Artillery (what sort?) in Cham armies

[Aetius-last-of-the-Romans]

Another South East Asian question for the 'hive mind'.

Again, various army lists offer the option for Cham armies to field artillery.
This has been justified (elsewhere) as coming from a reference to ship wrecked Song Chinese sailors that trained the Cham to fight on horseback using bows (& crossbows?) and to build and use 'heavy' artillery.
Can anybody point me at the contemporary written source for this information please?

We do see Cham troops operating double-staved large bolt-throwers (similar in style to Chinese Song ones) from the backs of elephants, in the bas-relief carvings at the Bayon at Angkor Thom (although it is possible that they are allied or mercenary troops supporting the Khmer). But these, like their Chinese and even Roman equivalents would usually be classified as light artillery in most rules sets.

As we don't see bow (or crossbow) armed cavalry amongst the Cham at Bayon or Banteay Chhmar; or any evidence of the Cham using 'heavier' artillery or even using bolt-throwers in their own ranks, I am just wondering whether this reference has been substantiated?

Many thanks
Mark

[nikgaukroger]

I'm getting interested in which these "various army lists" are. Of no import of course, but can't help but be curious.

[lionheartrjc]

I'm getting interested in which these "various army lists" are. Of no import of course, but can't help but be curious.

The DBMM army list allows Trebuchets after 1280 AD.  This presumably would be Yuan dynasty technology, either given or stolen.  I haven't come across any evidence for this (although to be fair, I wasn't explicitly looking for it either).
Richard

[Aetius-last-of-the-Romans]

I'm getting interested in which these "various army lists" are. Of no import of course, but can't help but be curious.

Pretty much all of them Nik    - FoGA&M, ADLG, MeG, old Newbury 'Fast Play', all the various DB variant lists and probably others I have yet to check.

The core 'source' seems to be the original set of DBM army lists, February 1994, Book:3 P.23 which has the line:
Only Cham after 1280 AD: Trubuchet - Reg Art (S) @ 1AP 0-1

It also has the Khmer with Burmese allies (Bk3) and the Cham with Medieval Vietnamese allies (Bk3) - which is historically correct (off & on).

The Cham are also allowed (post 1170AD) - 0-4 Crossbow cavalry and 0-2 Horse Archer; plus 0-1 "Fierce fire oil" casters - Irr Ps(X) (I'd be interested in any references on these as well?) which can be fielded as far back as 605AD.

The Khmer list includes: Chariots - 2-horse chariots, Reg Cav (O) and justifies this in the notes by making reference to "A Chinese Ambassador (sic. Chou Ta-Kuan) notes guards on horseback and chariots in 1295" which the lists authors have assumed must be war chariots, I'd suggest.

The notes also refer to 'Maiden Guard' and armed female warriors depicted in the carvings - but in reality these are representations of heavenly Apsara in the religious/mythological reliefs. Chou Ta-Kuan does refer to a small palace guard unit of women, but you don't see them on any of the historical reliefs and I suspect that they were probably a small close personal palace bodyguard (a bit like those used by the Libyan Dictator Colonel Gadhafi in later times). There is also a reference in the notes to "horses disguised as dragons" which is just an exaggerated interpretation of the way that the Khmer carvers depicted horses (& which is now widely accepted as an inaccuracy).

Similarly there is a statement in the notes about Cham elephant crews using javelins (when they were bow armed) and that the Cham made less use of cavalry and more use of heavy spearmen, when the numbers of both depicted on the reliefs are almost identical to those of the Khmer.

Where the WRG list is interesting is that it goes back to a starting point of 605AD when the Sui Chinese invaded the Cham coastal kingdoms - which seems sensible. But ending the list at 1400AD when the Khmer Empire collapses as a viable entity then seems odd, as the Cham states continue on after that date to finally be conquered by the North Vietnamese (Diet Viet) in 1471AD.

