![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hello Teeninvestor. In the section "Bombs, grenades, and mines", you've written that cast iron shell casings for gunpowder bombs were an innovation of the 10th century (before your discussion of Jin-era shrapnel bombs). You use Temple (1986: p. 234) as your citation here, but what does Temple say exactly about this issue? Needham (1986: SSC Volume 5.7, p. 170-174) explicitly writes that cast iron shell casings for gunpowder bombs were an invention of the 13th century (late 12th century at the earliest, see p. 345), but certainly not the 10th century! There were of course earlier and weaker forms of casing, as seen in the Wujing Zongyao of 1044 AD. The cast iron shell casing is significant in that it proves a "high-nitrate gunpowder mixture had been reached at last, since nothing less would have burst the iron casing," as Needham put it (p. 170). Needham argues that in the 11th century, the nitrate content in Chinese gunpowder solutions at maximum reached about 50 percent, as opposed to the mid 14th century (i.e. around the time when the Huolongjing was compiled) when nitrate content reached roughly 90 percent. Please amend this part; I believe either Temple made a goof or you made an honest mistake.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 21:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
This sentence is confusing: "Early Chinese armies were composed of infantry and charioteers, with imperial Chinese armies numbering hundreds of thousands of men." I don't quite see the comparison being made here. The first half of the sentence, focusing on early Chinese armies (i.e. Shang, Zhou, Warring States eras), mentions types of soldiers, which is then compared to later imperial Chinese armies (i.e. Qin, Han, all the way to Qing) where only the size of armies are mentioned. Its safe to assume that early dynastic armies were significantly smaller than those of the Imperial age; I think a better comparison would be to discuss types of soldiers. For example "Early Chinese armies were composed of infantry and charioteers, while later armies replaced chariots with cavalry." Or something like that...-- Pericles of Athens Talk 00:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I hope more details can be provided though. Teeninvestor ( talk) 01:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
After the massive expansion of the article solely relying on Robert Temple's exaggerated views and claims, the same author who has just been found by a number of editors to be at best problematic and at worst practically WP:Fringe, I feel there is no choice but to retag the whole article:
Please note that another unilateral removal of the tag without prior discussion will amount to a case of edit-warring. I made some changes to point editors who are not so familiar with the subject to the unbalanced nature of many views propagated here. More will follow in time. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 11:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
“…and if the ‘siphon’ pump gave forth a continuous jet, as most probably it did, that was assuredly accomplished rather by a combination of two cylinders in a Ctesibian force pump system of true Graeco-Roman style.” (Joseph Needham: „Science and Civilisation in China“,Cambridge University Press, 1974, Vol. 7, ISBN 0521303583, p.84)
After the Qing Dynasty, China began to lose its lead in gunpowder weapons to the west, partially because of the Manchus' policies of suppressing gunpowder technology.
However, many authors assume that European powers had assumed the global lead in gunpowder warfare by the time of the Western Military Revolution (16th century), while others date this reversal to as early as 1360.
Another unnecessary comparison by Teeinvestor. This is a number two cases of #Article re-tagged, meaning both Needham and Temple are wrong:
By contrast, historian Robert Temple notes that contemporary Rome was unable even to transport grain from Northern Italy to Rome and had to depend on ship-carried Egyptian grain, due to a lack of a good harness
Apart from being unnecessary, this is also a totally outdated view relying on Richard Lefebvre des Noëttes (died 1936). Since des Noëttes, the efficiency of the Roman harness has been credibly restored by classicists for decades. ROMAN TRACTION SYSTEMS:
What is amazing, however, is that this officer's view of harness systems in the Ancient World persisted with little or no critical evaluation for almost half a century. Men who were considered scholars in the field accepted this work without ever asking themselves if there were any flaws in the methodology or the conclusions. More importantly, did this obscure Commandant have the qualifications necessary to interpret correctly the iconography that he was using as support for his work? As the result of later experiments and scholarly work, we know that he did not. But we still need to understand why the errors in his work have endured for so long. There is no doubt that World War II and the chaos of the early post war years ended the opportunity to analyze thoughtfully his work. The 1960's and 1970's were the years in which his ideas became entrenched, more in the mind of Medievalists such as White than in the minds of classicists who were the first to see the flaws in his methodology. So the demolitions of Lefebvre des Noëttes' theories about Roman Harness are to be found in the writings of classicists and archaeologists who, equipped with new tools and new discoveries, demonstrated the fallacy of the 1924/1931 work.
