1719 replies to this topic

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

"the Chinese crossbow mechanisms recovered from Ching Shi Huang's tomb were capable of a range of 200m. The Ballista ranges listed at between 300-500m are good to know. They sound quite fearsome with the effect from a direct hit."

No, the range of the Qin hand crossbow was 300 meter maximum, 200 is the effective range. And its irrelevant considering Qin crossbow's mechanism was less developed than that of the other warring states as well as the Han's which had a range of some 450 meter maximum and near 300 meter as the effective range. Later Song Sheng Bi Nu had an effective range of 346 meters and a maximum range of some 470 meter due to the development of the stirrup pull.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

"You deny tribute, then repeat what I had said simply in your own words. "

I didn't repeat what you've said, tribute happens when an inferior power bribes a greater power, that not case for majority of Han history.

"Tribute, marriage etc.. It offers nothing new other than you call 'tribute' 'trade'. I can get some statistics if you will, but the amount of silk flowing to the barbarians in return for their gifts was not always in Chinese favour. "

Irrelevant, the definition of tribute is an offering as a sign of reverence to a another, and it was the xiongnu that paid tribute, the Han gave gifts in return.

"It was about a relationship for peace, not primarily trade. What would Chinese want from the Xiongnu anyway?"

Hourses, in which China require a vast amount for war and its one of the major imports into China. Fur is another product, which was one of the major export item in the south. The trade is obviously beneficial to both side as Ban mentions "we give to the nomads in calculation to what they give us"

"This is why the Xiongnu raided the Chinese, they lacked what the Chinese had. Tribute was a method for keeping the peace, and relationships."

No, TRADE is the method, as clearly documented.

"You are wrong if you think it was for some financial benifit. "

No, you are the one thats wrong.

"Where do you get this idea? It sounds more like a political spin like Donald Rumsfeld might come up with."

Sure to someone who never read primary sources nor consulted economic studies.

Edited by warhead, 20 March 2008 - 02:42 PM.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

And its a fact that the xiongnu paid tribute which the xiongnu themselves officially called their imports.

[Kenneth]

200m range is the information provided within my text on 'the buried army of ShiHuangDi, I simply quote as I read it.
If 200m means 'effective' then sure, perhaps 300m is possible if you aim it 45' into the sky in ideal conditions and let it fall to the ground, but a crossbows power requires direct fire. If it is just dropping down onto troops it is no different to a bow for penetration, and 300m is not spectacular for a bow.

Here's a pic of Han cavalry, and quite typical in the armour even if this rider is not as delicately made as those in other tombs.

[Kenneth]

opps, the pic didn't post. I will look into that.

''''Irrelevant, the definition of tribute is an offering as a sign of reverence to a another, and it was the xiongnu that paid tribute, the Han gave gifts (such as silk).'''

Yes, that is the system of tribute. The Han gave gifts in return for tribute. Correct & It was not only Xiongnu that were within this tribute system. You understand well. But what's your point?

Irrelevant seems to be a favourite word...that and very little supporting words to your bald statements of fact,


"It was about a relationship for peace, not primarily trade. What would Chinese want from the Xiongnu anyway?"

Horses for one.... (except that Han gathered them by war also, and in time they had their own herds and bred themselves....so how long would that need last? The Chinese aquired the celestial horses in numbers very quickly after discovering them. This is another suggested reason for the chariot going out of fashion, larger stronger horses during Han.) and fur (can't you see the function of tribute as relationship?...Chinese had hemp and silk as main fabric during these times).

When people here have talked of the Xiongnu 'empire', 'the greatest steppe empire on earth' thats fanciful. At best they were a confederancy of tribes under an agreed leaders influence, and when the leader died the confederancy ended. The Chinese even divided the Xiongnu to control them and formed relationships with southern Xiongnu groups to cut off the northern Xiongnu. I fail to see any 'empire' to measure Han against.

[Mei Houwang]

nd cavalry make do with just a helmet

From what I remember, calvary did have armor.

[Yun]

Chinese cavalrymen were very lightly armoured in the Han period - at the most there would be a helmet and a lamellar/scale vest. I think this was partly because cavalry were used for skirmishing (including horse archery) much more than for shock tactics (i.e. massed lance charges), and partly because the absence of stirrups made it harder for a heavy rider to remain stable on the horse.