Anyway, I digress terribly. My point is that most of the above inaccuracies appear to stem from this initial army list, unless anybody else knows better 

Thanks
Mark
NB: I'm aware that I am looking like a 'kill-joy' here - "what no Burmese allies, no chariots, no heavy artillery, no crossbow armed cavalry or horse archers, no Fierce fire-oil casters, no Maiden Guard and even no Ph'kak-men !!!"  (yes the Ph'kak formations of two-handed cutting weapons are another misinterpretation of the carvings, as well) ... but ... it is all in the name of 'progress'.
However, what I can add to the lists are that post c. 1200AD the Khmer should be allowed a small % of spearmen that can have very large pavices; the Khmer can also field mixed Spear and Crossbow armed formations and the Cham can also use mixed Spear and Bow armed units (not a lot of either of these last two but enough to add good support to the main body of the infantry). Similarly the Khmer use a rather fantastic 2-wheeled platform/cart fronted by pavices, with warriors thrusting spears over the top of the pavices and other 'crew' pushing them from behind. This appears to be very similar to bladed 2-wheeled carts used by Song and later Chinese for the attack and defense of fortified cities. Maybe they could be depicted as a sort of inferior war wagon (of sorts)? The mixed spear and missile formations might also reflect a growing Chinese military influence as well.

[Aetius-last-of-the-Romans]

I'm getting interested in which these "various army lists" are. Of no import of course, but can't help but be curious.

The DBMM army list allows Trebuchets after 1280 AD.  This presumably would be Yuan dynasty technology, either given or stolen.  I haven't come across any evidence for this (although to be fair, I wasn't explicitly looking for it either).
Richard

I remember (dimly) an old thread or was it in an old Slingshot article, where I think Duncan Head mentioned a source, maybe a Chinese chronicle or similar, but I've not been able to find it.

[nikgaukroger]

I'm getting interested in which these "various army lists" are. Of no import of course, but can't help but be curious.

Pretty much all of them Nik    - FoGA&M, ADLG, MeG, old Newbury 'Fast Play', all the various DB variant lists and probably others I have yet to check.

Well I'll stand up, at least in part, for the ones I'm currently involved with and point out that the MeG ones for Khmer and Champa don't have Burmese allies or heavy artillery, and the Khmer only have chariots at earlier dates 

However, I'm sure there are other areas they can be improved in so I'm all in favour of your posting this interesting stuff 

[nikgaukroger]

NB: I'm aware that I am looking like a 'kill-joy' here - "what no Burmese allies, no chariots, no heavy artillery, no crossbow armed cavalry or horse archers, no Fierce fire-oil casters, no Maiden Guard and even no Ph'kak-men !!!"  (yes the Ph'kak formations of two-handed cutting weapons are another misinterpretation of the carvings, as well) ... but ... it is all in the name of 'progress'.
However, what I can add to the lists are that post c. 1200AD the Khmer should be allowed a small % of spearmen that can have very large pavices; the Khmer can also field mixed Spear and Crossbow armed formations and the Cham can also use mixed Spear and Bow armed units (not a lot of either of these last two but enough to add good support to the main body of the infantry). Similarly the Khmer use a rather fantastic 2-wheeled platform/cart fronted by pavices, with warriors thrusting spears over the top of the pavices and other 'crew' pushing them from behind. This appears to be very similar to bladed 2-wheeled carts used by Song and later Chinese for the attack and defense of fortified cities. Maybe they could be depicted as a sort of inferior war wagon (of sorts)? The mixed spear and missile formations might also reflect a growing Chinese military influence as well.

I think that it is a good thing to seek to continually expand and improve information on armies, and update army lists if you play a game that uses these or infor your orbats if you don't. There is far too much reliance on what are now rather old lists IMO and there is much more information more easily available now - although areas like SE Asia remain rather murky (at least to us anglophones).

Glad you mentioned the Khmer platforms BTW, I tried to get Richard Jefffrey-Cook to add them to the MeG Angkor Empire list but to no avail    Maybe he will reconsider now you've also mentioned them 

[Aetius-last-of-the-Romans]

I think that it is a good thing to seek to continually expand and improve information on armies, and update army lists if you play a game that uses these or infor your orbats if you don't. There is far too much reliance on what are now rather old lists IMO and there is much more information more easily available now - although areas like SE Asia remain rather murky (at least to us anglophones).

Glad you mentioned the Khmer platforms BTW, I tried to get Richard Jefffrey-Cook to add them to the MeG Angkor Empire list but to no avail    Maybe he will reconsider now you've also mentioned them 

I also like the carvings of Elephants with the two archers slung in 'cargo-nets' on either flank - maybe an elephant unit that shoots in 180 degree arcs on either side as well as to its front - although I expect this was probably an emergency improvisation, as it would probably be a very uncomfortable ride!

