Shipborne close quarters weapons of pre-modern Chinese navies

19th century oil painting of a Qing-era war junk. Image Credit: National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, London.

When people think of pre-modern naval warfare in China and to a lesser extend East Asia, most think of imposing tower ships raining arrows and stones against the opposing fleet, or masses of fire ships turning the sea into a raging inferno à la Battle of Red Cliff.

But there were more to Chinese naval warfare than just missiles and fire. Though often overlooked and understudied, naval battle at close quarters such as boarding action remained an important, even predominant, facet of Chinese naval warfare. In this article, I will introduce some of the tools and weapons used by Chinese navies for close quarters engagement.

Gou Ju (鉤拒, lit. 'Hook-resist')

Since naval boarding was the oldest and predominant form of military tactic in the age of pre-modern naval warfare, it is unsurprising that the earliest naval weapons ever devised were tools to facilitate boarding. Gou Ju, also known as Gou Qiang (鉤強), was a tool, or possibly a set of tools, developed during China's Warring States period and attributed to legendary Chinese carpenter and inventor Lu Ban (魯班). Although the exact design of Gou Ju is now lost, its purposes couldn't be more straightforward: to hook and pull over an enemy ship for boarding, and to fend and push away enemy ship to prevent boarding. As such, it most likely took the form of grappling hook and wooden push pole, or a combination thereof, i.e. something akin to a boat hook. Gou Ju was one of the principal naval weapons of State of Chu (楚國), which used the boarding tool to great effect against the navy of the rival State of Wu (吳國). In fact, military training for Gou Ju became a cultural pastime for the people of Chu state and remained observed long after the demise of the state, eventually evolved into tug of war sport in China.

Ming period boarding tool Liao Gou (撩鈎) essentially fulfilled the same function as ancient Gou Ju.

Gou Ju became overshadowed by other, more advanced naval weapons as Chinese naval warfare became increasingly sophisticated, and largely disappeared from written records after the end of Warring States period. However, such useful tool(s) most definitely continued to see use, either in altered forms or under other names, for as long as naval boarding remained a viable tactic.

Zhuang Liang (撞樑, lit. 'Ramming beam') or Zhuang Gan (撞竿, lit. 'Ramming pole')

A curious and very obscure naval weapon, Zhuang Liang was essentially a wooden beam, longer than the ship's breadth, that was sodded with iron on both ends and built directly into the ship's hull, presumably by replacing one of the planks of its watertight bulkhead. The reinforced ends of Zhuang Liang jutted out from both sides of the hull and functioned as naval rams for the ship, although they were designed for lateral ramming rather than the more familiar head-on ramming. In fact, it may be the only weapon in the world purpose-built for such tactic, as side-mounted rams would seriously interfere with the rowing of oared vessels such as Mediterranean galleys, but won't present a problem for Chinese ships propelled by banks of yuloh (搖橹), as unlike normal oar, the blade of a yuloh is submerged at all time during sculling.

Zhuang Liang was one of the notable armaments of the powerful Wu Wei Chuan (烏尾船) fleet employed by notorious pirate lord Zeng Yi Ben (曾一本), which allowed him to pulverize Ming navy's Fu Chuan (福船) with ease. Fortunately, Ming navy was able to counter his formidable fleet by equipping the same weapon on its own purpose-built ironclad warships.

Naval ramming

Unlike their counterparts in the Mediterranean Sea, for the most part Chinese navies of the antiquities never seem to develop a specialised naval ram, and instead favoured fortified superstructures on warship to better capitalise on their advanced missile weaponry as well as to deter boarders. The formidable yet ponderous Lou Chuan (樓船) and its many derivatives, packed to the brim with commanding firepower yet ill-suited for ramming, thus remained a staple of Chinese navies for thousands of years.

Despite having been employed only sporadically in previous dynasties, naval ramming suddenly gained popularity in the Ming era, when the tactic came to be known as Chong Li (衝犁, lit. 'Charge and plough') or simply Li (犁, lit. 'Ploughing'). Curiously, this only happened after older oar-powered ships were largely phased out by sailing junks, and ramming was largely abandoned by navies elsewhere. The reason for this change is unknown, although it may be related to the primary naval threat faced by Ming Dynasty at the time: the Wokou (倭寇) or Japanese pirates. To elaborate, Japanese ships were considered rather shoddily built by Chinese standard and could be easily destroyed in a collision, which probably enabled ramming to become a viable tactic. This is indirectly supported by the fact that Ming military thinkers never seem to bother with ramming prevention/defence or military formations designed around ramming tactic, as the underlying assumption seem to be that ramming was one-sided, and Ming ships were largely safe from retaliation.

