Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Korean Scientific Advancements

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Omnipotence View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 494
  Quote Omnipotence Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Korean Scientific Advancements
    Posted: 26-Sep-2006 at 13:43
I can't see any definition problem with the term 'printing press'. You know a printing press when you see one.

That the printing revolution was initiated by Gutenberg is a common place and can be easily proven. Take any single existing printer (laser, ink, whatever) and move back in time. Then you will see that every single printer can be traced back evolutionarily to Gutenberg's printing press.  His press was the mother of all modern printing, hence he deserves fully the credit.
 
That's just a repeat of what you said last time... Not to mention Gutenberg's printing press have part of its idea from earlier printing as well.
Back to Top
Gun Powder Ma View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 02-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 200
  Quote Gun Powder Ma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 11:50
Show me a credible source which deals with East Asian printing presses prior to Gutenberg: drawings, descriptions, any kind of archaeological or literary evidence. Otherwise, I would request you to not participate in disseminating wrong historical facts about the origin of the printing press.

PS: Chinese were actually not at all the first to print. They were only the first to print on writing materials. But printing on clothes is age old and examples preceding Chinese book printing have been found in quite a few cultures. Strictly speaking, they were not even the first to print on writing material, because the first printing document of mankind is the Phaistos disc (Minoan), although is is often viewed as stamping, but for no good reason as far as I can see. And stamping with seals was ubiquitous in Mesopotamia anyway.

Just to set the record straight here on the Chinese claim on invention of printing. It actually was nothing but a link in a long chain.




Back to Top
Omnipotence View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 494
  Quote Omnipotence Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 15:55
Show me a credible source which deals with East Asian printing presses prior to Gutenberg: drawings, descriptions, any kind of archaeological or literary evidence. Otherwise, I would request you to not participate in disseminating wrong historical facts about the origin of the printing press.
 
What I attacked was your definition of a printing press, in which it must be a machine, which is not the definition as according to dictionary.com. I also attack your statement that Gutenburg deserves all the credit for printing. There are so many sources either way though a quick google source and in this thread itself, so I don't know why you are asking this. I never said China invented printing, I only attacked your thinking that Gutenburg invented it. The Gutenburg "machine" is almost similar to the Chinese mechanical type, in which both rearrange wordings like scrabble(although in different ways, in which Gutenburg's was much simpler, for obvious reasons), and that Gutenburg set ink on paper by having a wooden board push the paper onto the blocks set into words, while the Chinese, if I remember correctly, used either a brush or a wooden swipe. Execept for the required amt of effort involved, which is caused by the language barrier rather than added trinckets, I don't see any great leap in technology.


Edited by Omnipotence - 28-Sep-2006 at 17:53
Back to Top
Preobrazhenskoe View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 27-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 398
  Quote Preobrazhenskoe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 03:02

Omnipotence makes good points, although Gutenberg's press is more impressive on a technological standpoint. However, mass printing of books ranges back to simple wood-block printing of the Tang Dynasty, something astonishing for such an archaic form of printing, simply carving and stamping. There was some reluctance in China to printing at first, since it challenged the literati arts of calligraphy (same with the Islamic world when printing was introduced to them), and in Europe, when Gutenberg's press first became available, the nobility saw it first as a means to sully their valuable handcopied manuscripts and the dedication put into them. Nonetheless, cultural norms of the time periods were put aside for better efficiency, as seen through the mass printing available to China in the medieval period, and to Europe beginning by the late 15th century when the printing press spread rapidly across Europe.

 
I'd say the next greatest advancement in printing was Friedrich Koenig and Andreas Friedrich Bauer's steam-powered press in 1812, making it able to print over a thousand copies of a page per hour. This compared to the two man crew using Gutenberg's press, which could make some 240 impressions per hour.
 
It seems strange to me that the screw was unknown and unapplied in China before Europe introduced it in the 16th century. That is until realizing the functions of a screw were achieved in other ways the Chinese found suitable. For example, Archimedes Screw accomplishes moving water (or any liquid or granular substance for that matter) from a lower elevation to a higher elevation by simple cranking and rotating slender curves of the screw to push the material upward. The ancient Chinese chain-pump essentially accomplished the same thing, using a mechanized or manual-driven pedal to power an endless circulating chain with square pallets holding water or other substances like sand, dirt, etc., needed to move upward as in moving materials up a hill or moving water from a river into an irrigation ditch, etc. The philosopher Wang Chong refers to its existence about 80 AD in his book Discourses Weighed in the Balance. The Eunuch Zhang Rang (died 189 AD) ordered the engineer Bi Lan to make various improvements to the city of Luoyang, which was lacking in water, one of which was to constuct a series of square-pallet chain pumps and suction pumps at the West Bridge near the Peace Gate of the city. Chain pumps reached a standard in China during the 9th century, and were used for all sorts of purposes, mainly irrigation.
 
