Mongol Empire?


Chinese cavalry are much heavier than European cavalry in the 1100s-1200s. The former had long thigh guards and full horse armor, whereas Europe did not have similar levels of protection until the 14th and 15th centuries： Mongols vs medieval knights

1) East Asian cataphracts wore heavy armor coats which extended to the foot, whereas the European knights only had light vest which extend down to the knee. The heaviest armors worn by Europeans and Middle Easterners are called "half armor" in Chinese, and are considered "light", not heavy cavalry.

2) Westerns armors typically only had chain mail, which is much thinner than the full scale and half ...... plate armors worn by cavalrymen in Song and Jin paintings or archaeology (which have scales over 1.5mm in thickness).


3) Except for the Byzantine cavalry of the 10th century, horses in western cavalries are not armored (the earliest evidence of horse armor in Western Europe seem to date to the 14th century), whereas a good half, if not most Sino-Inner Asian horses at this time were in full horse armor, as shown in virtually all Song paintings and figurines of the era.

Even the heaviest knights in the 13th century are only "light cavalry" by Chinese standards. The "light cavalry" that Tang Taizong was known for even in the 7th century are in fact heavier than the heavy cavalries in the west from the 12th century, as the rider had thick armor but no horse armor.

Below is a comparison:

In regard to the original question, I would put a vague date where the East is ahead (this is obviously generic and differs for individual armies and generals, especially with morale and discipline) overall to around the mid-15th century. East Asian cavalries were much heavier and better disciplined than their western counterparts for most of the Middle Ages. Chinese crossbows are also much more powerful than those used in the west. Even in firearms, the early Ming led the Europeans until about the mid-15th century.

To quote Tonio Andrade (The Gunpowder Age: China, Military Innovation, and the Rise of the West in World History):
During the intense wars of the Yuan-Ming transition, from 1350 to 1450, there were a lot of challenges and a lot of responses, and China’s infantry forces became increasingly focused on firearms, which were used far more frequently and effectively than in Europe at the same time. In the early Ming period, policies prescribed that 10 percent of soldiers should be armed with guns; by the last third of the 1400s, the figure rose to 30 percent, a rate not seen in Europe until the mid-1500s. Historians have labeled the Ming dynasty the world’s first “Gunpowder Empire.”


"By 1380, Ming policies stipulated that gunners should comprise 10 percent of soldiers. Since the total number of soldiers at that period was likely between 1. 3 and 1. 8 million, the number of gun specialists must have been on the order of 130,000 to 180,000, meaning that there were more gunners in early Ming China than knights, soldiers, and pages in France, England, and Burgundy combined. Under Hongwu’s successors, the percentage of gunners climbed higher. By the 1430s and 1440s, it reached 20 percent. By 1466, it had risen to 30 percent. 5 In Europe, on the other hand, it wasn’t until the mid-1500s that gunners made up 30 percent of infantry units"
Andrade Tonio,
The Gunpowder Age, Op. cit. , p 56.


After 1450, Europeans started to utilize arquebuses and swivel cannons, which started to become more and more efficient than the small hand canons of the Ming, although the superiority is far from clear until the 17th century. China also introduced these weapons in the 16th century and were using them alongside native firearms like the three eyed gun and fire arrows. European cannons also fired heavier shots than Chinese ones by the late 15th century, and was superior in siege; however, the Ming and Qing adopted them by the early 17th century and were soon making cannons that were as heavy, and for a brief time, even better made with an iron core. European armies started using flintlocks and bayonets with an emphasis on line infantry formation by the late 17th century, but the Qing used Zamboraks similar to those used in the Middle East for mobile warfare. European star forts were better designed for small scale siege as they only had three sides to assault and can be better defended, but Chinese city walls remained much thicker and bigger than most European city walls. Furthermore, China remained well ahead of European armies in logistics until the 19th century as demonstrated by Kenneth Swope and Peter Perdue. I would really say the Qing fell behind overall only during Napoleonic times, or perhaps slightly before that.

Mrbsct said:

What did the Mongols possess the Chinese did not? Why couldn't they do the massive cavalry blitz that Han did years earlier? Jin armies I believe were really poorly moraled seeing how 100,000 Mongols beat a 400,000 Jin army. 60,000 Mongols beat 200,000 Jin at Badger Mouth I believe.