A very long thread about this issue: http://www.chinahist...p?showtopic=224

[Kenneth]

Hi Yun & Anthrophobia, you are both right and I need to choose word more carefully as I am aware of light armoured cavalry.
“Heavy armour seems to very rarely to be dipicted (not quite as complete suits as Qin), an open face helm and a shield, or maybe a plate vest is about the heaviest...and cavalry make do with just a helmet.” Well, sometimes.
You are quite right. Cavalry could wear armour. I was commenting on impressions gained from what appears on Han era tomb pottery, few heavy, cavalry with just helmets etc., but it’s is wasn’t meant to rule out armour completely from this as tomb pottery can depict armoured horsemen too. Both types are shown, and now you bought me to account I should qualify my statemtents (and be more careful in future!).
The unarmoured cavalry are much like those regiments found amongst the tomb of Zhou Yafu, which had 3,000 miniaturized troops in pottery. The foot soldiers are unarmoured but carry a shield, the horsemen are unarmoured but both cavalry and foot soldiers have simple open face helmets. (images in ‘The Land Between the Passes, by Zou Zongxu)

Similar horsemen are shown below

[Kenneth]

unarmoured

[Kenneth]

"It was about a relationship for peace, not primarily trade. What would Chinese want from the Xiongnu anyway?"

Horses for one, in which China require a vast amount for war and its one of the major imports into China,

partially true, Han did require a massive stock of horse for its needs.

http://www.silk-road...artl/wuti.shtml (ps, he means ‘celestial horse’)
Wu-ti's initial attempt to trade the Celetial Horses with gold coins was rejected by the king of Fergana and the Han envoy sent for the negotiation was murdered and stripped. When the news arrived Chang'an, Wuti was furious and decided to take them by force. He appointed Li Guangli to lead the expedition. In 104 BC, Li Guangli set off to win the horses with 6000 horsmen and thousands of foot soldiers. However they were not able to defeat Fergana and forced to retreat to Dunhuang. There Li Guangli with only few remaining men waited for the reinforcements from Wu-ti. In 102 BC, Wu-ti embarked the second military campaign in an army of 60,000 men, 30,000 horses, 100,000 head of cattle and thousands of donkeys and camels marching out towards Fergana. They reached the capital and successfully besieged it. They returned to China with a great haul of the famous Fergana steeds. Fergana provided them with the best celetial horses as well as 3000 ordinary stallions and mares. Furthmore two celestial horses would be sent every year. The two campaigns had lasted four years.
Since then the 'celetial horses' were bred in China


fur is number two, which is one of its major export item in the south, for the celestial empire. The trade is obviously beneficial to both side as Ban mentions "we give to the nomads in calculation to what they give us"



"This is why the Xiongnu raided the Chinese, they lacked what the Chinese had. Tribute was a method for keeping the peace, and relationships."


No, TRADE is the method, as clearly documented.

But you just outlined what tribute systems were ‘tribute is an offering as a sign of reverence to a another, and it was the xiongnu that paid tribute, the Han gave gifts.’
I don’t know what more need to be said about the nature of this ‘trade’.

"You are wrong if you think it was for some financial benifit. "

No, you are the one thats wrong. (nice and brief retort, please expand)

By all accounts the balance of payments was for peace not profit, and a lot of silk went to the Xiongnu. An expensive status quo, but better than war, which was more expensive. I can source some texts too but the internet is easy. By all accounts the tribute system with Xiongnu was a way of averting war, or purchasing peace when war was not an option.


http://www.anu.edu.a...an_xiongnu.html


‘There were regular exchanges of goods and presents, occasional visits by the Shanyu to the imperial court and several marriages of Chinese women into the royal house of the Xiongnu [of which the most celebrated was that of the Lady Wang Zhaojun to the Huhanxie Shanyu himself]. The distaff influence aided the pro-Chinese faction at the Xiongnu court, but the heqin system of "peace and family connection" depended largely upon subsidies from China, which were valuable to the Xiongnu ruling house and expensive for Han, but a great deal cheaper than the costs of frontier war.’

"Where do you get this idea? It sounds more like a political spin like Donald Rumsfeld might come up with."

Sure to someone who never read primary sources nor consulted economic studies.

Yet you haven’t sourced anything, what ‘economic studies’?
Neither have you explained how Han formations are superior, or what the powerful Han navy was (I hope you don’t mean something irrelevant like river vessels).
You also need to explain what led you to believe the gladius was short because Roman iron was poor (primary sources please?).
Then explain why in Chinese armies ‘numbers do matter, that’s a fact’ to crush Rome but then a short while later ‘Chinese armies are more than number’ and then you supply 12 Warring States battles where the odds of 5 to 1 were conquered by the smaller force. You seem to just like contradicting another person with a few short statements that you never back up in depth.

