1719 replies to this topic

[thirdgumi]

The roman heavy infantry was surely impressive, but if we take a look at the battle of Carrhae, we can see nor their armors nor their shields could protect them against Parthian arrows shot from composite bows. The Han used the same horse archer tactics and with composite bows. If the roman couldn't counter the han horse archers, their chance to win would be small.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Here is a quote from Needham's book on chinese missiles and siege. "At the conclusion of this section we shall have something to say about the comparison between Chinese and European military history. Military teoreticians have found it possible to make distinction between periods when the main emphasis is on the shock of troops in hand to hand, and other periods when the main emphasis is on throwing of a cloud of projectile weapons....In armoured or shock periods, reliance is placed on massed advance and hope of individual soldier is that their armour will protect him while his weapon will injure others. In unarmoured or projectileperiods dependence is placed on mobility and firepower, while hope of individual soldier is that the projectile he fires will hit others but that he will be avoid those fired by them....In china neither the heavily armed Greek hoplite nor the Roman legionary ever had any counterparts in Chinese armies....Chinese soldiers are primarily archers, and mounted more often than on foot.....It can hardly have been a coincidence that when a new propulsive forcewas discovered astonishingly more powerful than the bent spring of bows, it was China that it received all the most brilliant adaptations of youth, and there that it reached such maturity as to spread rapidly over the rest of the civilised world."
It indicates that China's missile was more advanced than the western method of heavy armament and shock as dominant weapon over missiles never took place in chinese warfare because they are vulnerable to the powerful missiles.



And here is a comparison bewteen the ancient Chinese siege and artillery with that of the classical west. The Balistae of the Greek and Romans had a average range up to 410 yards while that of the central plains of the same period launch its arcuballista at over 500 yards. Not to mention the vastly simpler design of the eastern ballista that makes it the more efficient. While the sling and torsion catapults(onagers used mainly for sieges threw stones of roughly 50 pounds and maximum some 175 pounds on occasinal cases never more than 160 yards. The ancient eastern manned trebuchet could send missiles up to 275 pounds from 80-190 yards as max. while the fixed counterweight had a somewhat heavier missile and longer range on average but was merely a improvment on the normal trebuchet and has many set backs just like the arbalest is to the normal hand primed crossbows. All this is not including the other forms of field artillery in china not seen in the west. This include the Lien nu or multipul firing bolts, this is rarely seen on western fields and only in occasion which merely two bolts were delivered at once opposed to the vastly more numbers in the asian form that could deliver up to 10 at once. Second is the Chuang zi nu which has a number of spring constant which could impart their stored energy to the same projectile giving far greater damage. This type was never used in the west.

Edited by warhead, 07 May 2007 - 12:02 AM.

[cniht]

In Zhou Ya Fu's campaign his army was assailed 24 hours a day and his army nearly suffered a nervous breakdown (the Night Fright took place once and Zhou Ya Fu, with his cool nature, stalled the massacre within his own camps).

I do not know this story. Would you enlighten me on this?

[TMPikachu]

Don't forget quality of weapons and armor. The Han were able to produce steel with techniques that would be matched in Europe 1000+ years later.


I like the shape/design of roman helmets and armor though.

[Liang Jieming]

Fixed, packed infantry formations are primitive because they don't take into account powerful ranged weapons. The crossbow, and recurve bow, like the gun of modern armies would distrupt infantry formations. The Han had great numbers of crossbow men like modern armies with their riflemen. Because they fought with ranged weapons like these, they would have abandoned fixed, rigid infantry formations in favour of loose spreadout tactical formations.

The reason Rome stuck to it's close formations was because in their world, they didn't have to contend with powerful range weapons. If they did, Rome would have had to adapt quickly and use powerful range weapons of their own or use lighter mobile troops to quickly get in close to nullify superior firepower, abandoning their penchant for fixed formations.

This is stretching things a lot I know, but look at any modern army today and see how range weapons has done away with any type of close infantry formations. Instead, they rely on loose tactical formations and combine with armour (calvary) to strike hard and fast. So similarly, the crossbow would have changed the face of warfare for the Han and sent any warlord with packed formations to an early extinction. As the art of warfare progressed, it evolved more and more away from fixed formations and more and more towards loose squad tactics.

The only question then would be whether the crossbow and asian recurve bow are really that powerful. If they couldn't penetrate and distrupt the Roman testudo then Roman formations would have held. You'll be back to the pre-ranged weapon style of fighting.

Jieming

[Sephodwyrm]

I do not know this story. Would you enlighten me on this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is an episode from the suppressing of the revolt of Wu Chu and the 7 kings in the reign of emperor Jing of Han. You should be able to find it in Han Shu.

太尉周亚夫调集军队在荥阳会合，这时吴国军队攻打梁国，梁国告急，请求援助。周亚夫却领兵向东北急行至昌邑，深沟高垒进行防御。梁国每日都派使者请求援助，周亚夫却坚守营垒不去救助。梁国向景帝上书，景帝派使臣命令太尉救援梁国。周亚夫却不执行，坚壁不出，而派弓高侯韩颓当等人率领轻骑兵断绝吴、楚后方的粮道。吴兵乏粮，饥饿难当，多次挑战，周亚夫终不出击。夜晚，周亚夫军中突然惊乱，互相攻扰，甚至闹到了太尉周亚夫的营帐之下，周亚夫始终高卧不起，过了一会儿，就恢复安定了。

By harassing your opponent 24/7, you'll be able to drive him nuts.

[TMPikachu]

Fixed, packed infantry formations are primitive because they don't take into account powerful ranged weapons. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is true, but packed infantry formations do occur in China, later on with the advent of heavy cataphract horsemen. Barded and heavily armored horsemen to the point where crossbow bolts can be stopped.

