33 replies to this topic

[General_Zhaoyun]

Below is a picture of a chinese battle formation taken from 3 kingdoms period.

[General_Zhaoyun]

I have a number of questions:

1. Is this a form of defensive or offensive formation?

I suspect it's more of defensive formation. Notice that the front have positioned wheelbarrow full of spikes to stop any cavalry/infantry charges.

The 1st row of cross-bowers (nu soldiers) seem to be positioned in front to stop any enemy forces from coming near to the formation. There is a 2nd row of archers positioned within the center of the entire formation used to fire any enemy who came within the range of formation.

The cavalry were positioned at the two flanks used either for countering cavarly charges who were flanking the two sides trying to break the formation.. or they could be used for offensive charges.

2. Why is the general/commander for each battalion on a chariot/wagon instead of on a horse? I suppose the highest commander is at the very back of the army.

3. How do they pass command signals (such as attack/defense/hold the lines) throughout the formation? Through means of flags/drums?

[Yang Zongbao]

I would assume flags, drums, gongs, or even smoke were used in communications- Sun Wu's art of war advocates the use of the drums and flags since verbal commands are next to impossible to hear in battle.

Pure speculation, but perhaps the chariot is a vantage point? It sets the commanders a few heads above the other soldiers, so they don't simply see just a mass of so many men around them milling about- they can see what's going on. The troops would be able to see them better at a raised position, and they could get better knowledge of the situation. Of course, maybe that'd just make them big targets too.

[urofpersia]

Hi GZ,

what's the source for this picture? It looks slightly idealised like from a military manual. I would have thought there would be more combined arms but then I am not familiar with 3K.

A chariot would allow a dedicated driver leaving the commander to issue orders or use weapons if necessary. instruments such as a drum can be mounted on a chariot.

[General_Zhaoyun]

Hi GZ,

what's the source for this picture? It looks slightly idealised like from a military manual. I would have thought there would be more combined arms but then I am not familiar with 3K.

Source: http://www.lksf.org/...s/picture.shtml (野戰 - 步兵 、弩兵、騎兵等整齊劃一的兵種聯合布陣, Open Combat - Infantry, Cross-bowers, Cavarly and various combination of battle formation)

I got the link from Yun's post at
http://www.chinahist...showtopic=11647

[ih8eurocentrix]

Perhaps in the heat of battle is was easier waving flags correctly on a chariots ,instead of trying to controls a horse at the same time.

[Mei Houwang]

By the Qin/Han Dynasty, chariots functioned mostly (solely?) as mobile "signal/ command stations" rather than attack vehicles because of the advancements in horseback warfare during the late Zhou Dynasty-- "thanks" to the surrounding tribes/civilizations, which chariots were quite useless against.

Chariots by that time did function as good defense units for cavalry to retreat behind when fighting on the nomadic plains.

[Tibet Libre]

The 1st row of cross-bowers (nu soldiers) seem to be positioned in front to stop any enemy forces from coming near to the formation. There is a 2nd row of archers positioned within the center of the entire formation used to fire any enemy who came within the range of formation.

Really cool pic, but I would challenge the wisdom (and historical accuracy) of placing the crossbowmen such a way. The distance between the second row and the front measures at least 50 m and that alone, next to the fact that the crossbowmen have to shoot blindly, takes much away from their punching power, unless you go by inflated claims of maximum effective range.

Better place all units at the front, cover different distances by different shooting angles, and make sure the aisles between the spearmen are broad enough to get all crossbowmen back behind the infantry in time.

Edited by Tibet Libre, 29 May 2006 - 11:01 AM.

[ih8eurocentrix]

crossbowmen at front shoot straight.the ones behind shoot "lobb shot" covering fire for the front row.

[General_Zhaoyun]

It seems that crossbows have the advantage of longer range, greater firing power and better accuracy than normal bows. For this reason, they were often put in the frontline as defensive forces against charging enemy.