[Kenneth]

.....Now tribute is for ‘sign of reverence to another’ but then you must also prove it was for economic gain for some reason.
Is the idea the celestial empire didn’t just defeat the so-called ‘steppes empire’ a problem, so you just had to argue over precise meanings of tribute system?

Sure to someone who never read primary sources nor consulted economic studies.
Now here I see some thinly veiled swipe because you assume I am a disadvantage to you by not being Chinese.
I think you misunderstand the worth of primary sources in many ways if you place them as authoritative over all others. And there was me thinking you were a history buff.

By primary do you mean Ancient?
Primary sources might suffer from a bias, if you take a Han historians account of the nature of relationships completely over modern histories then you don’t get the full picture.
How many historians were willing to risk castration just to ‘tell it like it is’ about their present ruler. Even Sima Qian only had a few lines on the rein of Wudi in his work and modern histories speculate on the effect punishment like this (or fear of) might have had on scholars abilities to report. They are a source of excellent information but need reading between the lines by modern day scholars.
Is a history text written 500 years ago going to be superior or inferior to a revised text that’s published in the modern day?


By primary do you mean Chinese books?
I just finished reading a Western published account of the events at Tiananmen Square in 1989. It was complete, historical and factual. Do you think I would get a better idea of events by reading the Peking Express from those times? Watching the party spokeperson on TV who says ‘counter-revolutionaries…. & …..motherland etc.?
The record of the Xiongnu tribute was written by the Han dynasty so a Western history written 2,000 years later that draws on this can interpret, and is not inferior.
So if I read a book by an author named H. Huang is that more authoritative than a book by H. Smith?

My lack of access, is that because I am not Chinese?
Is a Westerner disadvantaged? Yes & No. The authors whose excellent books I read have done their homework but I have to look hard to find specific answers and texts beyond these, but I can find those answers if I need to.

I have done site recording of archaeological sites in NZ for the NZAA files. I don’t speak much Maori, yet does that mean that I won’t know as much about the life of the prehistoric Maori as a Maori I might meet? Quite the opposite.
Or a Chinese will know more about a bronze item from Zhou period than me if I show it to them? Not at all, to my experience.

Warhead,
Don’t try and guess what I do and don’t know about Chinese history. I suggest you supply some sources for your earlier ‘ideas’, and expand upon your flawed logic (but don’t put more on your plate until you have made sense of the existing examples). You have done nothing to establish validity to your points beyond ‘I have read some books’ and this is woefully inadequate if you are trying to make my comments appear wrong as you keep trying.


I am trying to post some more pics of Han cavalry, some with light armour vests and shirts, but the system won’t let me despite their 26kb size. I will try again tomorrow.

[TMPikachu]

You also need to explain what led you to believe the gladius was short because Roman iron was poor (primary sources please?).
Then explain why in Chinese armies ‘numbers do matter, that’s a fact’ to crush Rome but then a short while later ‘Chinese armies are more than number’ and then you supply 12 Warring States battles where the odds of 5 to 1 were conquered by the smaller force. You seem to just like contradicting another person with a few short statements that you never back up in depth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1) of course numbers matter
2) they are not everything either.

It's always advantageous to have numbers, but not a guaranteed victory. Warhead's point is to show that Chinese armies are more than just mobs of armed peasants, and also wants to show Chinese military genius in fighting superior numbers. He usually states which battles had such occurences, so I wouldn't say they are unbacked.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Now about metallurgy;

“Actually Chinese cast iron was for a long time an inferior metal, and was a replacement for bronze because of the difficulty in finding tin.”

Considering I never said cast iron was a superior metal at least in term of quality, what are you “actualizing” about? If you haven’t notice, I’m talking about steel not cast iron. Cast iron is simply an easier way TO vast produce the steel required. You can’t use pure cast iron in war since its so brittle it would break in any type of hard contact. Only the right amount of carbon will let one produce a good quality steel which is both hard and flexible. In the 4th century b.c., the Chinese learned that if a cast iron object is reheated to 800° or 900° in air, it is decarburized. This process forms a skin of lower-carbon iron (steel) over the cast iron core. The finished tool is hard and wear-resistant, and for most uses is comparable with the end product of Western forging, in which a skin of steel is formed over a core of wrought iron by forging. But the Chinese technology was far more efficient. The Chinese cast objects already had the precise shape required, whereas Western smiths had to produce the right shape by hammering wrought iron on a forge. The Chinese could effectively mass-produce cast steel-jacketed tools of all kinds, while Western smiths had to make them one at a time. By about 250 BC, one iron works in Szechuan employed 1000 people, and the Chinese were producing much more iron by casting than by forging.



