Overview of Ancient Chinese Crossbows (Part 2)

American scholar Paul Klopsteg conducted comparative tests on four types of bows and compiled a curve showing the relationship between draw force and string length. The first type, a short, straight, single-wood bow, exhibits a "stiff" draw force, requiring considerable effort to draw and resulting in weak arrows. The crossbows made by some ethnic minorities in southwestern China serve as a good example of this type of bow. The second type, a 6-foot-long single-wood bow (the shape and dimensions of an English longbow are approximately 1.8 meters), exhibits draw force that increases evenly with draw distance, reaching its maximum draw force at full draw. The third type is a single-wood bow equipped with a rigid bowstring. The bowstring is not attached directly to the ends of the wooden arms of the bow like an English longbow, but rather to the bowstring like a composite bow. The bowstring is generally made of a harder material and is less subject to bending, which improves the force applied during drawing. The bowstring is stiffer at the beginning but becomes easier towards the end.

A is a short, straight, solid-wood bow; B is a six-foot-long solid-wood bow; C is a solid-wood bow with a bowstring, which aligns with the string when strung; and D is an Asian compound bow. My limited knowledge of this type of bow has only seen the elven prince in the movie "The Lord of the Rings" sporting a bow similar to this design. Furthermore, ancient Indian bows had exceptionally long bowstrings, sometimes accounting for half of their total length, yet they were composite bows. The fourth bow tested was a traditional Asian compound bow, which exhibited the most pronounced force variation. After halfway through the draw, while the static draw force continued to slowly increase, the string length rapidly increased, giving the archer the feeling of increasing ease. As can be seen from the above, Asian compound bows have two advantages over European solid-wood bows in terms of force distribution.

First, after drawing a compound bow halfway, the archer's workload is reduced, freeing up more energy for aiming.
Second, the compound bow's "energy storage" properties are superior to those of a solid bow. Given the same draw weight at full draw, a compound bow stores the most mechanical energy, resulting in the fastest arrow and the greatest force. Conversely, to shoot an arrow with the same power, a compound bow can be made smaller. Therefore, nomadic peoples in East and Central Asia invariably chose compound bows for their ease of use on horseback. European-style solid wooden bows, on the other hand, were rarely used for mounted archery, a fact related to Europe's long-standing warfare traditions. Of course, there was one exception: Japan. During the Warring States period, it was common for mounted generals to fire at the enemy with "giant bows" nearly two meters long. Mounted archery was also a fundamental part of samurai training. However, traditional Japanese bows were asymmetrical. The archer's hand gripped the bow below the middle, reaching as far as one-third of the way down. The bow was divided by the grip, with the top weaker and the bottom stronger. If the upper part of the bow is made to have the same rigidity as the lower part, its length will be within its practical limits. It should be said that the use and development of the bow and arrow as a weapon is closely tied to a nation's culture, productivity, regional environment, and external interactions. The types of bows and crossbows used by different ethnic groups and regions in different historical periods vary widely, and generalizations are impossible.

For example, the "Kaogongji" (Kaogongji), compiled during the Spring and Autumn Period, indicates that composite bows were already well-developed and reliable. However, bamboo and wooden bows unearthed in Hubei and Hunan indicate that the southern Chu State, at the same or slightly later times, consistently deployed large numbers of single-piece bows. This was likely due to the abundance of bamboo in the south, and the low-cost, simpler single-piece bows enjoyed a certain influence on the battlefields of the time. For example, a survey of the Chengdu "Changxing" bow shop, which produced the "Southern Bow" style during the Republic of China, and the Beijing "Juyuanhao," which currently produces the "Northern Bow," revealed that both schools had already adopted standard composite bows. However, in the early years of the People's Republic of China, some ethnic minorities in remote mountainous areas of southern, southwestern, and northeastern China still used single or laminated bows. This can be attributed to differences in productivity and culture. Differing regional environments also significantly influenced the craftsmanship of crossbows. For example, within the same school of Chinese composite bows, northerners used ox horns, southerners used water buffalo horns, and Mongolians used goat horns. Northern ethnic groups used ox tendons for strings, while those in the Central Plains primarily used silk. Another good example of the influence of foreign cultures is the development of traditional bows and arrows in South Korea.

