Infra_Man99
Banned Idiot
Some people think cherry picking is a good way to collect information. I say cherry picking is childish and dishonest, but comprehensive information from respectable historians, archaeologists, and writers is much more accurate. Reading and learning is a favorite hobby of mine.
-------------------------------------------------
...............MEDIEVAL MONGOLS...............
-------------------------------------------------
"The Mongols" by Stephen Turnbull, an international historian
Pg. 18: "The Mongol's main weapon was the compound bow. . . . pull of 166 lb . . . considerably more than on English bow. . . . "
Pg. 22: "It was believed by an earlier generation of historians that many Mongol victories were due to sheer weight or numbers. Careful examination of evidence, however, shows that in the majority of cases the opposite was true, and that the Mongols were often greatly outnumbered. . . .
Pg. 27: "Another ruse used by the Mongols was that of stuffed dummies on spare horses to indicate a larger force."
Pg. 31: Prince Batu with Subadei leads the Mongols to battle Russia and Eastern Europe.
Pg. 34: "The Mongols light cavalry poured showers of arrows into ranks, and then withdrew to be pursued by Teutonic Knights, and the third, Polish, contingent. The rest of the battle followed the usual pattern. . . ." [Mounted hit-and-run combined with bows and arrows.]
-------------------------------------------------
I checked out multiple books and articles on the Mongol army. The earlier sources said the Mongols greatly outnumbered the Russians and East Europeans. More recent sources claimed the Mongols were outnumbered, sometimes by a factor of 2, and a few historians recently claimed that current historical information on Mongol numbers compared to Russian and East European size is unreliable/inconsistent, thus no one really knows the exact numbers, and the numbers vary greatly. I leave it to the intelligent reader to decide.
Compare the Mongol bow to the well-documented, long respected ancient Chinese bows and crossbows. Notice how ancient Chinese bow had similar draw weights, and crossbows claimed to be a lot more powerful. The Mongol bow was more powerful and compact than the much vaunted English longbow.
-------------------------------------------------
...............Ancient Chinese (Anything up to and including Han Dynasty...............
-------------------------------------------------
"China's Buried Kingdoms" by Time-Life Books
Pg. 58: "To this lethal arsenal was added the crossbow (page 52) which became the standard weapon in the fifth century BC. . . . ased on surviving parts, the Eastern Zhou crossbow comprised a wooden stock with a grip, a bow of laminated bamboo and a trigger mechanism of bronze. . . . [T]he crossbow was placed under tension with the foot. . . . it soon became recognized as the deadliest weapon in the whole Zhou arsenal."
Pg. 93: "From the modelling of the [Terracotta] bowmen's hands and the wealthy of bronze crossbow triggers and arrow tips . . . the scientists determined that each one [Terracotta crossbowmen] held a crossbow--a 4.5 feet long wooden bow. . . . The weapon had a range of over a half a mile. . . . generated 800 lb of tension [800 lb? I don't think so. I think something got lost in translation here.]. . . . [A]rrows fired from similar crossbows easily pierced the shields used by Roman soldiers at . . . Sogdiana in Central Asia, in 36 BC.
Pg. 95 to 98: Pit 1 of Terracotta army. Talks of foot and mounted archers and crossbowmen being found in abundant numbers. The shooters surrounded the melee soldiers on ALL sides.
Pit 2 consisted of chariots, wagons, and riders. Some chariots, wagons, and riders used melee weapons, some used bows OR crossbows. Pit 3 held the command team with its mounted runners.
All 3 pits have at least 10,000 bolts for the crossbows: bronze-based design at 7 inches long.
"China's Imperial Past" by Charles Hucker
Pg. 28: Shang Dyanasty (1760 BC to 1122 BC). "Battles seem to have been men-to-men melees, joined with spear and bow. . . . The Shang bow . . . was a compound sort. . . . Such bows are much more powerful than the ones traditionally used in the West . . . [The Shang bow had a] 160 lb pull. . . ."
Book claimed Shang's bronze technology unmatched by any other society of its time.
Pg. 65 to 66: 500 BC, China began mass producing iron tools and weapons. There early iron tools and weapons (cast iron) were still inferior to the Shang's finest Bronze tools and weapons.
"Eastern Zhou and Qin Civilization" (book)
Pg. 315 to 329: Some Chinese states already used cast iron, wrought iron, carbonized iron, and steel as early as 403 BC to 221 BC. This production was already sophisticated and mass produced, so the development of these iron products probably started in 722 BC.
"The First Emperor of China" by Guisso, Pagani, Miller, National Film Board of Canada, The Candadian Museum of Civilization, and the Xi'an Film Studio.