 
However, I've heard recently of a chain pump that predated that of the Chinese (although theirs' was certainly of their own indigenous innovation, being largely isolated from the West). I've read somewhere that the ancient Egyptians had the noria, an Egyptian wheel, which was also seen in Mesopotamia, which had earthen pots instead of pallets like the Chinese, and carried water round and round by a wheel, applying this and copper/bronze pipes for plumbing drainage and irrigation. The first use of water wheels or water mills in the Greco-Roman world were arguably by the Greek epigrammatist/poet Antipater of Thessalonica, under the reign of Augustus, who wrote in the late 1st century BC, "Cease from grinding, oh you toilers; women slumber still, Even if the crowing rooster calls the morning star. For Demeter has appointed nymphs to turn your mill, And upon the waterwheel alighting here they are. See how quick they twirl the axle whose revolving rays spin heavy rollers quarried overseas. So again we savor the delights of ancient days, Taught to eat the fruits of Mother Earth in ease." Basically he's saying life is made easier in grinding grain by use of water wheels doing the work for them. In contrast, the Chinese were not far behind their Greek/Roman contemporaries. the Chinese also used water power for crushing grain (the edge-runner mill around the 5th century AD, with a cam on the axle of a wheel that lifts a rod up and down and pounds grain continuously if powered by a water wheel), as well as powering piston bellows for creating more durable iron and even steel. During the Eastern Han Dynasty (23 - 220 AD), under the guidance of the engineer named Tu Shih, the Chinese employed horizontal water wheels to power double sets of piston-bellows in injecting continuous streams of air into the Chinese blast furnace, as recorded in the year 31 AD. Chinese water wheels were most typically horizontal, but vertical water wheels were known. Documentation and illustrations of these devices were also made throughout the ages in Chinese manuscripts, as well as the use of trip hammers for pulverizing items like iron bits and fittings. The ancient Romans had the early 4th century AD site at Barbegal in southern France, where 16 overshot water wheels were used to power an enormous flour mill or the various mining sites like those found in modern-day Spain where water wheels were used to power mining projects for procuring copper and other precious metals being mined.
Eric


Edited by Preobrazhenskoe - 29-Sep-2006 at 04:04
Back to Top
Gun Powder Ma View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 02-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 200
  Quote Gun Powder Ma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 08:47
Originally posted by Omnipotence

What I attacked was your definition of a printing press, in which it must be a machine, which is not the definition as according to dictionary.com.


Microsoft Encarta:


The machine used to transmit the ink from a printing plate to the printed page is called a press. The first printing presses, such as those of the 16th century and earlier, were screw-type presses designed primarily to bring pressure on the printing form, which was placed face up in a flat bed. The paper, generally dampened, was pressed against the type by the movable surface, or platen. The upperparts of the posts of the press often were braced against the ceiling, and after the form was inked the platen was screwed down against the form. The press was equipped with rails on which the form could be slid out of the press and then back onto the bed, so that the platen did not have to be raised far.


Did the Chinese have that printing machine? Nope. Gutenberg was the very first to use a printing press. Wiki and all those other amateurish sites got it all wrong, I am afraid.


I also attack your statement that Gutenburg deserves all the credit for printing.


Never said that he deserves all the credit. But he made the single most important contribution to printing and it had been his invention which set off the so-called media revolution. Hence, I am very d'accord with the decision of the American Association of Journalists in 1999 to elect Gutenberg for the title 'Man of the Millenium'.



 Execept for the required amt of effort involved, which is caused by the language barrier rather than added trinckets, I don't see any great leap in technology.


The Gutenberg press could make 250 impressions per hour, printing one side of a paper at a single impression (Source: Encarta), that is about 4 papers per minute. If you do not see a great leap in technology involved, then perhaps because you are used to our modern industrial standards.