During the Han and Wei and Jin dynasties, the Korean Peninsula was not yet unified. The "Book of the Later Han" records that Goguryeo "was called Bang, and its bows were called Hu." The "Records of the Three Kingdoms" states that "Lelang, the sandalwood bow, originated there." In ancient China, wooden bows were referred to as "arcs," suggesting that bows were still relatively simple, likely single or reinforced wooden bows. By the Song Dynasty, frequent exchanges with foreign cultures had led to significant developments in Korean bow and arrow technology, with the use of composite bows already underway. The "Xuanhe Fengshi Goryeo Tujing" records the opinions of Song Dynasty envoys visiting Korea regarding their bows and arrows: "The bows and arrows are simple in shape, like slingshots," and "they shoot without waiting for the bow to be fully drawn; they lift their bodies to launch the arrow. Although the arrow travels a great distance, it lacks power." This suggests that while bow technology was beginning to mature, performance was still limited. During the Joseon Dynasty (roughly corresponding to the Ming and Qing dynasties in China), Goryeo bows and crossbows rapidly improved due to the long-standing threats and influence from the Khitan, Mongols, and Jurchens. The "Chronicle of Joseon," written by a Ming Dynasty Korean, records that in 1377 (Goryeo had just emerged from over 70 years of Mongol rule and was a martial nation), King Gongmin of Goryeo, while engaging Japanese pirates, killed an enemy with his bow from over 200 paces away. (In ancient times, "steps" were divided into single and double steps. In China, double steps are generally used, with each step lasting approximately 1.4 to 1.5 meters. However, a single step is more realistic here, meaning approximately 120 to 150 meters, which is roughly within the acceptable range for aiming with a bow on foot.)

Traditional Korean Archery (Image added by the blogger) Based on this, it's reasonable to assume that Goryeo bows and arrows at that time possessed high combat performance, reaching the pinnacle of traditional bow technology. Surviving Korean murals depicting hunting and warfare from this period show that the shape of Goryeo bows and arrows is similar to the "horn bows" of northern Chinese ethnic minorities, and their craftsmanship has been passed down to the present day. It can be said that traditional bows in Korean history have a strong Chinese heritage, and the development of Korean bows bears clear influences from foreign cultures. Generally speaking, different internal and external conditions dictate the different types of bows used. However, in turn, different weaponry dictates the different aspects of warfare, and this influence can sometimes be decisive. Mongolian and Turkish bows are generally less than 1.5 meters in length, making them convenient for mounted archery. Traditional Chinese composite bows for individual soldiers have an upper limit of approximately 1.7 meters and a lower limit of 0.7 to 0.9 meters, with shorter bows for cavalry and longer bows for foot soldiers. English longbows are generally around 1.7 to 1.9 meters, reaching the archer's eyebrows. Japanese bows, however, are common, exceeding 2 meters in length, making them an exception. Because Eastern composite bows are compact yet powerful, their users have long been able to adopt mounted archery as a standard tactic for large-scale warfare. In comparison, Turkish and Mongolian bows are short, compact, and convenient for mounted archery. The English longbow is 1.7 to 1.9 meters long, with an arrow roughly half the length of the bow.

Take China, for example. Whether among the Han Chinese of the Central Plains or the northern nomadic peoples, the bow and arrow were the primary weapon of cavalry (crossbows were more common in Chinese cavalry during the Qin and Han dynasties). The bow and arrow held an unshakable position throughout China's 2,000-year history of cavalry, both in terms of skill, importance, and quantity. Its longevity far surpassed that of other individual weapons, such as the saber and lance.