Pg. 66 to 69: Claimed Qin bronze swords were so advanced that they had a hardness comparable to tempered carbon steel. Arrowheads used a bronze-based design that included lead to increase its mass. qin army coated metal weapons with chrome to protect against corrosion. This technology was found by Europeans in the 1930s. Qin army probably used more crossbows than its competing nations. Qin used bronze although some of its competing nations used wrought iron of supposedly superior design.
Qin armor: All soldiers wore shoes with socks, pants, and a thick tunic. Most shooters only wore this outfit. The melee soldiers added lamellate leather that usually only covered the head and torso. Bronze helmets and lamellate armor completely covering the shoulders and the entire arm was used for specialized melee soldiers. Only a few soldiers used bronze armor on their torso.
Ancient Chinese documents from one military advisor recommended a formation of long-range crossbow in front, halberds behind, bows on the two sides, halberds and shields in the inner, and skilled soldiers and strong bows on the flanks.
"The Seven Military Classics of Ancient China" by Ralph D. Sawyer
Multiple pages showed that by 500 BC and onward, Chinese militaries greatly valued and commonly used lots of bows and crossbows.
Ancient Chinese philosophers, writers, nobility, and military leaders commonly praised and recommended the usage of bows and crossbows.
"Siege Engines and Late Zhou Military Technology" (book)
Pg. 432 to 443: Some Chinese states field armies with winch-loaded, large crossbows mounted on chariots or wagons. Some of these powerful crossbows fired a single bolt, but others fired multiple bolts at the same time.
"Xiaodun Yindai De Chengtao Bingqi" by Shi Zhong Ru (Chinese book written in Chinese on ancient Chinese weapons)
Talks about ancient Chinese (500 BC to early Han) ranged weapons. Talks about recurved composite bows and reflex composite bows with draw weights of up to 160 lb. It used various arrowheads and bolts for hunting, shooting lightly armored soldiers, and shooting heavily armored soldiers (i.e., layered cloth, lamellate leather, metal chains, and lamellate metals).
NOTE: The best sources of ancient China is in Chinese in China. If you can travel there and check out museums, books, and educational shows, you'll be amazed, especially when you compare this stuff to contemporary stuff found elsewhere in the world. According to Chinese historians and archaelogists, the most powerful Chinese states (especially Qin state) depended on powerful bows, crossbows, and siege weapons with a variety of projectiles to defeat their enemies, then came very long lances, spears, and dagger axes, then came medium lances, spears, and dagger axes, and then came a variety of swords, axes, maces, and more (i.e., a 3 to 4 feet long handle with a 2 to 3 feet long broad blade). States using heavily armored, melee soldiers, whether mounted or not, were devastated by states using powerful ranged weapons, both on foot, on chariots, on wagons, and on horse.
Some Chinese artifacts included smooth rings for shooting, or rings archers and crossbowmen wore on their fingers to allow them to repeatedly pull hard on their bows and crossbows, and then the smooth rings permited a fast release.
By 300 BC, Chinese states already had technology to produce good iron that was near steel quality to steel quality, all of which were superior than bronze for farming tools and military weapons. Chinese bronze was also of superb quality than that found in other parts of the world.
This website claims China had superior metallurgy in bronze and iron than Europe starting in 400 BC, if not earlier, and this advantage lasted for a long, long time. Read the whole webpage. It basically repeats what was found by Chinese historians and archaeologists.
-------------------------------------------------
...............Ancient Europeans...............
-------------------------------------------------
"The Campaign of Alexander" by Arrian, translated by Selincount
Arrin wrote this historical record 400 years after Alexander's death, and he got his information from previous historians. He compiled all their information together for the first time.
Alexander normally used melee and ranged soldiers (slings, javelins, and bows--no crossbows). No draw weight information. The melee was the primary weapon that was always supported by slings and javelins, and usually bows. The melee soldiers surrounded the ranged soldiers.
This Alexander army famously devastated Alexander's enemies who commonly used melee weapons and infrequently used bows; none used crossbows. Alexander did face a few enemies with lots of bows, and he defeated them, but no details of the quality of these enemy bows.
"Roman Legionary: 58 BC to AD 69" and "Imperial Roman Legionary" AD 161 to 284" by Ross Cowan, a young, but certified historian by at least two prominent universities.
According to this young guy, Roman armies led with melee weapons. Melee soldiers were commonly supported by slings and javelins. Sometimes they got bows. No draw weight mentioned. From AD 161 to 282, Roman armies still primarily depended on melee soldiers; slings became rare; and javelins were still used on a regular, supporting basis. Over time, composite bows became as common as javelins. No crossbows and no mention of draw weights for bows.