Or Raepsaet, Georges: "Land Transport, Part 2. Riding, Harnesses, and Vehicles", in: Oleson, John Peter (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World, Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-518731-1, pp. 580–605:
A conceptual dichotomy in the history of the Western world was proposed by Lefebvre des Noettes (1931): the classical cultures were "blocked" by a defective system of harnessing animals, while those of the medieval period liberated themselves and brought progress through the use of the horse collar. This approach was taken up and passed on in the "primitivist" vision of ancient culture in Marxist thought, manifested in particular in the early 1960s by Moses Finley (1965) and post-Finleyan minimalists-whose arguments have been dissected and refuted by Greene (1990, 1994, 2000).
The technological value of the innovation has been contested, exclusively on the basis of iconographical evidence, by Lefebvre des Noettes for the same reasons as the alleged strangulation of the harnessed draft animal. The discussion has now been completely revised, following the discovery of a complete and well-preserved single yoke, along with portions of the harness, in a second-century Roman well in Bade-Wurtemberg (Raepsaet 2002: 266-67). These artifacts spawned an experimental research project led by the University of Brussels.
These statistics have often been considered, following the lead of Lefebvre des Noettes, as a decisive proof of the inefficiency of ancient harnessing technique. <However,> it has been shown above that heavy transport of ten tons or even more was, if not commonplace, at least perfectly feasible and had been accomplished already in archaic Greece.
Raepsaet concludes:
The Greek and Roman cultures had at their disposal a technical capacity for land transport that was real and varied, even innovative, inscribing its own rhythms and inflections on the long-term patterns of preindustrial societies.
So Temple who summarizes Needham who in turn follows Lefebvre des Noettes about the Roman harness is outdated by 70 years! Why is such antiquarian stuff not removed here? Only because it is convenient in putting the Roman technological level into a bad light vis-a-vis the Chinese? Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 16:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
If GPM can show that a modern source by a reputed scholar, published after Needham's work (roughly 1990's), has shown definitively that the Romans had the horse chest or collar harness, I will remove the comparison from Temple. If not, not. Fair? Teeninvestor ( talk) 17:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 21:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Dans l'état actuel de la recherche, - comme cela vient d'être démontré également à propos du gouvernail d'étambot et de la "faiblesse" de la navigation antique -la "théorie" de Lefebvre des Noëttes ne peut plus être retenue, ni dans ses fondements, ni dans ses implications socioéconomiques. Il n'est pas raisonnable de parler de "déficience" à propos du transport routier - et maritime - qui, là où le contexte économique et l'infrastructure l'y invitaient, a connu une ampleur certaine et répondu aux besoins de ses utilisateurs. Les formes d' "industrialisation" connues en Gaule, tels les centres de production de sigillée ou la meunerie de Barbegal, sont tributaires de l'efficacité des transports.
(Postscript) I've examined GPM's source. It appears that Romans had a harness largely strapped to the back of the horse, and this was an improvement over the throat harness, but still not nearly as efficient as the chest harness. I will quote the source here:
J. Spruytte is his 1977 experiment already demonstrated that using the dorsal yoke, loads heavier than 1,500 Roman pounds could be hauled14.
This is a maximum weight of only about 500 kg per horse (about double Temple's estimates, so already a great increase). Even assuming a 50% increase over this limit is the average load (Highly unlikely), we have 750 kg per horse. A Chinese horse wearing the chest harness could pull 1.5 tons. That's a difference of two, even considering the most favorable circumstances for your case, GPM. I think Temple's case holds, even given this new information. Teeninvestor ( talk) 21:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Therefore based on the above evidence it appears that the actual load limit in Roman Imperial Times seems to have been about 1 to 1 ½ metric ton for one team of equids. Heavier loads probably used tandem hitches.