Finally when did the Chinese arms race and reputation as a advanced nation end? When the Europeans set sail?

Click to expand...

I said this already on other threads. Han and Khitan defected to the Mongols and deliberately undermined the Jurchens in the Jin, handing over cities, bringing their armies over and Han brought siege weapons over to the Mongols.

And I said on this thread.

more advanced military technology ≠ military victories

Ottomans were less advanced in technology than European nations they defeated and conquered, I don't know any Ottoman weapons invention.

Ming dynasty was less advanced that Portuguese and Dutch fleets the Ming defeated.

The Han banners at Albazin were less advanced than the Russian Cossacks who the Han banners defeated.

reserved said:

I said this already on other threads. Han and Khitan defected to the Mongols and deliberately undermined the Jurchens in the Jin, handing over cities, bringing their armies over and Han brought siege weapons over to the Mongols.

And I said on this thread.

more advanced military technology ≠ military victories

Ottomans were less advanced in technology than European nations they defeated and conquered, I don't know any Ottoman weapons invention.

Ming dynasty was less advanced that Portuguese and Dutch fleets the Ming defeated.

The Han banners at Albazin were less advanced than the Russian Cossacks who the Han banners defeated.

Click to expand...

Late Ming suffered from massive corruption and an underfunded, undersupplied, undertrained, and underdisciplined military.
Both firearms and cold weapons were of extremely poor quality.
In spite of some capable leadership, the average late Ming leadership was quite poor.

heavenlykaghan said:

You speak as if the Mongol armies in the Golden Horde in the late 13th century is the same force as the Mongol force that invaded Europe in the 1240s. Decades have passed and plenty of Russian and other units have been enrolled into the Golden Horde. Furthermore, Mongol forces in the west are also not as heavily armored as those in the east (Peng Daya noted that about 30% of the Mongol forces in the east itself is composed of cataphract lancers). Let's not forget that a fraction of the Oirat forces from Mongolia in the 1450s was able to completely annihilate the Uzbek Khanate that rose and controlled the eastern part of the Golden Horde. As for European armies pushing east （not even on steppe land), why do you think thats something special? Even Burma and Korea were pushing out the Mongols from their home territory in the 14th century. The Ming was pushing north and capturing lands from the Mongols throughout the late 14th and early 15th century, even razing Qaraqorum to the ground and capturing the Kherlen river and the land north of it, the birthland of Chinggis Qan.





Both the Song and Jin also put up good fighting, even outright routing the Mongols several times with inferior numbers, and that's against the Mongols at the height of their power under perhaps the best general in Subutai: Did the Chinese win any battle against the Mongol Empire?


Chinese cavalry are much heavier than European cavalry in the 1100s-1200s. The former had long thigh guards and full horse armor, whereas Europe did not have similar levels of protection until the 14th and 15th centuries： Mongols vs medieval knights

1) East Asian cataphracts wore heavy armor coats which extended to the foot, whereas the European knights only had light vest which extend down to the knee. The heaviest armors worn by Europeans and Middle Easterners are called "half armor" in Chinese, and are considered "light", not heavy cavalry.

2) Westerns armors typically only had chain mail, which is much thinner than the full scale and half ...... plate armors worn by cavalrymen in Song and Jin paintings or archaeology (which have scales over 1.5mm in thickness).


3) Except for the Byzantine cavalry of the 10th century, horses in western cavalries are not armored (the earliest evidence of horse armor in Western Europe seem to date to the 14th century), whereas a good half, if not most Sino-Inner Asian horses at this time were in full horse armor, as shown in virtually all Song paintings and figurines of the era.

Even the heaviest knights in the 13th century are only "light cavalry" by Chinese standards. The "light cavalry" that Tang Taizong was known for even in the 7th century are in fact heavier than the heavy cavalries in the west from the 12th century, as the rider had thick armor but no horse armor.

Below is a comparison:
View attachment 65231
View attachment 65233

View attachment 65232

Click to expand...

Do you know which source records the thickness of lamellar piece? 1.5cm?