But for its time, Gutenberg's printing was a VERY industrial process. If you do not believe me, at least recognize that the proof is in the pudding:

Today, there are still 30.000 surviving incunabula, making up altogether c. 500.000 documents. Incunabula are the any sort of document (book, pamphlet, sheat of paper, contract, etc.) which has been printed before 1501. The overall number of incunabula has been estimated at 15 million documents, if I am not mistaken. There were about 1700 presses in 300 different cities in 1501. But that was only the beginning. With the Reformation the printing business again madde a quantum leap.

In 16th century Germany alone, the Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachraum erschienenen Drucke des 16. Jahrhunderts (VD 16) records 90.000 different titles. Estimations range between 130.000 and 150.000 different titles printed then.

And in China and Korea, how widespread was printing with movable type letters there? I can tell you, the first extant book printed with movable letters dates as late as 1377....Somewhere I read the Koreans printed altogether 200 books with movable letters under king Sejong (1418-1450).

You see the phenomenal difference.....


Edited by Gun Powder Ma - 29-Sep-2006 at 08:48
Back to Top
Omnipotence View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 494
  Quote Omnipotence Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 10:45

Did the Chinese have that printing machine? Nope. Gutenberg was the very first to use a printing press. Wiki and all those other amateurish sites got it all wrong, I am afraid.

According to the MSEncarta is basically described printing but with Gutenberg's invention of pushing wood on paper. Which is pretty much the only difference between the previous printing methods as of far. And why do you only label Encarta as "the" definition instead of others?

Never said that he deserves all the credit. But he made the single most important contribution to printing and it had been his invention which set off the so-called media revolution. Hence, I am very d'accord with the decision of the American Association of Journalists in 1999 to elect Gutenberg for the title 'Man of the Millenium'.

 

Actually you did say he "deserves all the credit", just look at the last page of this discussion. And as I said again and again repeatedly, Gutenberg got much of his ideas from European block printing, so why is he the one to get so much credit? Without block printing, there wouldn't be a Gutenberg. It's like saying that Tang China should get the most credit for inventing Greek Fire, even though they evented it after the Byzantines.

And in China and Korea, how widespread was printing with movable type letters there? I can tell you, the first extant book printed with movable letters dates as late as 1377....Somewhere I read the Koreans printed altogether 200 books with movable letters under king Sejong (1418-1450).

You see the phenomenal difference.....

 

I don't see your point. Why are you comparing the first printout text with movable type to the production output of Europe? Since they have nothing to do with each other, there indeed is a phenomenal difference. And to even compare Korea's extent of movable letter printing with Europe...hardly fair since Korea don't even use letters. Why do you even call them "late" when they are the first ones to be printed?

But for a comparison- During 768-770 century the 1 million Buddhist texts were printed in both Sanskript and Chinese due to the order of a Japanese empress(Carter and Goodrich)
 
(needleham)"Some 2000 printed works of the Sung, colour printing from the Yuan, and about thirty titles printed with bronze type from the late Ming period
are known to be kept in public and private collections throughout the world. In North America alone, more than one-half of the four million volumes of Chinese books in various library collections are believed to be traditionally printed and bound editions, including over 100,000 volumes printed in the Sung, Yuan, and Ming periods.
If you do not see a great leap in technology involved, then perhaps because you are used to our modern industrial standards.
No, it's because his difference is the use of a screw to put a piece of flattened wood to press on the paper. There's not much of a difference that I can see, besides the language barrier. For example, when Robert Morrison of the London Missionary Society established a printing house in Malacca in 1814 to print his Chinese-English dictionary (Fig. 1131) and a translation of the New Testament with meta type cut by a Chinese engraver, Tshai Kao, and his assistants. By the middle of the 19th century, fonts of Chinese type were made in Europe and America for missionary and other printers in the Far East. Mr Tang created two fonts containing over 150,000 types cast in moulds at Canton in +1850(Needleham). Thus, as we can see, besides the language barrier there really isn't much difference, or else why would the Europeans print Chinese books in Gutenberg's style? Although Gutenberg's machine is more impressive due to the addon, he surely don't deserve even "most" of the credit. Printing goes as far back as written language itself(depends on how you define printing), so Gutenberg is just another link on the chain.


Edited by Omnipotence - 29-Sep-2006 at 10:48
Back to Top
Gun Powder Ma View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 02-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 200
  Quote Gun Powder Ma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 15:23
Originally posted by Omnipotence

I don't see your point. Why are you comparing the first printout text with movable type to the production output of Europe?


You do not see my point because you actually don't want to. That has been your problem all along, beginning with your highly idiosyncratic definition of what a printing press is. Others may call that sheer denial...


