Source?
Iron is not superior to bronze in most regards. It is more brittle and not nearly as robust. Iron ore however is very common, its ;lighter weigh allowed longer swords and its much more easily manipulated from ore to finished product. Even today the often the strongest bolts where strength matters most are bronze.
since when did bows use propellant? Nor does the steadiness affect the draw weight. The three factors in play are weight and velocity for the amlount of kinetic energy and the ability of that energy to be transferred upon impact. I think we can safely assume that no military able to dominate its rivals in the ancient world used flimsy shafts. Crossbow bolts are limited just like other bow weapons by the depth of the draw. The longer the crossbow the more you can draw it back and the longer the bolt. But this increases the weight the crossbowman must hold upright- almost all of it at the end of the weapon.
Pros and cons of bronze versus iron versus steel. Pros and cons. Overall, iron weapons were superior to bronze weapons. Initially, iron weapons were inferior, but this was due to the production technique. Once solved, iron weapons were superior overall than bronze weapons, then steel weapons replaced iron weapons, but steel is an iron alloy.
Every major civilization in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia switched from bronze weapons to iron weapons as soon as they could produce good iron weapons, then they went to steel. Militaries with good iron weaopons had the advantage over their bronze opponents. Gee, it must be because properly made iron weapons were superior overall, or it could be that you're right and everyone else was stupid.
The Qin fought against at least one enemy who had superior iron technology and production when compared to the Qin's bronze, but like I previously said, the Qin still figured out a way to win. The enemy apparently made lots iron weapons that was near steel weapons' quality.
For sources read Chinese historians who specialize in the Qin dynasty. Read about the Qin crossbows with triggers, locks, and sights. Read about their design of various bronze and iron weapons, protective coating on their metals, etc. Read about their draw strength, penetrating power, range, ergonomics, sights, production capability, etc. You can easily Google this and find English summaries.
Propellant? You think arrows and bolts flew by magical power. They were propelled by mechanical force, first potential then kinetic.
Once again, you miss my point. Qin and Han archers and crossbowmen were superior to their European counterparts, and were most likely capable of defeating the armor of their European contemporaries.
really? who? At the battle of Legnica the Europeans might and I stress might have numbered around 25,000 but were probably less than 10,000 while Mongol records say they sent 2 Tumens into Poland (20,000). At the battle of Mohi in Hungary it was pretty much even numbers and the Mongols did use heavy cav. In fact a large number of Batu's heavy cav personal body guard died trying to seize the bridge.
Mongols were outnumbered most of the time, possibly all of the time, they were fighting against the East Europeans. Then remember what I told you, the Mongols fought on foreign territory. The Europeans had local support. The Mongols used dummy soldiers/scare scrows to make them look more abundant.
For a full list of battles and numbers, try Wikipedia and many other websites. Try history books, too. You'll see that the Mongols were usually outnumbered.
Nonetheless, my point still stands: if the Mongol bows/crossbows can do it, then so can the Chinese variety, at the very least.
Once again, you miss my point. Qin and Han archers and crossbowmen were superior to their European counterparts, and were most likely capable of defeating the armor of their European contemporaries.
And the majority of the European army was not mounted at all but foot levy and crossbow/archers
Once again, another straw man argument. This doesn't change the fact that the Mongols were typically outnumbered and most Mongols wore thick clothing for armor, while Europeans were more likely to use organic armor and metal armor. The Mongols gunned down the European army, even the heavily armored knights from a distance. Mongol bows were on par or inferior to Chinese bows and crossbows of the Qin dynasty.
Once again, you miss my point. Qin and Han archers and crossbowmen were superior to their European counterparts, and were most likely capable of defeating the armor of their European contemporaries.
Logical fallacy because one does not follow from the other.
It's not a matter of logic, but history. Philosophize all you want. I want to know what really happened. Battle of Sogdiana (36 BC) ring a bell? This was only one small battle. Anyhow, historical records said the Roman soldiers had typical Roman armor with the typical turtle formation/phalanx tactic, but this was of no use against the Han soldiers' ranged weapons.
Iron is not superior protection to bronze it is lighter and less dense. Nor did the Chinese have superior bows and crossbows as compared to the Mongols and Europeans. Ancient materials dictate strength and any improvements would have been minor if at all.
Read what I previously wrote about pros and cons of bronze versus iron verson steel.
Once again, you miss my point. Qin and Han archers and crossbowmen were superior to their European counterparts, and were most likely capable of defeating the armor of their European contemporaries.
They could not out perform European technology and would have no more and no less effective than contemporary European examples except for the impact of the bolt/arrow head design. Europeans developed armor piercing arrows out of necessity. A necessity the Chinese did not face.
If you say so, but history says otherwise. The Europeans depended on melee combat for most of their history. As early as the Qin Dynasty (probably earlier), the Chinese realized the superiority of well-made bows and crossbows over melee combat. Even in melee combat, the Chinese favored long range melee weapons.
its not a straw man, your implying the Europeans had superior armor- they didn't, at least not in wide usage.
Europeans depended more on armor and used more armor than their Mongol and Chinese counterparts. The Mongols and Chinese did have heavily armored soldiers, but they were not the centerpiece. For Mongols and the Qin and Han, their archers, crossbowmen, and artillery were the leading factors, then came the melee.
Once again, you miss my point. Qin and Han archers and crossbowmen were superior to their European counterparts, and were most likely capable of defeating the armor of their European contemporaries.
Fallacy-
When the knights charged the Mongols, if the Mongol bows and crossbows were so effective would simply have been shot down- they were not. The Mongols had to get the formations spread out and mounted on exhausted horses so they could be picked off piece meal. The obvious conclusion is that armor as poor as it was compared to later examples was still very effective vs missile fire at all but the closest ranges.
The European soldiers were gunned down at a various ranges. The Mongols avoided melee combat for the most part. This is expected because the Mongols were outnumbered in Europe, in the Middle East, and in China. Plus the Mongols were on hostile territory. The Mongols once made an error, so the Europeans were able to pin down the Mongols against a river, the Mongols held them back with their bows, crossbows, and artillery. Read some more history. Start with wikipedia, which is sourced to a few books, and then go visit the library for more information. Mongol bows and crossbows were similar, or inferior to Qin and Han bows and crossbows.
Once again, you miss my point. Qin and Han archers and crossbowmen used bows and crossbows that were superior to their European counterparts, and were most likely capable of defeating the armor of their European contemporaries.
Ancient Europeans first depended on melee weapons even though they had ranged weapons, because ancient Europeans ranged weapons were ineffective as the main weapon, but good as a support weapon.
Ancient Chinese (Qin and Han) quickly moved onto ranged weapons as their primary weapons, because Chinese ranged weapons were capable of defeating well armored, melee soldiers. The Chinese only used melee combat when they had the advantage or when forced to, but they strongly preferred to prep the enemy with a barrage of ranged weapons, then go in for an easry melee victory. Keep in mind the Qin and Han Dynasties ahd excellent grasp of organic armor, bronze technology, and iron technology (including steel), but it wasn't enough to handle Chinese projectile weapons.
