The DOI matches its Crossref record.
“Late Medieval Divergences: Comparative Perspectives on Early Gunpowder Warfare in Europe and China.”
Abstract
When historians discuss the revolutionary changes associated with guns, they tend to focus on Europe's early modern period (1500–1800), but the late medieval period (1300–1500) was arguably more significant. It was then that guns became widely adopted, grew in power and size, and, finally, toward the 1480s, took on their classic form, which would remain largely the same for the next three centuries. The work of scholars such as Kelly DeVries, Robert Smith, Bert Hall, and Clifford Rogers has examined these developments in Europe, establishing that the late medieval period was a key watershed in the history of guns, as important as – perhaps more important than – the early modern period. But what is intriguing is that this was not just true of Europe. Recent work by historians of China has demonstrated that during the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries Chinese guns were also evolving rapidly, transforming East Asian warfare. Reading the evidence from China in conjunction with that from Europe reveals puzzles that I believe illuminate both historiographies, because although gunpowder warfare evolved rapidly in both Far Eastern and Far Western Eurasia, it also evolved differently: Western Europeans focused on gunpowder artillery; Chinese focused on smaller guns, particularly firearms (handheld guns). Thus, whereas it seems that firearms did not play a major role on Western European battlefields until the mid-1400s at the earliest (they were present, but in relatively small proportions), there were around 150,000 dedicated firearms units in the Chinese armed forces by the 1370s, a proportion of 10 percent of infantry forces, a ratio that would rise to 30 percent by the mid-1400s. This latter figure would not be matched in Europe until the mid-1500s. In contrast, wall-smashing gunpowder artillery began to appear in Europe by the late 1300s and did not appear in Chinese warfare until introduced by Europeans, starting in the 1500s. What accounts for these divergent developments? And, equally importantly, why in Europe did all forms of guns – handheld and artillery – improve so rapidly in the second half of the 1400s, whereas in China development slowed or ceased, so that by the early 1500s Chinese recognized that European guns were superior and began adopting them?
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Qi Jiguang's drilling techniques were part of a long and unbroken military tradition stretching back to China's Tang dynasty and beyond, in which drill-and the volley technique itself-played a central role.
“Qi Jiguang's drilling techniques were part of a long and unbroken military tradition stretching back to China's Tang dynasty and beyond, in which drill-and the volley technique itself-played a central role.”
From The Arquebus Volley Technique in China, c. 1560: Evidence from the Writings of Qi Jiguang (2015) · cites this paper as Andrade 2015
The volley technique was quickly adopted for use with handheld guns, by 1388 at the latest.
“It was quickly adopted for use with handheld guns, by 1388 at the latest”
From The Arquebus Volley Technique in China, c. 1560: Evidence from the Writings of Qi Jiguang (2015) · cites this paper as Andrade 2015
In the 1540s and 1550s countermarch techniques seem immediately to have been applied to the newly arrived arquebuses.
“in the 1540s and 1550s countermarch techniques seem immediately to have been applied to the newly arrived arquebuses.”
From The Arquebus Volley Technique in China, c. 1560: Evidence from the Writings of Qi Jiguang (2015) · cites this paper as Andrade 2015
Chinese forces had used the volley technique with crossbows for centuries, an unbroken tradition stretching back most likely to the Warring States period (c. 475-221 BCE).
“Chinese forces had used the volley technique with crossbows for centuries, an unbroken tradition stretching back most likely to the Warring States period (c. 475-221 BCE).”
From The Arquebus Volley Technique in China, c. 1560: Evidence from the Writings of Qi Jiguang (2015) · cites this paper as Andrade 2015
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Arquebus Volley Technique in China, c. 1560: Evidence from the Writings of Qi Jiguang
Andrade, T. (2015) · Journal of Chinese Military History · doi:10.1163/22127453-12341284 · Cited by 8
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Andrade, T.
- Corresponding author
- Andrade, Tonio
- Venue
- Journal of Medieval Military History
- Publisher
- Boydell and Brewer Limited
- Published
- 2015-10-15
- Pages
- 247-276
- OpenAlex
- W3164811116
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
- Type
- other
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Military history and social perspectives
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Medieval History and Crusades
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Chinese history and philosophy
- Keywords
- late medieval warfare, firearms, gunpowder artillery, Chinese military history, European military history, comparative military history
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review