The Persian History called _Tabaḳát-i-Násiri_ speaks of Aikah Nowin the _Manjaníki Khás_ or Engineer-in-Chief to Chinghiz Khan, and his corps of ten thousand _Manjaníkis_ or Mangonellers. The Chinese histories used by Gaubil also speak of these artillery battalions of Chinghiz. At the siege of Kai-fung fu near the Hwang-Ho, the latest capital of the Kin Emperors, in 1232, the Mongol General, Subutai, threw from his engines great quarters of millstones which smashed the battlements and watch-towers on the ramparts, and even the great timbers of houses in the city. In 1236 we find the Chinese garrison of Chinchau (_I-chin-hien_ on the Great Kiang near the Great Canal) repelling the Mongol attack, partly by means of their stone shot. When Hulaku was about to march against Persia (1253), his brother, the Great Kaan Mangku, sent to _Cathay_ to fetch thence 1000 families of mangonellers, naphtha-shooters, and arblasteers. Some of the crossbows used by these latter had a range, we are told, of 2500 paces! European history bears some similar evidence. One of the Tartar characteristics reported by a fugitive Russian Archbishop, in Matt. Paris (p. 570 under 1244), is: “_Machinas habent multiplices, recte et fortiter jacientes_.” It is evident, therefore, that the Mongols and Chinese _had_ engines of war, but that they were deficient in some advantage possessed by those of the Western nations. Rashiduddin’s expression as to their having no _Kumghá_ mangonels, seems to be unexplained. Is it perhaps an error for _Ḳarábughá_, the name given by the Turks and Arabs to a kind of great mangonel? This was known also in Europe as Carabaga, Calabra, etc. It is mentioned under the former name by Marino Sanudo, and under the latter, with other quaintly-named engines, by William of Tudela, as used by Simon de Montfort the Elder against the Albigenses:— “E dressa sos _Calabres_, et foi _Mal Vezina_ E sas autras pereiras, e _Dona_, e _Reina_; Pessia les autz murs e la sala peirina.”[9] (“He set up his _Calábers_, and likewise his _Ill-Neighbours_, With many a more machine, this the _Lady_, that the _Queen_, And breached the lofty walls, and smashed the stately Halls.”) Now, in looking at the Chinese representations of their ancient mangonels, which are evidently genuine, and of which I have given some specimens (figs. I, 2, 3), I see none worked by the counterpoise; all (and there are six or seven different representations in the work from which these are taken) are shown as worked by man-ropes. Hence, probably, the improvement brought from the West was essentially the use of the counterpoised lever. And, after I had come to this conclusion, I found it to be the view of Captain Favé. (See _Du Feu Grégeois_, by MM. Reinaud and Favé, p. 193.)