1719 replies to this topic

[Kenneth]

the distinction of the closed shirt (unarmoured) and the laminar is made clearer here.

[Kenneth]

to be clear, these figures are obviously from one tomb and have armoured and armoured figures.
For clarification, could you tirn around please?
Thankyou.

[Kenneth]

...and looking through my files on the first pictured warriors I would say, yes...they are probably unarmoured, or at least many in that pit are...as they are the Shaanxi figures I was reffering to. I need to review them in the XIanyang museum personally if possible to see the whole story. Perhaps these have no shields but leather vests? maybe is inaccurate to call them 'armoured'...i tis hard to tell from an image I have on my PC of such low quality....but I have seen them clearer in a text and 2 formations shown where just in shirts like the unarmoured fellow above.
This is another piece from the same tomb army, and the lack of armour of the horseman is comparible to the shield bearing figures I seen.

I really labour a point.....and it is pretty clear that many Han warriors are unarmoured, or only moderately armoured with laminar vests by Western standards. I dont care about scoring points in the debate but only put forard examples of the Han warriors (these are mostly Western Han I suspect).

[Kenneth]

really, I posted a link to all this some time back and it shouldnt be contreversial at all.
Here;s a reproduction from the Osprey book I believe...and one illustration I have no problem with based on the ceramics in texts and those I have seen face to face.....(they even have a strong earthy odour as to many ancient artefacts)

The shields carried here are much like the Han Shaanxi figures I reffered to, and also have a relation to a shield found in the Qin Emperors bronze carriage.

[Kenneth]

FYI here is what I meant about the Han servants clothed seperately.....they are not an uncommon form, but these are the best images I have on my PC

[Kenneth]

here's another tomb.

Somebody sure needed a lot of servants!

This also explains why these objects turn up on the Hong Kong antique markets (excluding all the fakes of course), and I have seen a number..both male and female but didnt keep any images as I have never sought to purchase tomb ceramics.

[Kenneth]

here's one showing the textile head dress still intact...and looking much like the coarse fibres (probably hemp) that I have seen adherring bronze items I have studied.

[Kenneth]

opps, here it is...Im rushing as I have to go out.....

[Kenneth]

here is one I saw for sale...the arms missing like htis are common, as they were probably wooded, the figures are naked much like the figures in my first tomb pic.
The facial features are probably retouched in modern times.
Other images of these servants I think I might have been deleted as I had many, but ceramics is not my main interest and my PC folders were getting cluttered with such things.
They are very well made compared to other smaller figures and are about 1/3 life size. There is no trace of clothing, but of course they were when buried.

I trust now I have clarified I dont mean Han servants walked around naked.

Cermaics are very valuable study pieces for those studying the periods. They show scenes from life, and activites and entertainment that common folk performed and the rich enjoyed.
They provide some of the only reconstructions of Han era houses appearances, as all archeaologists have otherwise are ceramic roof tiles are traces of the outlines of wooden structures that rotted many centuries ago.

When my digital camera is back from fixing overseas I hope to post images of jade & bronze artefacts in my collection for members reference on the archeology sub-forum here....................as I was recently gifted a number of Western Zhou era jades and small neolithic pieces from Yunnan province (Dong Son culture & aprox 1000-700BC) for study and they reveal methods of jade carving that show quite an industry in producing rings and bangles from nephrite and calcite before the central plains cultures arised there from Qin-Han era.

[Puerto Rican Legionary]

“Javalins were considered the weapon of barbarians by Chinese,”

What grate of ignorance is this, it’s a similar what the Japanese thought about Guns at first.
This is why the Romans were best in adapting, it didn’t matter if it was a barbarian weapon or whatever, as long as it had tactical use, and it worked, they will use it…


“I'm pretty sure the Han arrows, launched from composite bows and crossbows, can pierce (in a certain degree), roman shields.”

First off when you say this, did you think one seconds why the crossbow was so successful with the Han army. The opponents they fought, and then themselves did not have quality armor like the Romans no were near like the Romans. And this information is for you buddy, the Romans went up against these types of enemies before, and eventually defeat them… This is gotten tell you something about the Romans, because the Han never when up against enemies like the Romans, but the Romans faced against enemies like a Han (more or less). So saying this, this is really got a toy something.