"Rome and Her Empire" by Barry Cunliffe
"Decline and Fall of Roman Empire" by Edward Gibbons
"The Romans" by Anthony Kamm
"A History of Rome to AD 565" by Sinnigen
All these books describe battles in which Rome fought with mostly melee: lances first, then spears, then short swords. Romans used ranged weapons as lesser in quantity support weapons that commonly included slings and javelins. Archers were less common than slings and javelins. By around 300 AD, Romans began to signicantly increase the number of archers and decrease the number of melee soldiers, slings, and javelins, but archers still played a supporting role to melee. No mention of crossbows until around 300 AD. No mention of bows' and crossbows' draw weights.
"Rome and Her Enemies" by Editor Jane Penrose
Roman army primarily used melee weapons that were commonly supported by slings and javelins, and less commonly supported by composite bows. Rome sometimes used her allies and mercenaries archers armed with composite bows. No draw weight listed. No crossbow mentioned.
After 300 AD, Rome began to frequently support their melee soldiers with bows.
No crossbow. No draw weight information.
"Soldiers and Ghosts" by Lendon, JE
Mutiple opinions on bows in Greece and Rome. Some thought bows were for cowards and morally inferior soldiers, while others loved bows and excelled in them. Most soldiers favored manly, honorable melee weapons, but they were backed by slings, javelins, and sometimes archers from allies and mercenaries from other societies. No information on draw weights of bows.
Greek slings and javelins were inferior than Middle Eastern "barbarian" bows. Let me add that barbarians are relative. No such thing as Conan the Barbarian in ancient societies. Ancient societies tended to call enemies and foreign nations "barbarians."
Book does not talk much about Alexander the Great, which is a big mistake by this author.
No mention of crossbow, but I know Rome did have standard and torsion crossbows from other historians with archaeological evidence. The crossbows were very rare and seemed less effective than good bows. On the other hand, ancient Chinese nations, historians, and archaeologists have found a wealth of artificts clearing showing Chinese nations greatly valued bows and crossbows as early as 500 BC.
"The Trojan War" by Strauss, Barry
Slings, javelins, and composite bows commonly supported the primary melee soldiers. No crossbows. No information on bows' draw weights.
"A War Like No Other" by Victor Davis Hanson
Covers Peloponnesian War (480 BC to 431 BC): Athenians vs. Spartans.
Both sides focused on melee with the help of slings and javelins, sometimes bows. No draw weight information.
-------------------------------------------------
...............MEDIEVAL MONGOLS...............
-------------------------------------------------
"The Mongols" by Stephen Turnbull, an international historian
Pg. 18: "The Mongol's main weapon was the compound bow. . . . pull of 166 lb . . . considerably more than on English bow. . . . "
Pg. 22: "It was believed by an earlier generation of historians that many Mongol victories were due to sheer weight or numbers. Careful examination of evidence, however, shows that in the majority of cases the opposite was true, and that the Mongols were often greatly outnumbered. . . .
Pg. 27: "Another ruse used by the Mongols was that of stuffed dummies on spare horses to indicate a larger force."
Pg. 31: Prince Batu with Subadei leads the Mongols to battle Russia and Eastern Europe.
Pg. 34: "The Mongols light cavalry poured showers of arrows into ranks, and then withdrew to be pursued by Teutonic Knights, and the third, Polish, contingent. The rest of the battle followed the usual pattern. . . ." [Mounted hit-and-run combined with bows and arrows.]
-------------------------------------------------
I checked out multiple books and articles on the Mongol army. The earlier sources said the Mongols greatly outnumbered the Russians and East Europeans. More recent sources claimed the Mongols were outnumbered, sometimes by a factor of 2, and a few historians recently claimed that current historical information on Mongol numbers compared to Russian and East European size is unreliable/inconsistent, thus no one really knows the exact numbers, and the numbers vary greatly. I leave it to the intelligent reader to decide.
Compare the Mongol bow to the well-documented, long respected ancient Chinese bows and crossbows. Notice how ancient Chinese bow had similar draw weights, and crossbows claimed to be a lot more powerful. The Mongol bow was more powerful and compact than the much vaunted English longbow.
-------------------------------------------------
...............Ancient Chinese (Anything up to and including Han Dynasty...............
-------------------------------------------------
"China's Buried Kingdoms" by Time-Life Books
Pg. 58: "To this lethal arsenal was added the crossbow (page 52) which became the standard weapon in the fifth century BC. . . . ased on surviving parts, the Eastern Zhou crossbow comprised a wooden stock with a grip, a bow of laminated bamboo and a trigger mechanism of bronze. . . . [T]he crossbow was placed under tension with the foot. . . . it soon became recognized as the deadliest weapon in the whole Zhou arsenal."