*and on the issue of information for us anglophones ... watch this space (early next year)

[Aetius-last-of-the-Romans]

 and the Khmer only have chariots at earlier dates 
[/quote]

and the Khmer only have chariots at earlier dates 

No Khmer chariots Nik - they are a complete fabrication based upon the religious/mythological carvings and a misinterpreted quote by Chou Ta-Kuan.

Michael J-H and Charles Higham (who's book 'The Civilization of Angkor' I'd thoroughly recommend btw) along with the seminal earlier books by Groslier and LP Briggs are all pretty much in agreement that what is depicted in the carvings are not only totally impractical but also totally fanciful.
Even T.R.Trautmann in his book 'Elephants and Kings' (which I thoroughly disagree with about the impact of Indian military culture on the Khmer) is of a similar view about chariots.

Also you just have to look at the terrain in S.East Asia and Cambodia in particular to observe that it is just not chariot 'country'. In the rainy season most of the low lying flat land is either a swamp or a paddy field or dense scrub and forest and even with the military roads that the Khmer Kings built, moving chariots around would have been a nightmare. In the dry season the ground turns to fine dust, so again your chariot wheels are going to end up, up to their axles in it. You might use them as transport (as I believe the Khmer did) but in a society with an abundance of elephants and a climate that doesn't favor horse breeding, chariots are an expensive and mostly impractical luxury.

But that's just my view, of course     

[nikgaukroger]

No Khmer chariots Nik - they are a complete fabrication based upon the religious/mythological carvings and a misinterpreted quote by Chou Ta-Kuan.

Ah, thought you only meant later. So no go even at earlier times then. Not sure I've ever seen anyone field them to be honest, but no doubt somebody has 

[Duncan Head]

I remember (dimly) an old thread or was it in an old Slingshot article, where I think Duncan Head mentioned a source, maybe a Chinese chronicle or similar

It was Needham, Science and Civilisation in China. Volume V, Chemistry and Chemical Technology: Part VI, Military Technology: Missiles and Sieges p.222, referencing the Yuan Shi. At some point c.1300 it refers to one city in Champa having huihui pao, "Muslim trebuchets" - that is, the Middle Eastern-style counterweight stone-throwing trebuchets introduced to China by Muslim artillerymen in Mongol service.

[Aetius-last-of-the-Romans]

I remember (dimly) an old thread or was it in an old Slingshot article, where I think Duncan Head mentioned a source, maybe a Chinese chronicle or similar

It was Needham, Science and Civilisation in China. Volume V, Chemistry and Chemical Technology: Part VI, Military Technology: Missiles and Sieges p.222, referencing the Yuan Shi. At some point c.1300 it refers to one city in Champa having huihui pao, "Muslim trebuchets" - that is, the Middle Eastern-style counterweight stone-throwing trebuchets introduced to China by Muslim artillerymen in Mongol service.

Many thanks Duncan - very helpful, as always.
Mark

[nikgaukroger]

I remember (dimly) an old thread or was it in an old Slingshot article, where I think Duncan Head mentioned a source, maybe a Chinese chronicle or similar

It was Needham, Science and Civilisation in China. Volume V, Chemistry and Chemical Technology: Part VI, Military Technology: Missiles and Sieges p.222, referencing the Yuan Shi. At some point c.1300 it refers to one city in Champa having huihui pao, "Muslim trebuchets" - that is, the Middle Eastern-style counterweight stone-throwing trebuchets introduced to China by Muslim artillerymen in Mongol service.

Any indication of use in the field? I'm a bit dubious about these trebuchets being used outside of sieges.

[Duncan Head]

Not in the Needham reference, no. On checking, it just says "in the service of the Champa kingdom"; I've half a memory that there was another reference to trebuchets in a Cham port city, but I can't place that now.

[Duncan Head]

Not in the Needham reference, no. On checking, it just says "in the service of the Champa kingdom"; I've half a memory that there was another reference to trebuchets in a Cham port city, but I can't place that now.

And now I've found it. From Vu-Hong-Lin Warder, "The Mongol Navy - Kublai Khan's Failed Invasions in Southeast-Asia" (2014), referring to 1283:

Jingshi dadian confirmed that the Cham faced the Mongols with a fortified wooden citadel, and more than a hundred hui hui pao, at the top of today's Quy Nhon bay. Hui hui pao is vaguely understood by historians as a stone-flinging giant catapult originated from Damascus and had first been imported into Asia by the Mongols to cope with the fortified cities of southern China. They were recorded as the main advantage that helped the Mongols to defeat the city of Xiang-Yang in 1274.