odumchi: Pleep you're still here?

Interesting question. Anyway, this is my attempt at an answer:

Gunpowder itself was discovered accidentally by a chemist who was seeking an elixir for immortality. The Chinese approach to gunpowder was one of wonder/awe and they never really recognized its full destructive potential. In combat, they used gunpowder in small scale in the form of things like rockets, flares, and launchers. Traditionally, they used it in the form of things like fireworks and lanterns. The Chinese isolationist mentality is also responsible for this. This mentality is partly what led them to become disinterested with the dangerous and new powder and satisfied with their traditional weapons such as crossbows, bows, lances and etc.

However, gunpowder was appreciated by their neighbors to their immediate West: the Turks. The Turks, around the 13th century, had become more aggressive and power-hungry. As the Turks moved westward, they encountered cities with massive stone walls and fortifications which couldn't be breached with conventional weapons. From then, they applied and adapted Chinese gunpowder technology and began developing small cannons to breach walls. They, initially, used these cannons in small scale. However, by 1453 (the year the Ottoman Turks sacked Constantinople), they had perfected the use of cannons an had even developed heavy cannons which could breach thick walls and had even a few well-trained soldiers (Janissaries) who carried "portable cannon". Despite this, the majority of their military was still without gunpowder.

From the Turks modern metallurgy spread to western Europe and to Russia. At that time, the Europeans were still fighting with swords, shields, bows, and armor. The advent of gunpowder in Europe seemed to be a godsend. Since it took years for one to master archery and enter knighthood, the development of portable cannon seemed like the cheapest alternative. This meant that any peasant farmer could become a soldier in a matter of hours rather than years and it also dramatically increased the average European army size. The evolution of the gun started with large, stationary cannon, then to smaller portable ones, to flintlocks, wheel locks, muskets, and then rifles.

The English took this technology a step further and put cannon on ships; ultimately changing word history forever onward...

The advent of gunpowder in Europe seemed to be a godsend. Since it took years for one to master archery and enter knighthood, the development of portable cannon seemed like the cheapest alternative. This meant that any peasant farmer could become a soldier in a matter of hours rather than years and it also dramatically increased the average European army size.

From the Turks modern metallurgy spread to western Europe and to Russia.

pleep: Because in Europe armies had to deal with fully armored knights that could only be stopped by guns, not so in China.

pleep: As far as i know the first time cannons were used south of the Sahara was in the 15 hundreds when forces from Morocco destroyed the Mali empire. Accounts of this battle are rare, but from what i read (don't recall the source) the two armies met on flat terrain, the berbers dispite being hugely out numbered had many cannons, which they began firing at the Malien forces. The entire army, which was mainly cavalry, panicked and routed.

Can you back this up?

From the little I've read on Chinese armor, I don't think they were lacking in strong/comparable defense at all.

pleep:
Comparable to Steel plate armor? certainly. Chinese armor was not particularly unique or advanced for the time, where as western armor was. The Chinese used the same lamellar and scale armor used trough out Eurasia. This could be easily pierced by a crossbow. On top of this, china wasn't dominated by a warrior class, like Europe or Japan.

The biggest reason heavy armor was such a factor in Europe was plate armored knights. Wealthy semi-nobility, who could afford to fight in the heaviest protection available. My theory that elite armored soldiers = adaptation of guns is supported by the story of Japans adoption of firearms to counter the samurai.

PhysicsQED:

I really doubt that this is correct.

There's a book called Chinese clay figures: Prolegomena on the history of defensive armor, Part 1 by Berthold Laufer

I think you should read some of it. I think it gives a more realistic perspective on armor in Asia.

Here are links to the book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=TH0LAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA180

http://books.google.com/books?id=TH0LAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA189

On Japan vs. China, China was dominated by the Mongols around the general time that you're talking about. The same Mongols were trouncing the Japanese at [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bun%27ei]the battle of Bun'ei[/url] but when they returned to their ships to regroup, they got hit by a typhoon and the Japanese got lucky. The Japanese were not the only warriors around or anything and I'm not sure that their best soldiers at that time would have necessarily defeated China's best soldiers or the best Mongol soldiers..

