Qing firearms
Moderators: terrys, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design
Qing firearms
In the spirit of the changes to the Colonial Portuguses lisit I have been looking into the quality of the firearms available to the Qing/Manchu bannermen (1622 to 1698). This information is often contradictory but I have come across several references to the infantry using Turkish firing drill (the Ottomans start to use muskets from 1494 in Clash of Empires) whilst using western style muskets. In the Colonies & Conquest Qing army list, the firearms formations are equipped with the arquebus whilst the colonial Dutch & Portuguse have use of the musket from 1620 & 1626 respectively. The Portuguse had close trading relations to China stating with the Ming from around 1512/13 and I have come across references to the Ming (1498 to 1644) inporting muskets just prior to thier defeat by the Qing. I agree the numbers would not displace the arquebus from general use by the Ming or Qing and the list writer may be using the arquebus range etc to portray the western view if the Chinese military but by the later period of the Quin should not the yellow banner/Imperial guard based around the capital have the option to upgrade to Musket as it received the most up to date equipment. Hence I suggest that you should be able to field 1 battlegroup with musket rather than arquebus from the 1662 when the Kangxi Emperor started his campaigns to subjugate the last of the Mongol tribes..
It is doing a favor to the Ming to represent the poor quality of Ming small arms and their effectiveness as Average Arquebus. Like illusory paper strengths, the blame can be pinned on what we would call massive institutionalized corruption and resulting crippling budget issues. The Chinese artillery arm was more formidable. Highly capable leaders could get the best from the Imperial army, but even the capital troops performed poorly.
Hi ,
I am not questioning the Ming army list ( with which I have done quite well on the battlefield ) with repect to the numbers & quality of the firearms formations just the list relating to the Qing/Manchu. In the next fifty years at the end of the list, the Manchu went on to take control of Tibet, stop Russian expansion and defeat the Gurkhas & Mongols. The Manchu invested time and money in their military in the "first flush" of their empire so using good numbers of western muskets to equip their best troops is sensible. It was much later when the Manchu army failed gainst modern western forces.
I am not questioning the Ming army list ( with which I have done quite well on the battlefield ) with repect to the numbers & quality of the firearms formations just the list relating to the Qing/Manchu. In the next fifty years at the end of the list, the Manchu went on to take control of Tibet, stop Russian expansion and defeat the Gurkhas & Mongols. The Manchu invested time and money in their military in the "first flush" of their empire so using good numbers of western muskets to equip their best troops is sensible. It was much later when the Manchu army failed gainst modern western forces.
Based on my research, the Manchu did adopt firearms but were not as enthused about them as the Ming (and about having them in the hands of non-Manchu troops), and after the conquest did nothing to improve their equipment or methods and may have regressed in use of gunpowder weapons - no notable efforts until the 19th C forced it upon them (evidenced for example by the active use of bow and spear into the 19th C). Which isn't bar the possibility of some troops being unusually well armed and trained - but that coulid well be less than BG size.