Originally posted by Omnipotence

But for a comparison-

1. These are wood block prints, but we were talking all the while about movable letter printing, weren't we?

2. All these figures are anyway anectdotal. The million Japanese Buddhist plaques are probably meant to be figuratively as very many and not literally as 1 million. In any case, there are only few examples left in a single Japanese monastery. Which kinds of supports my notion that not that many have been printed in the first place.

For the rest give me your exact sources. The yaddayadda of Needham with his dubious personal estimations does not really help us, give HARD facts. Meanwhile, I will give you mine: The Bristish Incunabula Short Title Catalogue is the international database of 15th-century European printing created by the British Library with contributions from institutions worldwide: http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/istc/index.html


Originally posted by Omnipotence

No, it's because his difference is the use of a screw to put a piece of flattened wood to press on the paper. There's not much of a difference that I can see, besides the language barrier.


Oh, there certainly is. Actually what Gutenberg did not invent, he improved . For example, East Asian printers used water based inks, but Gutenberg employed from the outset more durable oil based inks. East Asian printers used wooden, clay or at best bronze movable types, while Gutenberg made from the beginning use of more endurable lead types. To create these lead types, he used what some considered his most ingenious invention, a special matrix with which one can mould within an hour new types with an unprecedented precision. Also, after his B42 Gutenberg created within a year the first two coloured prints.

You know, perhaps you surf for images of Gutenberg's B42. Then you do not need to wonder anymore why libraries all over the world held the remaining 44 editions in special safes as national treasures. You even need less to wonder why a certain Bill Gates paid for his B42 30 million dollar....



Back to Top
Omnipotence View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 494
  Quote Omnipotence Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 17:32
You do not see my point because you actually don't want to. That has been your problem all along, beginning with your highly idiosyncratic definition of what a printing press is. Others may call that sheer denial...
 
Clap clap. Very nice argument. I'll believe everything you say from now on just because of this line, which also has nothing to do with the argument. Your argument is a typical response for someone without an argument left. Again, I ask what do a comparison of production output in one place and the time the first use of "so-and-so" printing style of another place have to do with anything? No, if you just HAVE to compare superiority, compare production amount with production amount, and output date with output date. What you are doing is basically telling the production amount of European printing during the 16th century and comparing it to the date the first Chinese movable letter printing came out.
 
btw, I would also like to see your sources on that. Letter printing? In China? Hard to believe. 
 
1. These are wood block prints, but we were talking all the while about movable letter printing, weren't we?

 
Since when did it become "movable letter printing" might I ask? Last time I checked it was the printing press and printing in general. If you meant the "movable type", then yes, my example includes that as well.
 
2. All these figures are anyway anectdotal. The million Japanese Buddhist plaques are probably meant to be figuratively as very many and not literally as 1 million. In any case, there are only few examples left in a single Japanese monastery. Which kinds of supports my notion that not that many have been printed in the first place.
 
And why are you accusing me of sheer denial? You need something valid and tangent to dissaprove the source besides personal opinions.

 
For the rest give me your exact sources. The yaddayadda of Needham with his dubious personal estimations does not really help us, give HARD facts. Meanwhile, I will give you mine: The Bristish Incunabula Short Title Catalogue is the international database of 15th-century European printing created by the British Library with contributions from institutions worldwide: http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/istc/index.html

 

Again personal opinions. Needleham is already a "hard" fact, especially when half the pages of his book came from bibliographies of primary sources, unlike vague wiki-like sights that makes me search through things. Why don't you give the "hard" facts instead and be more specific instead of giving me a sight that would link me to other sights? Especially when I can't even access that sight through attempts to browse through it.


Oh, there certainly is. Actually what Gutenberg did not invent, he improved . For example, East Asian printers used water based inks, but Gutenberg employed from the outset more durable oil based inks. East Asian printers used wooden, clay or at best bronze movable types, while Gutenberg made from the beginning use of more endurable lead types. To create these lead types, he used what some considered his most ingenious invention, a special matrix with which one can mould within an hour new types with an unprecedented precision. Also, after his B42 Gutenberg created within a year the first two coloured prints.
 
You know, perhaps you surf for images of Gutenberg's B42. Then you do not need to wonder anymore why libraries all over the world held the remaining 44 editions in special safes as national treasures. You even need less to wonder why a certain Bill Gates paid for his B42 30 million dollar....