“Iron was cheap, but not initially superior. Iron must be work hardened and carbon added to create toughness, cast iron is not.”


No kidding, iron needs to add carbon, cast iron require decarbonization, the result is the same, yet cast iron could produce much more. Wrought iron is low in carbon, cast iron is high in carbon, and steel lies in between. For premodern metellurgy it was easier to decarbonize than recarbonize. So, by the Han period, the Chinese, starting with cast iron, could produce considerable quantities of good steel by what was, in essence the Bessemer process of oxygenation, liquifying the iron while simultaneously blowing away part of the carbon; while the west, starting with wrought iron, could only produce limited amounts of poor steel by heating the iron in charcoal. Romans could make steel by forging, its very time consuming and only highly skilled swordsmith could make swords of such level which Rome is not known for. But then the good quality Han swords are forged with superior furnace techniques,
They may have begun by pouring flat sheets of cast iron into molds. By further heating, say under hot ashes for several days, they could have decarburized these cast iron sheets to make sheets of steel directly, which could then be forged into tools and weapons. Some of the famous Chinese "hundred refined" steel swords could have been made this way, although this is conjecture. In fact these forged weapons had might very well have reached such a perfection that the balance in carbon that they are just as well made as the Katana of the 16th century.
Chinese did not reheat cast iron to make a steel jacket, but melted cast iron and "puddled" it. The molten iron was stirred to allow air to come into contact with it, turning the whole melt directly into steel, or into wrought iron (shu thieh, or ripe iron). The process was not re-invented in the West until the 18th century.
Without the blast furnace, the temperature and time of making steel is quite backwards, Europe only had that technique in the 8th century in Scandanavia(which is one of the reason why the viking swords are so highly praised.) while the first blast furnaces only start to appear in western Europe in the 14th century, without the blast furnace, the sword are of inferior quality in general when mass produced and while good swords are much more time consuming to make.




“Bronze work had centuries of skill to call upon but with iron the Chinese had to start again. Tin was particularily hard for southern areas to supply to foundries and casting of iron came about because Chinese only had casting as a method of producing metal items, they knew no other way at the time.”

That’s one of the theories, but as already said it’s irrelevant since as already mentioned above, In the 4th century b.c., they already learned to reheat the iron to make steel with a greater efficiency in production than the west due to its cast iron production. Not to mention Chinese Bronze is a lot superior to western ones, professionals that looked at the terra cotta warrior tombs have already said that these bronze is no less efficient than western contemporary wrought iron if not superior, since Roman gladius uncovered only has a hardness rating of 65 HRB while that of the Qin bronze swords have 84. The very fact that Qin bronze sword with a overall total length of 111 centimeters is much longer than the western ones is due to the fact that the bronze technology of the western sword was not highly developed to sustain such length.



“Before you begin claiming Chinese superiority in all areas of production get some facts right. Simple cast iron is much inferior to a good bronze. “


Before you jump into conclusions, learn more! Considering I’ve already proved you wrong. In fact I didn’t claim anything about Chinese superiority in all fields, I merely posted facts, all of which were derived from first hand sources.


“I suggest you read posts on the SFI where this is explored in much detail by experimental archaeology, and is in agreement with both Eastern and Western models to explain the chnage from bronze to iron. “


I did, and I’ve just posted them. Do you want more source?



”Chinese also didnt have wrought iron untill much later than the west,”


No, by the 4th century b.c. wrought iron is already produced under the name of Shu Tie. And the theory that China did not know wrought iron itself is not even proven, before you jump into such conclusion, maybe you should look for more variety of sources than just one or two.



“and they didnt work harden bronze like Europeans so used proportions of tin, copper & lead in differing amounts to produce different strength blades, and even complex bi-metalic blades.”

What utter falsehood, since you are not even familiar with this,

Absorb this then discuss;
“ Late Spring and Autumn / Early Warring States Period bronze sword (around 500 BC), utilizing laminated construction -- using bronze alloy with higher tin content for the cutting edges and bronze alloy with lower tin content for the median ridge or spine.

