My understanding was that cannons in 16th century Europe caused an arms race between more modern fortifications and artillery (that the latter eventually won) which had a significant impact on the European early modern world.
I read a claim that cannons of roughly equal power existed in China during the same time - but that 16th century Chinese castle walls were thicker, and the cannons had no significant impact on warfare during the period. Can this really be true?
The short answer: yes.
A fairly typical Chinese city or fortress wall might be about 10m high, and about 12-16m thick at the base, thinning to about 8-10m thick at the top. They were commonly faced with brick or stone. This is very artillery resistant, and will be difficult for even modern artillery to destroy (earth walls/berms are still commonly used in modern warfare, along with sandbags, gabions, etc.).
I read a claim that cannons of roughly equal power existed in China during the same time - but that 16th century Chinese castle walls were thicker, and the cannons had no significant impact on warfare during the period. Can this really be true?
"Wall-breaking" cannon were generally absent in China. If they had been used in China, fortress walls like those described above would have been highly resistant to them. It has been said that the lack of such cannons in China was due to there being no point in developing them to destroy walls, since they wouldn't have been capable of that. However, "been said" doesn't mean "true". For some further discussion of this, see the past discussions in
by myself, u/dandan_noodles and u/hborrgg