 

And because Gutenberg "improved" upon it, he deserves all to most of the credit? Sorry, but printing has been improved for a long time, from the first days of printing to nowadays where anyone in a first world country can print almost 30 pages a minute. As time goes forward, improvements are made.



Edited by Omnipotence - 29-Sep-2006 at 17:42
Back to Top
Gun Powder Ma View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 02-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 200
  Quote Gun Powder Ma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 21:24
Did you just make an argument? Because, I do not want to be rude, but I can't detect any nor any worthwhile facts.

Originally posted by Omnipotence

What you are doing is basically telling the production amount of European printing during the 16th century and comparing it to the date the first Chinese movable letter printing came out.


This nonsense though requires special consideration. I am comparing the early time of East Asian movable type printing with the early time of European movable type printing. Actually, I was being very generous because I only counted for Europe the first 50 years (the incunabula from 1445 to 1500), while I counted for East Asia approximately the first 400 years (Bi Sheng to Sejong).

And now I am still waiting for your references to the amount of early Chinese and Korean movable type printing...the Gutenberg count of extant works alone was 500.000 prints....



Back to Top
Omnipotence View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 494
  Quote Omnipotence Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 23:35
Did you just make an argument? Because, I do not want to be rude, but I can't detect any nor any worthwhile facts.
 
Don't mean to be rude, but that's a typical response when one runs out of arguments. How isn't it worthwhile?
 
This nonsense though requires special consideration. I am comparing the early time of East Asian movable type printing with the early time of European movable type printing. Actually, I was being very generous because I only counted for Europe the first 50 years (the incunabula from 1445 to 1500), while I counted for East Asia approximately the first 400 years (Bi Sheng to Sejong).

And now I am still waiting for your references to the amount of early Chinese and Korean movable type printing...the Gutenberg count of extant works alone was 500.000 prints....
^I already did, although I did not show information for mere superiority contests on who printed more. My point was that YOUR comparison compared the early type of movable type printing on dates while comparing the production output of Gutenberg's printing methods more than one hundred years later. Completely different comparison. As I said, compare production with production, and dates with dates. You can't compare production with dates. That's like comparing the color and design of one printer to the birth date of the inventor of another printer. Completely different.
 
And last time I checked, we were talking about whether Gutenberg deserves most to all of the credit? Why are you changing this to a superiority contest on "who's printer is better"? Seriously, obviously I agree that Gutenberg's printer is better, or else he deserves NONE of the credit. If he merely copied something that existed, then he's a nobody.


Edited by Omnipotence - 29-Sep-2006 at 23:38
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Sep-2006 at 01:18
I am surprised, why people find it so difficult to accept the fact that the ancestors of humans were also humans & could have been intelligent people capable of discoveries & inventions !!!
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2006 at 22:28
Astronomical Instruments in China <Han Dynasty  B.C. 52> <渾天儀>
 
 
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2006 at 22:38
Seismograph <渾天地動儀> IN CHINA
Inventor: Zhang-Heng
 
 

 
 


Edited by WEILLING - 02-Oct-2006 at 22:40
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2006 at 22:48
Astronomical Instruments in China <Song Dynasty  A.D 1088> <水渾儀 Water Clock>


Edited by WEILLING - 02-Oct-2006 at 22:53
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2006 at 23:01
Sundial in China <Han Dynasty>


Edited by WEILLING - 02-Oct-2006 at 23:03
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2006 at 23:15

Btw, Korean learned Yangbu Ilgu <仰釜日晷> from China.

The first Sundial <Yangbu Ilgu > inventor was Guo Shoujing.
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2006 at 23:37
About metal printing press in China
 
Inventor: Wang Chen <Yuan Dynasty A.D. 1260-1330>, but he used tin and iron bar to product and print characters.
 
finally, we all know about today there are a lot of korean have extreme patriotism, they always like to steal Chinese culture and history.ConfusedCry
Back to Top
Omnipotence View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 494
  Quote Omnipotence Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2006 at 00:51
^It's not as if the Chinese(along with the entire world) aren't guilty of the same thing. Let's not talk about this shall we?
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2006 at 01:30
I wanted information on Korean Bows, which were said to have a range of more than a kilometer & were considered to be better than the Mongol bows, but nobody seems to have the information.
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2006 at 09:42
In my opinion, we couldn't see this result of MONGOL Empire if other countries' military<included Song Dynasty> had been stronger than MONGOL's at that time.
 


Edited by WEILLING - 03-Oct-2006 at 09:47
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.187 seconds.