Increasing the percentage of tin in the bronze alloy (bronze is made from copper alloyed with tin) actually increases the physical hardness of the bronze alloy, while lowering the tin content actually makes the bronze alloy softer and less hard.

In general, these swords would have edges and spines cast from bronze alloys with tin contents of 20% and 10% respectively.

The intended purpose was to create harder cutting edges for enhanced thrusting/slashing performance plus a softer and more flexible spine to absorb shock and prevent breakage.

The actual manufacture involves first the creation of a stone or pottery mould with the hollowed section in the shape of the spine of the sword. Molten bronze with 10% tin content is then poured in and allowed to cool. Afterwhich the newly cast end-product, the spine of the sword, is removed from the mould and placed within another specially-created mould with hollowed sections along both sides of the spine. Molten bronze with 20% tin content is then poured in to make up the cutting edges of the sword and allowed to cool. The molten bronze cools and fuses with the preliminary spine of the sword and the whole manufacturing process is completed.

This bronze laminated construction we encounter here was the ancestral prototype of the forge-welded/laminated construction seen later in the steel swords of the Han and Tang Dynasties.”

Chinese bronze starting from the Shang was a lot better made than its western counterparts, it has much more complex mold casting technologies and a more developed furnace.




“AN expensive process. According to the most current Chinese studies the earliest wrought iron came from northern China and spread to the south, possibly knowledge imported via the west. Both bronze working and iron working predates the Chinese examples by many centuries. “



Just what exactly is your so called “current study”? Why don’t you show me your source, because archeological findings clearly revealed wrought iron is already well produced in the 4th century b.c. as well as steel from debarbunizing cast iron.




“Chinese developed steel very early but it was not highly regarded and uncommon.”


Much more common than the west by the 3rd century b.c., And I’m talking about the Han steel industry when the blast furnace is invented, what are you trying to say?


“This is why Qin were buried with bronze rather than iron, as was discussed on a topic on this forum. “

No, the reason been that the Qin bronze is superior to western bronze, not because western iron is superior to Chinese iron as already explained.

“It is not a sign Qin were backward. Cast iron at that time was not superior, although Western wrought iron may have been.(I do think bronze was used for the Qin army also because of its 'everlasting' qualities, to follow the Emperor into eternity. Iron simply rusts into unattractive slag).”


No, as already said, western wrought iron at the time is in fact inferior as well. At least the Roman ones. Qin buried bonze has little to do with quality, bronze has always been preferred for its carving and elegance far more easier than iron. And yes rusting is also a big part of it.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

"When people pointed out that even in the 3 kingdoms period the warship were employed on rivers primarily you said...
'Han already had a powerful sea-going navy'"



And just when exactly have I said that? Are you mistaking my post for someone else's again?


"Really? pretty brief. Please provide evidence. "


Ask your imagination for it.


"...and why compare Greek weapons (that are truly ancient) and Roman ballista with Song Dynasty multiple crossbow artillery and stone throwers from the Yuan dynasty and declare the Western examples inferior. "

I didn't, I am comparing them with Han and Han alone, stop accusing me of things I never even claimed.

"Truly irrelevant. "


Indeed, for you


"The Yuan devices were built by Arab engineers anyway since the Eastern warmachines were the inferior."


utterly wrong again, but why doesn't that surprise me? Yuan warship were built by the Song turncoat, it has nothing to do with arabs why don't you show me your source. Just what new innovation is created during Yuan considering whatever the Yuan had wore already in Song ships.



"Weren't the Turks and the Europeans experimenting with gunpowder and cannons (some of the Turk seige cannon were ambitious in scale, testing limits of metallurgy) by these times anyway?"

No, since the earliest record of gunpowder use in Europe is 1265 and it was not in battle.


"The Chinese developed gunpowder, but the West applied it in that sense."


We are discussing Rome vs. China what exactly is your point, are you creating imaginary accusations again?

"You seem to be overly one-sided in lauding the Chinese abilities in a skewed way and rubbishing the Western counterparts...quite incorrectly often."

Consider you MADE up the rubbish, since I never even said them, yeah, think what you want.


"I have no favouritism here, it is only hypothetical, "

Neither am I, I'm just posting facts.

"but let's just look at this topic with a bit of balance and not a blinkered word view comparing East and West acheivements."