Assuming the most favorable case, 2 horses per team, this means that 1 horse could pull 500 to 750 kg, exactly the limits I set above. This contrasts with the Chinese horse which could pull 1.5 tons. Temple's case stands corrected; a Chinese horse could pull 2 to 3 times that of a contemporary Roman horse. Teeninvestor ( talk) 21:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The perhaps most important result of the development since 1360 has been that Europe left behind, with the introduction of the second generation of gunpowder weapons, its master China and took over the lead in the fire arms sector. The European peoples were on their way to the Military Revolution.
These were important for the future: some sixty years after Chinese gunpowder became known in Europe as an incendiary, the ingenious Franks harnessed its expanding gases in a metal tube to shoot a projectile and thus created the cannon. The cannon first appears in 1326 at Florence. At that time communication between Italy and China was intense. Our earliest evidence of the cannon in China is of 1332.
Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 17:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Teeninvestor ( talk) 17:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
::::Your link is dead.
Teeninvestor (
talk) 18:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind computer fail. Still, your link is highly dubious and harly an RS. It's a textual reference to a word for "gun bearer" which might as well have meant other things prior to the invention of guns. If we use this quality of evidence, then there is a far more compelling discovery in the form of Chinese statues from the 12th century depicting hand cannons
[1], suggesting that the first guns may have been introduced even at this early date.
Teeninvestor (
talk)
18:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
In my view much of the endless debate comes down on a debate between Teeninvestor and Gun Powder Ma whose civilisation was more advanced.
These comparisons and being better seem rather irrelevant. Were the Europeans "better" than the native Americans because they could conquer (and indeed destroy) them? European and far Chinese history have involved with only moderate contact. Comparisons are often irrelevant. For example who in Europe cares that the Chinese beat them to the invention of the
Dagger-axe.
While such comparisons MAY be illustrative for the readers, if we have two editors who defend opposing POV's this becomes actually harmful for the article.
The Chinese was a great civilisation for much of its history; and Needhams work has done much good to give them their rightful position. BUT the early European civilisation was a much bigger civilisation than 19th and early 20th century sources has credited it; and modern historians are still stuggling to them their rightful position.
Can we please stop fighint about whose civilisation is better and try to make this a better article and encyclopedia. Arnoutf ( talk) 17:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Teeinvestor, could you please move the tag back to where I put it and where it belongs? What you have been doing in the last 24 h is to move the tag from the top consecutively to second and then third order sections:
As you are perfectly aware, the dispute is not limited to the narrow question of logistics, but to your reliance on Temple which you have used all over the article, mainly under Equipment and technology. Community consensus is that Temple needs to be replaced with Needham, so the tag obviously needs to remain where Temple is cited most. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 09:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
GPM, you asked at wikipedia:verifiability; you need to move it to WP:RSN to get any sort of consensus. User:Arnoutf and Pericles have already stated above that although some of Temple's work is radical, most of it (such as the military part) is mainstream sinology. You should be aware of this (see List of Chinese inventions), Do you really expect me or any other editor to get all 16 volumes of Needham with 1200 pages each and go through it to find reference for every claim? Why do you think Needham asked and encouraged Temple to complete this? I shall say this again; I live in a western city of a million inhabitants, and the library system does not have Needham. As devoted to wikipedia as I am, I am not about to spend $5000 to get sources, lol. Teeninvestor ( talk) 02:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
if you take a look at gunpowder ma's edit history and blocks, you will find he is consistently pushing an anti chinese agenda to try to make western europe look superior. Asking him to be objective is pretty useless. Дунгане ( talk) 23:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
China developed Gunpowder Rockets during the Song dynasty.
Europeans didn't know squat about rockets, until the Mongols passed along the technology VIA the Islamic world.
The British only got military rockets after they COPIED the rockets used by Tipu Sultan of India during the 1700s, from which they developed the Congreve Rocket.
The fact is, European militaries have been trounced many times by more primitive peoples. In fact, many historians say that it was after the Chinese Han dynasty defeated the Xiongnu, that the Xiongnu fled westward to Europe and became the Huns, which decisively defeated the European Roman Empire army and forced the Romans to pay tribute.