Pg. 93: "From the modelling of the [Terracotta] bowmen's hands and the wealthy of bronze crossbow triggers and arrow tips . . . the scientists determined that each one [Terracotta crossbowmen] held a crossbow--a 4.5 feet long wooden bow. . . . The weapon had a range of over a half a mile. . . . generated 800 lb of tension [800 lb? I don't think so. I think something got lost in translation here.]. . . . [A]rrows fired from similar crossbows easily pierced the shields used by Roman soldiers at . . . Sogdiana in Central Asia, in 36 BC.
Pg. 95 to 98: Pit 1 of Terracotta army. Talks of foot and mounted archers and crossbowmen being found in abundant numbers. The shooters surrounded the melee soldiers on ALL sides.
Pit 2 consisted of chariots, wagons, and riders. Some chariots, wagons, and riders used melee weapons, some used bows OR crossbows. Pit 3 held the command team with its mounted runners.
All 3 pits have at least 10,000 bolts for the crossbows: bronze-based design at 7 inches long.
"China's Imperial Past" by Charles Hucker
Pg. 28: Shang Dyanasty (1760 BC to 1122 BC). "Battles seem to have been men-to-men melees, joined with spear and bow. . . . The Shang bow . . . was a compound sort. . . . Such bows are much more powerful than the ones traditionally used in the West . . . [The Shang bow had a] 160 lb pull. . . ."
Book claimed Shang's bronze technology unmatched by any other society of its time.
Pg. 65 to 66: 500 BC, China began mass producing iron tools and weapons. There early iron tools and weapons (cast iron) were still inferior to the Shang's finest Bronze tools and weapons.
"Eastern Zhou and Qin Civilization" (book)
Pg. 315 to 329: Some Chinese states already used cast iron, wrought iron, carbonized iron, and steel as early as 403 BC to 221 BC. This production was already sophisticated and mass produced, so the development of these iron products probably started in 722 BC.
"The First Emperor of China" by Guisso, Pagani, Miller, National Film Board of Canada, The Candadian Museum of Civilization, and the Xi'an Film Studio.
Pg. 66 to 69: Claimed Qin bronze swords were so advanced that they had a hardness comparable to tempered carbon steel. Arrowheads used a bronze-based design that included lead to increase its mass. qin army coated metal weapons with chrome to protect against corrosion. This technology was found by Europeans in the 1930s. Qin army probably used more crossbows than its competing nations. Qin used bronze although some of its competing nations used wrought iron of supposedly superior design.
Qin armor: All soldiers wore shoes with socks, pants, and a thick tunic. Most shooters only wore this outfit. The melee soldiers added lamellate leather that usually only covered the head and torso. Bronze helmets and lamellate armor completely covering the shoulders and the entire arm was used for specialized melee soldiers. Only a few soldiers used bronze armor on their torso.
Ancient Chinese documents from one military advisor recommended a formation of long-range crossbow in front, halberds behind, bows on the two sides, halberds and shields in the inner, and skilled soldiers and strong bows on the flanks.
"The Seven Military Classics of Ancient China" by Ralph D. Sawyer
Multiple pages showed that by 500 BC and onward, Chinese militaries greatly valued and commonly used lots of bows and crossbows.
Ancient Chinese philosophers, writers, nobility, and military leaders commonly praised and recommended the usage of bows and crossbows.
"Siege Engines and Late Zhou Military Technology" (book)
Pg. 432 to 443: Some Chinese states field armies with winch-loaded, large crossbows mounted on chariots or wagons. Some of these powerful crossbows fired a single bolt, but others fired multiple bolts at the same time.
"Xiaodun Yindai De Chengtao Bingqi" by Shi Zhong Ru (Chinese book written in Chinese on ancient Chinese weapons)
Talks about ancient Chinese (500 BC to early Han) ranged weapons. Talks about recurved composite bows and reflex composite bows with draw weights of up to 160 lb. It used various arrowheads and bolts for hunting, shooting lightly armored soldiers, and shooting heavily armored soldiers (i.e., layered cloth, lamellate leather, metal chains, and lamellate metals).
NOTE: The best sources of ancient China is in Chinese in China. If you can travel there and check out museums, books, and educational shows, you'll be amazed, especially when you compare this stuff to contemporary stuff found elsewhere in the world. According to Chinese historians and archaelogists, the most powerful Chinese states (especially Qin state) depended on powerful bows, crossbows, and siege weapons with a variety of projectiles to defeat their enemies, then came very long lances, spears, and dagger axes, then came medium lances, spears, and dagger axes, and then came a variety of swords, axes, maces, and more (i.e., a 3 to 4 feet long handle with a 2 to 3 feet long broad blade). States using heavily armored, melee soldiers, whether mounted or not, were devastated by states using powerful ranged weapons, both on foot, on chariots, on wagons, and on horse.