Still more questions remain. For example, how was ramming conducted with typically flat-prowed sailing junks without a ram? How did Chinese ship captains avoid the common pitfalls associated with ramming, such as getting stuck in the hull of the ramming target? Fortunately, a late Ming period military treatise, Bing Lu (《兵錄》), sheds some light on these questions, and the solution was surprisingly simple and ingenious: anchor.

A large Ryukyu Kingdom wooden anchor displayed in Okinawa Prefectural Museum & Art Museum.

It turns out instead of designing a purpose-built ram, Chinese sailors simply used secured anchors as rams instead. Traditional Chinese anchors, of both arrow-shaped wooden and four-clawed iron varieties, could weigh anywhere from 400 kg to 800 kg (for comparison, the Athlit bronze ram, the largest naval ram ever discovered, weighs 465 kg) and equipped with long arms to prevent overpenetration, which made for an ideal ramming weapon. In addition, anchor had the added benefits of being readily available on practically every ship, and could be easily cut loose if it somehow got stuck.

Old photo of a Chinese junk with its anchor fixed to the prow.

Using an anchor as a ram was only possible with a Chinese junk, thanks to its flat prow that allowed an anchor to be directly fixed to the front. Ships with curved/pointed prows, or those with long bowsprits, generally required a cathead to secure the anchor to the side, rendering them unable to use it for ramming. Moreover, many war junks like Fu Chuan typically had multiple anchors, which made their ramming all the more devastating (not to mention an entire row of anchors was visually strikingly reminiscence of a plough).

Read more

Unique Chinese weapon — Pai Gan (拍竿)

MINOR UPDATE JUNE 10, 2025

Scale model of a Sui Dynasty capital warship equipped with six V-shape Pai Gan. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

Pai Gan (拍竿, lit. 'Swatting pole') was an ancient Chinese naval weapon fitted to various warships to pulverise enemy ship at close range. Said to be able to outright sink a ship in one tremendous downward smash, it was in many ways an omni-directional alternative to naval ram. 

Pai Gan was first recorded in use during an uprising against Western Jin Dynasty led by Du Tao (杜弢) in 311 A.D. and quickly grew in popularity in the subsequent dynasties. Before long, this potent weapon had become one of the most common naval weapons in China, so much so specialised warships designed to use Pai Gan as their primary armament became a staple in various Chinese navies and were given descriptive names such as Pai Jian (拍艦, lit.'Swatting ship') and Jin Chi Jian (金翅艦, lit. 'Golden wings ship', likely named after raised Pai Gan mounted at the port and starboard of said ship). Pai Gan gradually fell out of popularity after Song period due to the advent of firearms, although it continued to see limited use during Ming period.

Theoretical operation

Illustration of a Lou Chuan (樓舡), or tower ship, from 'Wu Jing Zong Yao (《武經總要》)'. Historians are yet undecided about whether the crane-like device mounted on the top of the ship is an indigenous form of counterweight trebuchet or a Pai Gan.

Although the exact nature of this weapon is unclear, written records describe Pai Gan as being similar to a ship's mast, as well as compare it to a Jie Gao (桔槔), a.k.a. shadoof. In fact, the weapon was simply called Jie Gao initially before acquiring a more specific name to distinguish it from the irrigation tool. Pai Gan had a short range, and was seemingly a one-off weapon or at least took a very long time before it could be used again. This led to the development of countermeasure tactics such as sending out small boats to bait enemy ships into activating their Pai Gan prematurely.

There are ongoing debates on the exact workings of Pai Gan. Some see Pai Gan as nothing more than a ship-mounted traction trebuchet, while others imagine Pai Gan as a boulder tied to a crane arm, intended to be used as a giant striking hammer. Currently, the striking hammer interpretation seem to be the dominant view, with researchers proposing several candidate designs for Pai Gan, although each comes with their own pros and cons. The first candidate, a "T-shape" Pai Gan, most closely resembles a Jie Gao/shadoof, but has abysmal reach and is mechanically inefficient, not to mention its hammer has a high chance of smashing into the ship it is mounted on. On the other hand, the second candidate, a "V-shape" Pai Gan, operates on a similar principle as Greek Sambuca and Roman Corvus which is far more mechanically sound, although this design certainly does not evoke the image of a Jie Gan/shadoof.

Personally, I lean heavily towards the view that Pai Gan was simply a trebuchet, as there is at least one record mentioning Pai Gan being used to attack shore fortifications.I believe that with some tweaks to the "T-shape" Pai Gan—namely mounting the arm on a much shorter pole and having it face inwards, as well as arranging it so that the arm must be manually pulled rather than simply released—it can easily be turned into a functioning stone-thrower while still matching the available written descriptions. Better yet, my proposed Pai Gan does not preclude the striking-hammer interpretation and will in fact resolve all the issues present in both the "T-shape" and "V-shape" versions while being more stable and powerful than either.

Read more