The Tang dynasty Korean general Gao Xianzhi launched campaigns with chinese armies as far as Afghanistan, and had a grip on its northern part for several years. On the other hand, when the British invaded Afghanistan three times with modern technology in the 1800s they were desively defeated and routed by tribes with primitive weapons. Дунгане ( talk) 17:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
While I argued above that the use of quotations is evidence of lack of coherent thought of the quoting editor, there seems to be a push to include quotes in this article.
Therefore I would propose to use only quotes of eminent importance; because all other quotes would be unduly emphasising an unimportant view. Reasons to include quotes are (in my view):
Clearly a quote by Temple would not qualify, although Needham might under the 3rd category.
In any case all quotes must comply to WP:MOS on Quotations in giving in text not a footnote proper attribution to the author. Arnoutf ( talk) 21:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
There are two wikipedia policies that are violated by the inclusion of these quotes.
For these two reasons, which I listed above, I have every reason to remove the quotes. Even more, I have reason to state that re-insertion without solving both issues would be an act of disruptive editing. Arnoutf ( talk) 14:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Why is the stirrup mentioned in the section for the Qin and Han dynasties? It is my understanding that the stirrup was not used in China until the Jin Dynasty (265-420), according to the archaeological record.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 19:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The spread of the trebuchet technology from the Med over the Islamic world to China is central to Chevedden's article (p. 232f.):
In 1242 Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen sent bricolas to the Levant, and soon thereafter (post 1250) the Mamluks incorporated this versatile piece of artillery into their siege arsenal, calling it the 'Frankish or 'European" trebuchet (manjaniq ifranji or manjaniqfiranji). Muslim engineers employed by the Mongols brought the bricola to China, where it was designated the "Muslim" trebuchet (hui-hui pao). Batteries of bricolas (sing. manjaniq firanji) rained destruction on the cities of Fancheng (1272) and Xiangyang (1273), on the Han River in northwest Hubei province, and broke the power of the Song Empire (960–1279).
Therefore, I restored the original version which has been removed by the edit-warrior whose edit summary gives away that he has not even read the article. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 20:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
List your objections to this article and suggestions how to deal with them, so the neutrality debate can be resolved. Teeninvestor ( talk) 02:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Arnoutf, your view was
I take you by your word. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 07:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hello Teeninvestor. In the section "Bombs, grenades, and mines", you've written that cast iron shell casings for gunpowder bombs were an innovation of the 10th century (before your discussion of Jin-era shrapnel bombs). You use Temple (1986: p. 234) as your citation here, but what does Temple say exactly about this issue? Needham (1986: SSC Volume 5.7, p. 170-174) explicitly writes that cast iron shell casings for gunpowder bombs were an invention of the 13th century (late 12th century at the earliest, see p. 345), but certainly not the 10th century! There were of course earlier and weaker forms of casing, as seen in the Wujing Zongyao of 1044 AD. The cast iron shell casing is significant in that it proves a "high-nitrate gunpowder mixture had been reached at last, since nothing less would have burst the iron casing," as Needham put it (p. 170). Needham argues that in the 11th century, the nitrate content in Chinese gunpowder solutions at maximum reached about 50 percent, as opposed to the mid 14th century (i.e. around the time when the Huolongjing was compiled) when nitrate content reached roughly 90 percent. Please amend this part; I believe either Temple made a goof or you made an honest mistake.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 21:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
This sentence is confusing: "Early Chinese armies were composed of infantry and charioteers, with imperial Chinese armies numbering hundreds of thousands of men." I don't quite see the comparison being made here. The first half of the sentence, focusing on early Chinese armies (i.e. Shang, Zhou, Warring States eras), mentions types of soldiers, which is then compared to later imperial Chinese armies (i.e. Qin, Han, all the way to Qing) where only the size of armies are mentioned. Its safe to assume that early dynastic armies were significantly smaller than those of the Imperial age; I think a better comparison would be to discuss types of soldiers. For example "Early Chinese armies were composed of infantry and charioteers, while later armies replaced chariots with cavalry." Or something like that...-- Pericles of Athens Talk 00:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I hope more details can be provided though. Teeninvestor ( talk) 01:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
After the massive expansion of the article solely relying on Robert Temple's exaggerated views and claims, the same author who has just been found by a number of editors to be at best problematic and at worst practically WP:Fringe, I feel there is no choice but to retag the whole article:
Please note that another unilateral removal of the tag without prior discussion will amount to a case of edit-warring. I made some changes to point editors who are not so familiar with the subject to the unbalanced nature of many views propagated here. More will follow in time. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 11:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
“…and if the ‘siphon’ pump gave forth a continuous jet, as most probably it did, that was assuredly accomplished rather by a combination of two cylinders in a Ctesibian force pump system of true Graeco-Roman style.” (Joseph Needham: „Science and Civilisation in China“,Cambridge University Press, 1974, Vol. 7, ISBN 0521303583, p.84)
After the Qing Dynasty, China began to lose its lead in gunpowder weapons to the west, partially because of the Manchus' policies of suppressing gunpowder technology.