“They can shoot from beyond the distance of a javalin throw, and horses gallop faster than a man with a javalin can run. Javalins were considered the weapon of barbarians by Chinese, for they had the crossbow. Smaller, more portable, greater range, more ammo, and more powerful than a Javalin”

I know that colleges talking about the Roman legionary not all the other units…


“and horses gallop faster than a man with a javalin can run.”
knife your marching in a certain formation, in the Catlett had a fight you played his left face the right face, or right flamed March , left-wing march…that’s all it takes.


“because they could not build trigger mechanisms as finely made and effective as used by Han. Romans did employ scorpions though, which are pretty cool.”

Scorpions?

For some reason, I find this hard to believe, and reason I say this is because the Romans have way too much machinery…


“and crossbows/composite bows can be anti-infantrymen”

First off, Romans did have composite bows from the Middle East provinces. Second off arrows were to thin the lines. Third colleges talking about the Roman legionary, all is not including departures exhilarated the praetorians, the auxiliary cavalry in the legionary cavalry, the praetorian cavalry, the Roman Crossbow-men, Medic’s, engineers and etc.

It looks like you rely too much into the crossbow, what happened when the Romans mastered of adapting that what then will you do. Your infantry is a joke to the Romans their cavalry can be easily repelled (let me give you some tactics just the legionaries did, not all the other units)…

I mean crossbows were not that great in the field…

“You only mention swords, their shield, and javalins. Plus compopsite bows and crossbows they never used.”
The Romans did you composite though I’ll give you links, if you really want some, and they did use crossbows.

The other roles the Roman legionary are also for guards and “part-time engineers” legionaries are capable of digging a defense for building a fortification without expert engineers (in what I mean by expert engineers is a Roman unit called the Roman engineers, they were infantrymen too, the reasons are I called them experts engineers, is because engineering or mechanical machinery work and other things is their bread and butter)…


“Yeah, the swordsmen are convenient for picking off the army heavily wounded by the hail of arrows beforehand”

Like I said they never went up against Roman armor… I know the Romans thought of this before they’re not stupid, please listen to me crossbows were not new for them. Perhaps the reason crossbows are not popular with them, is because they found ways to take them out or what other reasons.

And just a side note for you, the Han did use bronze weapons too…

Did you ever hear about distraction or divergent attacks…

“Their iron was still softer. A crossbow bolt will still go through the armor”

“still softer.” If talking about bad quality iron, that’s not true. I have another links that says, the Romans did have good quality iron, and that the whole time they’re asked daily making steel…

How does anybody know this, that could be true, but the armor can withstand a lot more damage than anything they faced and that the fact is they never fought this type of armor.

Is like M1 tank the most feared tank in the world, diffuse it tactically right . It will be virtually unstoppable… It looks like you’re just saying that a bomb can destroy it, will of course it can build the best armor in the world and it kikes butt…

A better example knight’s armor can be pierced by weapons. It can, but if you use it tragically write will serve your as a vantage, and how much damage this night do before his former gats pierce…


“and longbows are bigger than composite bows”

What do u mean by this?


“it takes one or two arrows for a soldier to die”
Not with the Roman armor…

“but one silk shirt can have him fight another day”

That’s true, bout the Romans did have medical units…

[Puerto Rican Legionary]

http://www.xlegio.ru/gastraphetes.htm

Fond a site about Roman crossbows.

[Puerto Rican Legionary]

And by the way this is mainly just the legionaries and auxiliaries doing this, this is not including the Roman crossbow-men, or the Roman spearmen and etc.

This is what I mean by using weapons in tactical use…not just a formation that supposed to dosomething, but also the weapon that fit for it...


. The Wedge V Roman formation
*look at this === enemy formation

go here to see
http://www.roman-emp...army/wedge.html

The wedge was commonly used by attacking legionaries, - legionaries formed up in a triangle, the front 'tip' being one man and pointing toward the enemy, - this enabled small groups to be thrust well into the enemy and, when these formations expanded, the enemy troops were pushed into restricted positions, making hand-to-hand fighting difficult. This is where the short legionary gladius was useful, held low and used as a thrusting weapon, while the longer Celtic and Germanic swords became impossible to wield.