On Japan vs. China, China was dominated by the Mongols around the general time that you're talking about. The same Mongols were trouncing the Japanese at the battle of Bun'ei but when they returned to their ships to regroup, they got hit by a typhoon and the Japanese got lucky. The Japanese were not the only warriors around or anything and I'm not sure that their best soldiers at that time would have necessarily defeated China's best soldiers or the best Mongol soldiers..

PhysicsQED: To qualify the above post, what I really mean is that very strong armor has been around for a long time whether steel plate or not steel, but guns only became more popular as their actual power and quality improved. They weren't that great to start with, weren't really decisive in battle after improving somewhat a while after that, but were later improved by gun smiths to become the unstoppable force we know them as today. This is my perspective, but I am interested in reading alternate or contrary views.

pleep:
I didn't say japan was militarily better than anyone. I simply mentioned them because their reasons for adopting firearms was similar to europes reasons. Their military was dominated by heavily armored knights (samurai) the only way to counter their power was to adopt firearms.

odumchi:
However, I do remember watching a film that highlighted the military transitional period in Japan. I remember a battle scene in which two opposing forces (one loyal to the traditional lifestyle and made up of samurai, the other pro-Western and armed with modern rifles) fought each other sometime in the 19th century. The samurai charged the infantrymen and were massacred by the gunfire. After suffering a gunshot wound, in his dying breath, the samurai commander uttered: "this marks the end of the samurai era".

pleep: Are you kidding me, Boiled rhinosaurus skin? The lamellar and scale armor i mentioned earlier are even better than what is mentioned in those links. like i said earlier, you don't need a gun to peirce leather armor.

The effective range of an arquebus is only around 100 meters, while the range of a 13 century crossbow is 200 meters. Bows and crossbows could also be fired 5 ranks deep, meaning you could have 5 times as many people shooting at a given moment. In addition to this they were more accurate and didn't require much training (crossbows). So why did Europeans use guns if crossbows were so much better? Because the guns could pierce plate armor when nothing else could!

pleep: Why did they catch on in Europe so quickly, but not so in China? Why did Europe feel the need to improve and invest in handheld gunpowder technology when other regions weren't?

The only logical answer to this is because of the different battlefield conditions. Europe needed guns to counteract the power of plate armored knights, while in other areas bows and crossbows were perfectly effective against their unarmored opponents.

odumchi:

Hmmm...

For Europe, maybe. For Japan, I doubt it.

The reasons the Japanese adopted firearms were different from the reasons of the Europeans. Japan was given firearms (cannon and muskets) by the Dutch in the 16th century. From that time to the collapse of the Shogunate (1880s), the Japanese military never totally alternated to firearms.

The Samurai warriors were still the premiere fighting forces in combat and their weapons were the same as always: a katana (world's sharpest sword), some short swords, and a bow. In battles, the Japanese rarely used European artillery or guns.

However, I do remember watching a film that highlighted the military transitional period in Japan. I remember a battle scene in which two opposing forces (one loyal to the traditional lifestyle and made up of samurai, the other pro-Western and armed with modern rifles) fought each other sometime in the 19th century. The samurai charged the infantrymen and were massacred by the gunfire. After suffering a gunshot wound, in his dying breath, the samurai commander uttered: "this marks the end of the samurai era".

Blyss: I've got a question for you, which I already know the answer to, but would like to see how well or poorly your knowledge on the subject is. My question is, why were so many African kingdoms so willing to sell off fellow African into slavery to the Europeans, and due you think Africa's history of total failure.. post slavery is due to being cursed for it's actions during the slave trade? Many are of the opinion that the continent is eternally cursed via wishes of a mass of slaves who places curses and spells on the continent and remaining people as they were being shipped away across the ocean to the Americas. I actually believe this to be true.

But Africa is different, look at the map below. It shows the ethno-linguistic groups on the continent. Each believes they are racially different, and is easy to pit one against the other. No other continent has this level of ethnic diversity. The African tribes never believed they were 'selling their own' during the slave trade. To them they were selling their enemies, competition for resources and land. To put it in perspective, the English would have gladly sold the french into slavery if they had an opportunity.

Dede1: @OP

Dull versus adventurous (rivet) mindset. The Europeans are always thinking to explore, conquer and overcome the unknown while earlier Chinese are like Africans who were only interested in their limited knowledge of things without further exploration. Our forbearers were stuck on old ways of processing palm oil until Europeans came and introduced oil mills.

Africans are also unbelievable cowards, blamers, misguided critics and easily deceived.