Gunpowder weapons are well known to have originated in East Asia, but I read on the Qing Dynasty wikipedia page that during the Qing conquest, the Ming Dynasty achieved a victory in 1627 in part due to newly acquired Portuguese cannons.
I've also read that the Japanese around the same time were purchasing firearms from the Portuguese.
Were European gunpowder weapons superior to Asian ones in the early 1600s? Did this continue to be the case until the modern era? What do we know about the relative quality of armaments during this time period.
Thanks!
In the early 1600s? I would say no, European weapons were not superior. I went over the use of firearms and cannons in the Qing early in this thread and pointed out that due to the nature of Chinese artillery (light, portable, high rate of fire), it was far superior to contemporary European cannons. Furthermore, the Qing army could field more cannons per soldier, and European armies did not catch up until the Napoleonic War. In terms of firearm usage, nearly half of the Qing army was composed of firearms. The Qing military only started to decline during the late 18th century.
For Japan, I went over their use of volley fire here. The Japanese adopted the arquebus in 1543 but within half a century, they were producing arquebus which were superior to European models. The Japanese were also the first to pioneer offensive firepower and decimated Korean forces during the Imjin War.