However, the disdvantage of crossbow is its longer re-load time (i.e. longer time to reload ammunition) compared to the normal bows. If the enemy cavalry were to take advantage of this weakness (i.e. the longer re-load time), they could very quickly charge into the crossbowers while the crossbowers were still trying to re-load their bolts. This swift cavalry attack can easily break and penetrate the frontal crossbower's formation.

To guard against this weakness of longer re-load time, the cross-bowers formation would have to be readjusted into 3 rows of crossbowers and utilize the "Sequential/Continuous firing Tactic" in one crossbower formation.

Basically this tactic works this way:

First row will fire at the charging enemy. After firing, the first row of crossbowers would squat down, so that the 2nd row can continue to fire from the back at the enemy. While squating down, the 1st row will prepare to re-load their crossbow with bolts. After the 2nd row had fired, they would squat down and allowed the 3rd row to continue to fire from the back at the enemy. While squating down, 2nd row will prepare to re-load their crowbows. After the 3 row had finished firing, the 1st row will stand up and it will be their turn to fire again.

Thus in short, after 1st row had fired, it will be the turn of 2nd crow to fire. After 2nd row had fired, it will be the turn of 3rd row to fire...After 3rd row finishes, it will be 1st row's turn to fire and this cycle continues until all enemy charging into the formation are wiped out. The changeover to another row allows the cross-bowers time to re-load their ammunition while making sure there are still continuous firing from the formation.

[Tibet Libre]

Thus in short, after 1st row had fired, it will be the turn of 2nd crow to fire. After 2nd row had fired, it will be the turn of 3rd row to fire...After 3rd row finishes, it will be 1st row's turn to fire and this cycle continues until all enemy charging into the formation are wiped out. The changeover to another row allows the cross-bowers time to re-load their ammunition while making sure there are still continuous firing from the formation.

Exactly with that rotation in mind, I would argue placing 2 squadron with 3 rows each at the front makes more sense. It would make interaction between between the two squadrons much more effienct, doubling the fire rate, and increase the range of the second squadron by 50 meters.

[Mei Houwang]

Old saying goes, never put all your eggs in one bucket(or was it basket?). Putting all the crossbowmen at the front could lead to some immobility in formation changes later on. And if the front collapses, then the army would have no crossbowmen. But I do also question the validity of the drawing, since I find no sources that the artist used for that drawing. The real hint that the drawing may be inaccurate is that the horsemen are shown to carry shields(in red).

Edited by Anthrophobia, 30 May 2006 - 08:55 AM.

[Wujiang]

But I do also question the validity of the drawing, since I find no sources that the artist used for that drawing. The real hint that the drawing may be inaccurate is that the horsemen are shown to carry shields(in red).

I agree. I am seriously sceptical about the accuracy. Considering there are no sources that gives such detailed discription of battle formations, this drawing is very likely just something the artist adapted from what was availiable, and taking quite an amount of liberty to fill in the gaps.

[Tibet Libre]

Old saying goes, never put all your eggs in one bucket(or was it basket?). Putting all the crossbowmen at the front could lead to some immobility in formation changes later on.

Yes, that why I said, the infantry behind has to have more space to let the crossbowmen back through. That's how Greek and Roman armies employed light missile troops: First skirmishing, then retreating back behind the lines, when the serious stuff begins.

[Wujiang]

First skirmishing, then retreating back behind the lines, when the serious stuff begins.

Just nitpicking, but the missile fire were the serious stuff. Chinese battles were a matter of outmanuveuring your enemy on a strategic level so that you eventually wear your enemy down with missile fire. Cavalry would merely play mob-up when on the plain fighting infantry.

Fact is, because infantry are out-gored and out-scored by the missile and cavalry, they are for most of history just secondary units used for holding precarious terrains and siege. On the plain battles, their function are mainly to hold the enemy down. Never as the main deal.

Considering the amount of losses one suffers if they actually engage in infantry-to-infantry battles (even if you are on the winning side), it is extremely undesirable to have them do anything more than the bare minimum.