I did since the begining.


"Both had their breakthroughs and advancements. Ethnicity shouldn't matter. Let's give credit where the credit is due. "

Never claimed they didn't, but the topic is Rome vs. Han and the Han was more powerful, which I already proved with ample evidence.



"This is a great shame if what I thought was a bit of fun with hypotheticals comes down to a defense of national pride."


Its indeed a shame, when people who fail to defend their argument with source could do nothing but resort to accusing others of national pride when they are just incompetent.

"I didn't know this theme of Han vs. Rome had been so thrashed already....and people might be bringing baggage with them.
I couldn't care less and aren't interested in emotion or winning an ethereal argument(which is what this came down to on other Han vs. Rome sites)."

Neither am I, I promote facts.

"But that's my limit of support for Rome in this hypothetical.
If the people here prefer just to hear that Han wins, then fine. "

Why do we need to hear anything when everything is alerady clear?


"Still some Western (and Chinese) scholars have suggested that Bronze working and the chariot, as well as later iron, were concepts imported from Western 'cradle of civilisation' cultures or via steppes cultures. I am not sure this is entirely correct as there is evidence also the initial bronze cultures in China used a unique fine casting technology (based on the Erlitou culture finds and the early Shang) evolving within China. If you simply find the notion suggesting these ideas were imported is offensive then you bring national pride to the debate. Again, I have no issues either way. I care for history, not nationality."

The only one thats brining in nationality here is you, I have my sources, all you need to do is ask, why all these irrelevant spiels? If I have sources then its not nationalism whatsoever since I have no interest in that BS. I have always promoted historical accuracy, and I have sources for such, if you disagree, then prove it wrong with your own.
Their is nothing nationalistic about accepting invetions, Chariots is almost certain to be a western introduction, iron is questionable but might have been so. The evidence for Bronze however is completely lacking considering Shang bronze lacks western techniques such as annealing and hammering as well as lost wax casting, yet include highly complex mold casting suggest their different origin.
so please stop diverting off into your lecture, and spare me of it, because I don't have time reading some accusasions against me that I've never committed.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

"It was used VERY early compared to west but was not an overnight or universal replacement. The Chinese regarded bronze highly for beauty and ease of casting (lower melting point and fine detail)."

Obviously not since Bronze could be cast just as easily as iron at this date. That is until the blast furnace is introduced in the 1st century b.c.


"Cast iron for ploughsahres does not mean military weapons were produced in masses to replace bronze and the 'fining' process, "


No, but decarbonizing it to steel doesn't since the process is much easier than converting wrought iron to steel.


"and the full production of cast then wrought iron & steel only replaced bronze fully sometime DURING the Han dynasty."

which is the period we are talking about since you missed the title of the thread.


" A good steel will need fining, then working to add carbon, quenching and tempering so there is no simple 'cast steel' that will be more efficient for weapons over roman production."

Its the general quality, smart one. Without a blast furnace, its not possible for mass production of any qualitied steel weapons. And at the same time, I've already shown you the Han had your "fining, then working to add carbon, quenching and tempering" which the later Katana is based off of.

"It was commented in the article that cast, then wrought iron as the Han were making was very labour efficient, but not time or fuel efficient as it requires days of firing as thin sheets. "


Its only to be expected from someone that googles through the net and doesn't even understand the material. Because the Han had the ability
to heat their furnace to such a degree which Europe couldn't until well into the middle ages that creates the major difference of the metal.






"It was said there also the Gladius was short because Roman iron production was poor!
Just nonsense. The gladius was lethal, made to thrust only several inches into a target so not get stuck (still causes fatal wounds) and it utilised a reverse hand draw from the scabbard on the right, as the left held a large shield, so a 1m blade is useless."


Please, much better thrusting weapons are used in later Euroepan and Islamic armies, none of them is half as short as that of the Roman Gladius, its not stupidity that forced Romans to increase their sword length later in the empire. They had a good reason for it.



"Chinese armies employed both very long swords and swords much like the gladius. This was the original form during Zhou to Han, longer swords being rarer."

Poor coverup, Han battle swords are never much below 1 meter long, for the simple reason anything shorter would have less reach, power isn't enough when you can't even touch the opponent before they touch you.


"Chinese having steel, plus casting technology, does not equal simple cast steel in bulk."

You are already proven wrong since its a lot easier to turn cast iron to steel than is wrought iron. And why are you still ignoring the blast furnace?