2. repel cavalry

Go here to see
http://www.roman-emp...el-cavalry.html

The order to repel cavalry brought about a the following formation. The first rank would form a firm wall with their shields, only their pila protruding, forming a vicious line of glistening spearheads ahead of the wall of shields. A horse, however well trained, could hardly be brought to break through such a barrier. The second rank of the infantry would then use its spears to drive off any attackers whose horses came to a halt. This formation would no doubt prove very effective, particularly against ill-disciplined enemy cavalry.


3. skirmishing formation

_ -____

Go here to see
http://www.roman-emp...kirmishing.html
The skirmishing formation was a widely spaced line up of troops, as opposed to the tighter packed battle ranks so typical of legionary tactics. It allowed for greater mobility and would have found many uses in the tactical handbooks of Roman generals.

4. The Orb

http://www.roman-emp...t/army/orb.html

The orb was a defensive formation in the shape of a complete circle which could be taken by a unit which had either become detached from the army's main body and had become encircled by the enemy, or a formation which might be taken by any number of units if the greater army had fallen into disorder during a battle.
It can hence be seen as a formation representing a desperate 'last stand' by units of a collapsing army. But also it can be seen as a disciplined holding position by a unit which has been divided from the army's main body in battle and which is waiting for the main force to rejoin them.
In either case, it is not a formation one would like to find oneself in, as it obviously indicates that they are surrounded by the enemy.
Naturally any officers or archers would be positioned in the centre of the orb, as can be seen in the example above.



Here are seven specific instructions by Vegetius regarding the layout before battle:
1 On level ground the force is drawn up with a centre, two wings and reserves in the rear. The wings and reserves must be strong enough to prevent any enveloping or outflanking manoeuvre.
2 An oblique battle line with the left wing held back in a defensive position while the right advances to turn the opponent's left flank. Opposition to this move is to strengthen your left wing with cavalry and reserves, but if both sides are successful the battle front would tend to move in an anti-clockwise direction, the effect of which would vary with the nature of the ground. With this in mind it is as well to attempt to stabilize the left wing with the protection of rough or impenetrable ground, while the right wing should have unimpeded movement.
3 The same as No 2 except that the left wing is now made the stronger and attempts a turning movement and is to be tried only when it is known that the enemy's right wing is weak.
4 Here both wings are advanced together, leaving the centre behind. This may take the enemy by surprise and leave his centre exposed and demoralized. If, however, the wings are held, it could be a very hazardous manoeuvre, since your army is now split into three separate formations and a skillful enemy could turn this to advantage.
5 The same tactic as No 4, but the centre is screened by light infantry or archers who can keep the enemy centre distracted while the wings engage.
6 This is a variation of No 2 whereby the centre and left wing are kept back while the right wing attempts a turning movement. If it is successful, the left wing, reinforced with reserves, could advance and hop to complete the enveloping movement which should compress the centre.
7 This is the use of suitable ground on either flank to protect it, as suggested in No 2

There are many more tactics that the Romans used and I’m not including the tactic’s on siege weapons.

[HaSY]

good arguing there.....

Can I know the true reason behind Roman army's defeat (under Crassus) by the Parthians?

[Mei Houwang]

“Javalins were considered the weapon of barbarians by Chinese,”

What grate of ignorance is this, it’s a similar what the Japanese thought about Guns at first.
This is why the Romans were best in adapting, it didn’t matter if it was a barbarian weapon or whatever, as long as it had tactical use, and it worked, they will use it…

No, they Javelin had less range and less penetration power than the crossbow. It is used to hook onto the enemie's shield so that it'll be inefficient for use. There's no reason to use it if you could just kill the enemy straight off.

“I'm pretty sure the Han arrows, launched from composite bows and crossbows, can pierce (in a certain degree), roman shields.”

First off when you say this, did you think one seconds why the crossbow was so successful with the Han army. The opponents they fought, and then themselves did not have quality armor like the Romans no were near like the Romans. And this information is for you buddy, the Romans went up against these types of enemies before, and eventually defeat them… This is gotten tell you something about the Romans, because the Han never when up against enemies like the Romans, but the Romans faced against enemies like a Han (more or less). So saying this, this is really got a toy something.