Although Eastern cavalry, due to their focus on mobility, often suffered from a lack of protection compared to Western knights and even Eastern infantry, the use of bows and arrows minimized their vulnerability to close combat, enhancing their cavalry's vitality and increasing the lethality and control range of individual soldiers. Furthermore, the bow and arrow could effectively threaten both densely packed targets at long range and moving targets at medium and short range, granting the army tremendous tactical flexibility. Conversely, the relatively rigid battle formations struggled to gain significant traction in China for a long time. China experienced two peaks in the use of infantry formations, each with its own unique characteristics. In the pre-Qin era, chariot warfare had not yet faded from the scene, and for a long time, cavalry remained the sole mobile force on the battlefield, a phenomenon largely undeveloped. The Song Dynasty, however, suffered from a long-term shortage of high-quality warhorses due to the loss of horse farms within its borders, hindering the development of large numbers of cavalry.

However, during these two periods, when defensive formations based on densely packed infantry were the primary focus, the crossbow was never neglected. During the Warring States period, elite soldiers were selected based on their bow and crossbow prowess. The Song Dynasty, in particular, maximized the use of the crossbow as a defensive weapon, developing sophisticated infantry tactics against light and heavy cavalry. Looking at the West, unlike the East, Europe lacked suitable projectile weapons for cavalry for a long time, aside from the medieval crossbow, which originated from the individual crossbow of the Song Dynasty in China. The classic European cavalry tactic was to charge in formation, using spears, swords, and axes to inflict damage, while restraining horses and riders. On the battlefield, the crossbow's high-speed impact was crucial for attacking the enemy with its large mass. Unable to inflict damage at range, they could only "test their own blades" and resort to heavy armor, further increasing the cost of cavalry and, in turn, limiting their ability to deploy a wide range of equipment. Compared to cavalry, European infantry long relied on classic phalanx tactics, which offered immense single-direction power and were unwieldy on the battlefield. Starting in the Middle Ages, European infantry significantly increased their emphasis on the bow and crossbow, gradually replacing the javelins and slingshots of the Greek and Roman eras. The advent of the English longbow marked the final era of archers as a dominant force on the battlefield. An unexpected consequence was that the immense power of the longbow, a key factor, directly spurred European cavalry to adopt the extremes of heavy armor. This led to the development of the sophisticated knightly full-body plate armor, commonly known as the "iron can."

The evolution of Western cavalry armor from mail to plate and its subsequent trend toward heavier armor was largely influenced by the crossbow.

At this point, cavalry's defensive capabilities reached their peak, while its mobility reached its trough. Consider West Asia, Eastern Europe, and the adjacent Asia Minor region. This region was influenced by both Eastern and Western cultures, and its military development incorporated characteristics common to both. For example, the Byzantine Empire possessed the heaviest cavalry of any standing army in the East and West—the Byzantine heavy cavalry. This heavy cavalry was equipped with composite bows and javelins as individual weapons. The Byzantine Empire's millennia-long dominance in both the East and the West is undoubtedly due to its military might.

Traditional Western armor was primarily based on chain mail (also known as "loop armor" in Chinese). Woven from iron rings, chain mail was highly effective against swords and slashes, but offered insufficient protection against arrows and spears. The threat of longbows and arrows forced improvements to chain mail, first by reinforcing it with iron plates, and then by developing plate and scale armor (also known as "lamellar armor" in Chinese), ultimately culminating in the full-body armor of both horse and man. China, in stark contrast to the West, has always relied on lamellar armor, which was highly resistant to piercing damage. This armor, whether made of leather, iron, wood, or stone, remained consistent from the very beginning. From the Spring and Autumn Period to the Qin and Han Dynasties, Chinese armies used a variety of lamellar armor, with armor plates gradually decreasing in size and protection extending from partial to full coverage. This continued to develop during the Southern and Northern Dynasties, with the emergence of early plate armor—"Ming Guang Armor"—appearing.

It wasn't until the Tang Dynasty, through its control of the Western Regions, that Western chain mail was introduced through Central Asia. However, due to its unsuitability for Chinese warfare and its inherent cost and performance limitations, it was not widely adopted. Widespread use of chain mail did not begin until the mid-to-late Ming Dynasty, by which time the age of firearms had already begun, and the crossbow was beginning to decline. Faced with the threat of crossbows, China was slow to promote Western chain mail. The image on the right shows armor from Tibet during the Ming and Qing Dynasties, while the image on the left depicts Chinese lamellar armor from the Song and Liao Dynasties as depicted by a Western artist.
(End of article)