Why were the Chinese unable to use arquebuses and pikes on a

>>1608637
Probably bait but whatever. There was no need to. Europeans and Turks were surrounded by states of parity and has incentive to constantly improve their arms while the Chinese were surrounded by completely asymmetrical 'barbarians' and by the time they were 'surrounded' by states that posed proper threat the narcissistic culture and dysfunctional bureaucracy had dug in too much

>>1608637
>Why were the Chinese unable to use arquebuses and pikes on a large scale like Europeans, Turks and Japs?

They used pikes and matchlocks against the Japanese in 1894-5. You can't say they weren't able to keep pace with developments.

File: 1894.png (1MB, 1301x884px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1301x884px

>>1608667

>>1608651
What about the hundreds of rebellions China had to endure?

>>1608651
China was a state of fairly periodic turmoil, and they were certainly not immune to outside threat, even if the Mongols had tired out a bit by the 16-1700s.

>>1608667
>pike and shot
>1894-1895
>keeping pace

Anon...

File: spears.png (552KB, 1995x2721px) Image search: [Google]

552KB, 1995x2721px

>>1608637
>poor b8
Not to mention most of the Han defectors were involved in firearms and artillery divisions.

http://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2015/03/chang-qiang.html

http://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2014/11/matchlock-of-ming-dynasty.html

>>1610188
why the hell would they need a 17+ foot spear?

>>1610188

>1766
>pikes
>technological parity

What?

>>1610293
Chinks had formations where they combined pike and sword wielding infantry.

>>1610385
Addressing >Why were the Chinese unable to use arquebuses and pikes on a large scale like Europeans, Turks and Japs?