Boxer Rebellion

It would be smarter if the Americans formed a partnership with the Chinese and pooled their resources to colonise the moon. What they're doing risks bringing about another Cold War

Heyamigos, in re:  "Their people (not their govt.) will see this and hope to emulate other aspects of the West besides material wealth (ie individual and societal rights, democracy, etc.)"

http://www.russojapanesewar.com/boxers.html

Originally posted by lirelou Nick, the revolution in high powered rifles took place in the 1880s and 1890s, and were first noted in the Boer War, 1899-1902, which started before but was contemporary with the Boxer Rebellion. The U.S. Army volunteer and state units called up for the Spanish-American War were still carrying the trap-door loading 1866 Springfield in 45-70 caliber, which was big enough to down any tribesman. But the regular units sent to China were armed with the Krag-Jorgensen, a 30-40 round that may well have incited some troops to crease their bullets dum-dum style. But these would have been the exception. Army regulations frowned upon damaging ammunition. The Mausers, Enfields, and Moisin-Nagants, however, were powered at least the equivalent of the 30-06 caliber that the U.S. Army adopted with the Model 1903 Springfield, and I suspect the Japanese arms were as well.

I thought the Americans used expanding bullets in the Philippines. One officer argued that "savages" with fatal wounds didn't go down like white men, but kept going until they had beheaded their enemy

Nick, the revolution in high powered rifles took place in the 1880s and 1890s, and were first noted in the Boer War, 1899-1902, which started before but was contemporary with the Boxer Rebellion. The U.S. Army volunteer and state units called up for the Spanish-American War were still carrying the trap-door loading 1866 Springfield in 45-70 caliber, which was big enough to down any tribesman. But the regular units sent to China were armed with the Krag-Jorgensen, a 30-40 round that may well have incited some troops to crease their bullets dum-dum style. But these would have been the exception. Army regulations frowned upon damaging ammunition. The Mausers, Enfields, and Moisin-Nagants, however, were powered at least the equivalent of the 30-06 caliber that the U.S. Army adopted with the Model 1903 Springfield, and I suspect the Japanese arms were as well.  

Originally posted by lirelou Originally posted by Nick1986 A bullet has higher velocity than a spear or nail and will expand on contact. Perhaps there's another explanation: the Chinese rebels were "bulletproof" because they tied cloth strips around their major arteries before battle to avoid bleeding to death Actually bullets that expand on contact are illegal undercurrent laws of war, and to my knowledge were not in common use during the period of the Boxer rebellion. In addition, they were hardly necessary. The rifles of many contingents of the allied force in China were newer, high velocity, smokeless powder rounds firing at up or over 2,000 feet per second. High velocity gunshot wounds include what is called "kinetic vacuity". As the bullet passes through a body, the vacuum it produces creates a shock wave that damages tissue not in the immediate passage channel of the round. If not debrided (cut away), tissue within the shock wave area begins to rot, inducing gangrene. So, the European forces in China didn't need expanding bullets. The high velocity of their rifles sufficed.

Weren't dum-dum bullets only illegal when used against European armies? The British used them in colonial wars as they were more effective in bringing down charging tribesemen

Originally posted by longbaby Today I read a statement: "The Boxer Rebellion had much to do with the failure of the 1898 reform". Well I seriously doubt this statement. I think these two events had nothing at all to do with.

Generally speaking, the 1898 reforomists, mostly the gentry people and headed by Kang You-wei and Liang Qi-chao, were the elites of China then. Those boxers were mostly low-class peasants in Northern China. They didn't understand what the 1898 reform was about. They rose up simply because of their hatred of Westerners.

A bullet has higher velocity than a spear or nail and will expand on contact. Perhaps there's another explanation: the Chinese rebels were "bulletproof" because they tied cloth strips around their major arteries before battle to avoid bleeding to death

Today I read a report about Boxer Rebellion by an American journalist (National Geographic Magazine July 1900).

I guess what puzzled Westerners most about Boxer Rebellion is how they could be so courageous, or ignorant, when confronted with guns and canons? Didn't they know bullets could kill people? Did they really think they were bulletproof?

One category of martial arts Chinese practice is called "hard kongfu". Like one lies on a spiked board and under a hard slabstone and another one hammers the stone into half with much force but the one lying remains uninjured. Or two people stand face-to-face with a spear with two pointed ends propped against their throats then they exert force to bend the spear. Chinese folk knowledge says these people are arms-proof.

But in fact these skills are not so difficult or dangerous as common people imagine. One needs much "gut" and caution to practice it, but that's all.

I guess many Boxers mastered this skill after practicing a lot then they thought they were strong enough to fend off bullets. Moreover, Boxer Rebellion leaders said there were many taboos before fighting against armed foreigners. According to the report, once 12 boxers were killed by foreigners and their bulletproof skill seemed useless.
But after the investigation, they were found out to violate the taboo rules the evening before. So the event simply enhanced the superstition of other followers.

A good point on the Boxer 'Rebellion'. Perhaps Boxer Uprising would be closer to what it was. I believe I saw the same (Hong Kong) movie, though I didn't know the title. I thought the westerners were somewhat clownishly depicted, but then historical accuracy wasn't the movie's purpose so much to entertain a Chinese audience. 

Edited by lirelou - 27-Oct-2012 at 13:30