Some Chinese artifacts included smooth rings for shooting, or rings archers and crossbowmen wore on their fingers to allow them to repeatedly pull hard on their bows and crossbows, and then the smooth rings permited a fast release.
By 300 BC, Chinese states already had technology to produce good iron that was near steel quality to steel quality, all of which were superior than bronze for farming tools and military weapons. Chinese bronze was also of superb quality than that found in other parts of the world.
This website claims China had superior metallurgy in bronze and iron than Europe starting in 400 BC, if not earlier, and this advantage lasted for a long, long time. Read the whole webpage. It basically repeats what was found by Chinese historians and archaeologists.
-------------------------------------------------
...............Ancient Europeans...............
-------------------------------------------------
"The Campaign of Alexander" by Arrian, translated by Selincount
Arrin wrote this historical record 400 years after Alexander's death, and he got his information from previous historians. He compiled all their information together for the first time.
Alexander normally used melee and ranged soldiers (slings, javelins, and bows--no crossbows). No draw weight information. The melee was the primary weapon that was always supported by slings and javelins, and usually bows. The melee soldiers surrounded the ranged soldiers.
This Alexander army famously devastated Alexander's enemies who commonly used melee weapons and infrequently used bows; none used crossbows. Alexander did face a few enemies with lots of bows, and he defeated them, but no details of the quality of these enemy bows.
"Roman Legionary: 58 BC to AD 69" and "Imperial Roman Legionary" AD 161 to 284" by Ross Cowan, a young, but certified historian by at least two prominent universities.
According to this young guy, Roman armies led with melee weapons. Melee soldiers were commonly supported by slings and javelins. Sometimes they got bows. No draw weight mentioned. From AD 161 to 282, Roman armies still primarily depended on melee soldiers; slings became rare; and javelins were still used on a regular, supporting basis. Over time, composite bows became as common as javelins. No crossbows and no mention of draw weights for bows.
"Rome and Her Empire" by Barry Cunliffe
"Decline and Fall of Roman Empire" by Edward Gibbons
"The Romans" by Anthony Kamm
"A History of Rome to AD 565" by Sinnigen
All these books describe battles in which Rome fought with mostly melee: lances first, then spears, then short swords. Romans used ranged weapons as lesser in quantity support weapons that commonly included slings and javelins. Archers were less common than slings and javelins. By around 300 AD, Romans began to signicantly increase the number of archers and decrease the number of melee soldiers, slings, and javelins, but archers still played a supporting role to melee. No mention of crossbows until around 300 AD. No mention of bows' and crossbows' draw weights.
"Rome and Her Enemies" by Editor Jane Penrose
Roman army primarily used melee weapons that were commonly supported by slings and javelins, and less commonly supported by composite bows. Rome sometimes used her allies and mercenaries archers armed with composite bows. No draw weight listed. No crossbow mentioned.
After 300 AD, Rome began to frequently support their melee soldiers with bows.
No crossbow. No draw weight information.
"Soldiers and Ghosts" by Lendon, JE
Mutiple opinions on bows in Greece and Rome. Some thought bows were for cowards and morally inferior soldiers, while others loved bows and excelled in them. Most soldiers favored manly, honorable melee weapons, but they were backed by slings, javelins, and sometimes archers from allies and mercenaries from other societies. No information on draw weights of bows.
Greek slings and javelins were inferior than Middle Eastern "barbarian" bows. Let me add that barbarians are relative. No such thing as Conan the Barbarian in ancient societies. Ancient societies tended to call enemies and foreign nations "barbarians."
Book does not talk much about Alexander the Great, which is a big mistake by this author.
No mention of crossbow, but I know Rome did have standard and torsion crossbows from other historians with archaeological evidence. The crossbows were very rare and seemed less effective than good bows. On the other hand, ancient Chinese nations, historians, and archaeologists have found a wealth of artificts clearing showing Chinese nations greatly valued bows and crossbows as early as 500 BC.
"The Trojan War" by Strauss, Barry
Slings, javelins, and composite bows commonly supported the primary melee soldiers. No crossbows. No information on bows' draw weights.
"A War Like No Other" by Victor Davis Hanson
Covers Peloponnesian War (480 BC to 431 BC): Athenians vs. Spartans.
Both sides focused on melee with the help of slings and javelins, sometimes bows. No draw weight information.