However, many authors assume that European powers had assumed the global lead in gunpowder warfare by the time of the Western Military Revolution (16th century), while others date this reversal to as early as 1360.
Another unnecessary comparison by Teeinvestor. This is a number two cases of #Article re-tagged, meaning both Needham and Temple are wrong:
By contrast, historian Robert Temple notes that contemporary Rome was unable even to transport grain from Northern Italy to Rome and had to depend on ship-carried Egyptian grain, due to a lack of a good harness
Apart from being unnecessary, this is also a totally outdated view relying on Richard Lefebvre des Noëttes (died 1936). Since des Noëttes, the efficiency of the Roman harness has been credibly restored by classicists for decades. ROMAN TRACTION SYSTEMS:
What is amazing, however, is that this officer's view of harness systems in the Ancient World persisted with little or no critical evaluation for almost half a century. Men who were considered scholars in the field accepted this work without ever asking themselves if there were any flaws in the methodology or the conclusions. More importantly, did this obscure Commandant have the qualifications necessary to interpret correctly the iconography that he was using as support for his work? As the result of later experiments and scholarly work, we know that he did not. But we still need to understand why the errors in his work have endured for so long. There is no doubt that World War II and the chaos of the early post war years ended the opportunity to analyze thoughtfully his work. The 1960's and 1970's were the years in which his ideas became entrenched, more in the mind of Medievalists such as White than in the minds of classicists who were the first to see the flaws in his methodology. So the demolitions of Lefebvre des Noëttes' theories about Roman Harness are to be found in the writings of classicists and archaeologists who, equipped with new tools and new discoveries, demonstrated the fallacy of the 1924/1931 work.
Or Raepsaet, Georges: "Land Transport, Part 2. Riding, Harnesses, and Vehicles", in: Oleson, John Peter (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World, Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-518731-1, pp. 580–605:
A conceptual dichotomy in the history of the Western world was proposed by Lefebvre des Noettes (1931): the classical cultures were "blocked" by a defective system of harnessing animals, while those of the medieval period liberated themselves and brought progress through the use of the horse collar. This approach was taken up and passed on in the "primitivist" vision of ancient culture in Marxist thought, manifested in particular in the early 1960s by Moses Finley (1965) and post-Finleyan minimalists-whose arguments have been dissected and refuted by Greene (1990, 1994, 2000).
The technological value of the innovation has been contested, exclusively on the basis of iconographical evidence, by Lefebvre des Noettes for the same reasons as the alleged strangulation of the harnessed draft animal. The discussion has now been completely revised, following the discovery of a complete and well-preserved single yoke, along with portions of the harness, in a second-century Roman well in Bade-Wurtemberg (Raepsaet 2002: 266-67). These artifacts spawned an experimental research project led by the University of Brussels.
These statistics have often been considered, following the lead of Lefebvre des Noettes, as a decisive proof of the inefficiency of ancient harnessing technique. <However,> it has been shown above that heavy transport of ten tons or even more was, if not commonplace, at least perfectly feasible and had been accomplished already in archaic Greece.
Raepsaet concludes:
The Greek and Roman cultures had at their disposal a technical capacity for land transport that was real and varied, even innovative, inscribing its own rhythms and inflections on the long-term patterns of preindustrial societies.