The reason the Han didn't have as much heavy armor is because of recurve bows and the crossbow. Their furnast technology is better than the Romans, and they have heavy infantry just as well as the Romans. The idea that Han only fought enemies with no armor or crappy armor is laughable at best. It has already been proven that a recurve bow can penetrate iron armor at 360 yards, which is even greater than that of the longbow, 260 yards.

“because they could not build trigger mechanisms as finely made and effective as used by Han. Romans did employ scorpions though, which are pretty cool.”

Scorpions?

For some reason, I find this hard to believe, and reason I say this is because the Romans have way too much machinery…

What about machinery? Han had just as many, and perhaps more due to population. More machinery also does not equal better machinery. Please read the posts before this for information on Han machinery, as compared to that of the Romans.

“and crossbows/composite bows can be anti-infantrymen”

First off, Romans did have composite bows from the Middle East provinces. Second off arrows were to thin the lines. Third colleges talking about the Roman legionary, all is not including departures exhilarated the praetorians, the auxiliary cavalry in the legionary cavalry, the praetorian cavalry, the Roman Crossbow-men, Medic’s, engineers and etc.

So far we found about 2 Roman crossbows, so chances are they didn't use them a lot. I can't find any information of its penetration range, but because the Romans still do closed formations against archers, it must have been very small. There are also different types of composite bows, just like there are different types of machine guns. Some are better than others.

It looks like you rely too much into the crossbow, what happened when the Romans mastered of adapting that what then will you do. Your infantry is a joke to the Romans their cavalry can be easily repelled (let me give you some tactics just the legionaries did, not all the other units)…

Everyone adpats. Han adapted not just their army to the Huns, but even down to civilian clothing<actually, that started from the warring states>. Romans did not do this.

“Yeah, the swordsmen are convenient for picking off the army heavily wounded by the hail of arrows beforehand”

Like I said they never went up against Roman armor… I know the Romans thought of this before they’re not stupid, please listen to me crossbows were not new for them. Perhaps the reason crossbows are not popular with them, is because they found ways to take them out or what other reasons.

Rome had horrible process for refining armor. An english longbow had already been able to penetrate Medieval European armor, which is obviously superior to any Roman armor given to the time gap. A recurve bow, which has a penetration range of 360 yards, is much better than that of the longbow, 260 yards, so it is no doubt that it will penetrate Roman armor.

[Mei Houwang]

And just a side note for you, the Han did use bronze weapons too…

Yes, but even Han bronze is better than Roman iron. Because both bronze and iron would either be very flabby, and thus unable to kill anyone, or very hard, meaning very easily breakable in battle, the Han were able to mix a bronze weapon in which the spine would be flabby, so that the weapon won't break during battle, and the border hard, so that it can actually cut a person. A roman iron sword in contrast, is very, very hard, and thus that's why Roman swords are short, stabbing weapons, since a long one would mean that it'll easily break. This is excusable for infantry, but even Roman calvary have short swords, which is inefficient for fighting.

“Their iron was still softer. A crossbow bolt will still go through the armor”

“still softer.” If talking about bad quality iron, that’s not true. I have another links that says, the Romans did have good quality iron, and that the whole time they’re asked daily making steel…

Romans never made true steel, only a rough coating in the Byzantine empire.

How does anybody know this, that could be true, but the armor can withstand a lot more damage than anything they faced and that the fact is they never fought this type of armor.

In fact, they did.

Is like M1 tank the most feared tank in the world, diffuse it tactically right . It will be virtually unstoppable… It looks like you’re just saying that a bomb can destroy it, will of course it can build the best armor in the world and it kikes butt…

Modern military have nothing to do with the past.

A better example knight’s armor can be pierced by weapons. It can, but if you use it tragically write will serve your as a vantage, and how much damage this night do before his former gats pierce…

Better spelling plz.

“it takes one or two arrows for a soldier to die”
Not with the Roman armor…

As stated above, Roman armor isn't that great.

“but one silk shirt can have him fight another day”

That’s true, bout the Romans did have medical units…

Everone have medical units. The difference is that the Romans only had them during battle.

And by the way this is mainly just the legionaries and auxiliaries doing this, this is not including the Roman crossbow-men, or the Roman spearmen and etc.

This is what I mean by using weapons in tactical use…not just a formation that supposed to dosomething, but also the weapon that fit for it...

Everyone has formations with weapons fit for it, unless the general is a complete idiot. A six yr old kid can figure this out.