So Temple who summarizes Needham who in turn follows Lefebvre des Noettes about the Roman harness is outdated by 70 years! Why is such antiquarian stuff not removed here? Only because it is convenient in putting the Roman technological level into a bad light vis-a-vis the Chinese? Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 16:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
If GPM can show that a modern source by a reputed scholar, published after Needham's work (roughly 1990's), has shown definitively that the Romans had the horse chest or collar harness, I will remove the comparison from Temple. If not, not. Fair? Teeninvestor ( talk) 17:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 21:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Dans l'état actuel de la recherche, - comme cela vient d'être démontré également à propos du gouvernail d'étambot et de la "faiblesse" de la navigation antique -la "théorie" de Lefebvre des Noëttes ne peut plus être retenue, ni dans ses fondements, ni dans ses implications socioéconomiques. Il n'est pas raisonnable de parler de "déficience" à propos du transport routier - et maritime - qui, là où le contexte économique et l'infrastructure l'y invitaient, a connu une ampleur certaine et répondu aux besoins de ses utilisateurs. Les formes d' "industrialisation" connues en Gaule, tels les centres de production de sigillée ou la meunerie de Barbegal, sont tributaires de l'efficacité des transports.
(Postscript) I've examined GPM's source. It appears that Romans had a harness largely strapped to the back of the horse, and this was an improvement over the throat harness, but still not nearly as efficient as the chest harness. I will quote the source here:
J. Spruytte is his 1977 experiment already demonstrated that using the dorsal yoke, loads heavier than 1,500 Roman pounds could be hauled14.
This is a maximum weight of only about 500 kg per horse (about double Temple's estimates, so already a great increase). Even assuming a 50% increase over this limit is the average load (Highly unlikely), we have 750 kg per horse. A Chinese horse wearing the chest harness could pull 1.5 tons. That's a difference of two, even considering the most favorable circumstances for your case, GPM. I think Temple's case holds, even given this new information. Teeninvestor ( talk) 21:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Therefore based on the above evidence it appears that the actual load limit in Roman Imperial Times seems to have been about 1 to 1 ½ metric ton for one team of equids. Heavier loads probably used tandem hitches.
Assuming the most favorable case, 2 horses per team, this means that 1 horse could pull 500 to 750 kg, exactly the limits I set above. This contrasts with the Chinese horse which could pull 1.5 tons. Temple's case stands corrected; a Chinese horse could pull 2 to 3 times that of a contemporary Roman horse. Teeninvestor ( talk) 21:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The perhaps most important result of the development since 1360 has been that Europe left behind, with the introduction of the second generation of gunpowder weapons, its master China and took over the lead in the fire arms sector. The European peoples were on their way to the Military Revolution.
These were important for the future: some sixty years after Chinese gunpowder became known in Europe as an incendiary, the ingenious Franks harnessed its expanding gases in a metal tube to shoot a projectile and thus created the cannon. The cannon first appears in 1326 at Florence. At that time communication between Italy and China was intense. Our earliest evidence of the cannon in China is of 1332.
Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 17:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Teeninvestor ( talk) 17:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
::::Your link is dead.
Teeninvestor (
talk) 18:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind computer fail. Still, your link is highly dubious and harly an RS. It's a textual reference to a word for "gun bearer" which might as well have meant other things prior to the invention of guns. If we use this quality of evidence, then there is a far more compelling discovery in the form of Chinese statues from the 12th century depicting hand cannons
[1], suggesting that the first guns may have been introduced even at this early date.
Teeninvestor (
talk)
18:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
In my view much of the endless debate comes down on a debate between Teeninvestor and Gun Powder Ma whose civilisation was more advanced.
These comparisons and being better seem rather irrelevant. Were the Europeans "better" than the native Americans because they could conquer (and indeed destroy) them? European and far Chinese history have involved with only moderate contact. Comparisons are often irrelevant. For example who in Europe cares that the Chinese beat them to the invention of the
Dagger-axe.
While such comparisons MAY be illustrative for the readers, if we have two editors who defend opposing POV's this becomes actually harmful for the article.
The Chinese was a great civilisation for much of its history; and Needhams work has done much good to give them their rightful position. BUT the early European civilisation was a much bigger civilisation than 19th and early 20th century sources has credited it; and modern historians are still stuggling to them their rightful position.
Can we please stop fighint about whose civilisation is better and try to make this a better article and encyclopedia. Arnoutf ( talk) 17:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Teeinvestor, could you please move the tag back to where I put it and where it belongs? What you have been doing in the last 24 h is to move the tag from the top consecutively to second and then third order sections:
As you are perfectly aware, the dispute is not limited to the narrow question of logistics, but to your reliance on Temple which you have used all over the article, mainly under Equipment and technology. Community consensus is that Temple needs to be replaced with Needham, so the tag obviously needs to remain where Temple is cited most. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 09:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
GPM, you asked at wikipedia:verifiability; you need to move it to WP:RSN to get any sort of consensus. User:Arnoutf and Pericles have already stated above that although some of Temple's work is radical, most of it (such as the military part) is mainstream sinology. You should be aware of this (see List of Chinese inventions), Do you really expect me or any other editor to get all 16 volumes of Needham with 1200 pages each and go through it to find reference for every claim? Why do you think Needham asked and encouraged Temple to complete this? I shall say this again; I live in a western city of a million inhabitants, and the library system does not have Needham. As devoted to wikipedia as I am, I am not about to spend $5000 to get sources, lol. Teeninvestor ( talk) 02:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
if you take a look at gunpowder ma's edit history and blocks, you will find he is consistently pushing an anti chinese agenda to try to make western europe look superior. Asking him to be objective is pretty useless. Дунгане ( talk) 23:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
China developed Gunpowder Rockets during the Song dynasty.
Europeans didn't know squat about rockets, until the Mongols passed along the technology VIA the Islamic world.
The British only got military rockets after they COPIED the rockets used by Tipu Sultan of India during the 1700s, from which they developed the Congreve Rocket.
The fact is, European militaries have been trounced many times by more primitive peoples. In fact, many historians say that it was after the Chinese Han dynasty defeated the Xiongnu, that the Xiongnu fled westward to Europe and became the Huns, which decisively defeated the European Roman Empire army and forced the Romans to pay tribute.
The Tang dynasty Korean general Gao Xianzhi launched campaigns with chinese armies as far as Afghanistan, and had a grip on its northern part for several years. On the other hand, when the British invaded Afghanistan three times with modern technology in the 1800s they were desively defeated and routed by tribes with primitive weapons. Дунгане ( talk) 17:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
While I argued above that the use of quotations is evidence of lack of coherent thought of the quoting editor, there seems to be a push to include quotes in this article.
Therefore I would propose to use only quotes of eminent importance; because all other quotes would be unduly emphasising an unimportant view. Reasons to include quotes are (in my view):
Clearly a quote by Temple would not qualify, although Needham might under the 3rd category.
In any case all quotes must comply to WP:MOS on Quotations in giving in text not a footnote proper attribution to the author. Arnoutf ( talk) 21:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
There are two wikipedia policies that are violated by the inclusion of these quotes.
For these two reasons, which I listed above, I have every reason to remove the quotes. Even more, I have reason to state that re-insertion without solving both issues would be an act of disruptive editing. Arnoutf ( talk) 14:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Why is the stirrup mentioned in the section for the Qin and Han dynasties? It is my understanding that the stirrup was not used in China until the Jin Dynasty (265-420), according to the archaeological record.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 19:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The spread of the trebuchet technology from the Med over the Islamic world to China is central to Chevedden's article (p. 232f.):
In 1242 Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen sent bricolas to the Levant, and soon thereafter (post 1250) the Mamluks incorporated this versatile piece of artillery into their siege arsenal, calling it the 'Frankish or 'European" trebuchet (manjaniq ifranji or manjaniqfiranji). Muslim engineers employed by the Mongols brought the bricola to China, where it was designated the "Muslim" trebuchet (hui-hui pao). Batteries of bricolas (sing. manjaniq firanji) rained destruction on the cities of Fancheng (1272) and Xiangyang (1273), on the Han River in northwest Hubei province, and broke the power of the Song Empire (960–1279).
Therefore, I restored the original version which has been removed by the edit-warrior whose edit summary gives away that he has not even read the article. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 20:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
List your objections to this article and suggestions how to deal with them, so the neutrality debate can be resolved. Teeninvestor ( talk) 02:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Arnoutf, your view was
I take you by your word. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 07:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)