That doesn't really say much about the Romans though, as that kind of horsemen did not exist at that time.

[thirdgumi]

The only question then would be whether the crossbow and asian recurve bow are really that powerful.

I think they were, the battle of Carrhae proved it, nor Roman armors nor shileds could stop Parthian arrows.

[Liang Jieming]

This is true, but packed infantry formations do occur in China, later on with the advent of heavy cataphract horsemen. Barded and heavily armored horsemen to the point where crossbow bolts can be stopped.

That doesn't really say much about the Romans though, as that kind of horsemen did not exist at that time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hell yeah.

Some tactics require close rank formations, others require loose formations. But in general, grouped formations are not very advanced forms of fighting.

The thing about Romans is this. They look good standing in straight lines, all their shields linked together and marching in step. They look good and impressive. So people like that. It's the flashy image of the Roman legionaire standing firm shoulder to shoulder against the charging chaotic barbarian horde that people like. So what looks good must be good too, no? Hollywood taught us that.

Many things are like that. Square sail ships look grander than the Chinese "ribbed" and lopsided triangular sail. So many non-sailors today still think it's the better more advanced sail. They like the image from hollywood of the full sail being raised and filling with the wind. But the truth is, the square sail is as backward as the first Egyptian square sailed vessel of 2000 B.C. while the chinese junk lateen sail is what is used in modern racing yachts today. The trouble is, how many see it that way? The square sail fills so nicely especially with it's big white surface that bellows out. The image is sexier than the angled accordian look of the multiple sailed junk.

The huge shiny armoured knight draws an impressive picture. Together with his broad sword he looks so good he must be a match for any foe he meets. Just look at the scrawny asiatic horse archer who still uses pieces of sewn leather and metal plates. Again, it's all in the IMAGE. It looks better so there's no way the Mongol archer could defeat the European knights and sack Venice now, could they?

How about the longbow. It's huge, and towers over the archer. Impressive! The asian recurve bow is short and curved all over the place. Nothing like the smooth clean lines of the longbow. No way the longbow can lose to the recurve which looks like it's all bent out of shape. Hmmm... obviously whoever says this has never fired a recurve in comparison with a longbow before. Another problem with the non-sexy image of the asian recurve bow.

Then what about ninjas and geishas? Hmm... chinese had those too but who knows about them? Ninjas are cool ain't they? And they're found in Japan! China? Nah, only funny mandarins in stuffy gowns and funny hats.

*shrug* What we find we are fighting or correcting most of the time is this IMAGE problem. They just look so much better. Hell, even I'm impressed whenever I see the disciplined Roman legion standing in nice straight lines. I look at the loose Han formations and say, "This can't be as advanced. They're like a barbarian horde with no discipline... no wait, isn't that what modern soldiers today do too? Hide, shoot, scamper, run, hide, shoot, scamper, run..." Oops, look like I've been taken in by all that shiny roman armour too!

Jieming

[Yang Zongbao]

A good post, Mr. Liang.
So true that "Whichever is Grander must be Greater".
It looks much more diciplined for an army to be almost static, moving as a whole. Maybe easier to kill, but still looks better.
The knight, another stereotype.
The ninja and Samurai? Hollywood did some research, found out the word ninja, and killed its meaning...and blew them out of proportion in many sick ways...
And yes, we'll be the funny-mandarins-with-stuffy-gowns-and-funny-hats. And with aluminum foil swords. And wires.
It's much too bad that people are not able to see the worth of things like the composite bow over things like the long bow.
And it's much too bad that China has no warrior class to attach "Cool", "Unstoppable", etc to....just soldiers and generals, many whom would be a match for the European Knights or Japanese Samurai anyway. Otherwise, we'd be the ones in movies. But maybe thats a good thing, Hollywood would've killed everything. Especially the weapons and strategy.
Katana, of course! It cuts through tanks! Not the Chinese Dao. It's made of aluminum foil. Wait, what's a Dao? I hate believers of the Katana Myth. It's very unhealthy...it's not like Japan only had it; it was a Chinese invention. It looks cool, but it's in no way superior to Chinese Weapons.

Anyways, in my eyes...formations, though you can deploy them many ways, seem very static in movement...it seems harder to employ flexible strategies, tricks, or flanking and surrounding when the enemy sees your every move...the Romans could not lay ambush well with their style of fighting, unless their tactics were revised. Tell me if I am wrong, because I'm not warhead or a grand historian, just here to learn.

And, I would like to know strengths and weaknesses of Roman Infantry, Roman Cavalry, Roman Weapons, and Roman Armor.

Likewise, I'd love to know strengths and weaknesses of Han Infantry, Cavalry, Weapons, and Armor.

Any reply would be welcome.

[Liang Jieming]

Thank you Mr. Yang.

Sometimes I just get a little frustrated. So much is unknown by the rest of the world but few know or learn because the western world is very good at "shouting louder" than we are. So much of this "shouting" has happened that even many Chinese themselves are begining to believe the claims. Like people say, "If you say it often enough, it becomes the truth."

Up till the 1940s, China was still considered the leader in Civil Engineering works. America sent many army engineers over to study Chinese earthworks, canals etc. If you read the "de facto bible" for American Civil Engineers, the US Army Civil Engineering Manual, it still lists a few examples coming from Chinese sources. The first suspension bridge was Chinese, the first semi-arch bridge, the first multi-span arch bridge, the first contoured canal, the water pound-lock system, etc.

*shrug*

Jieming

[TMPikachu]

And, I would like to know strengths and weaknesses of Roman Infantry, Roman Cavalry, Roman Weapons, and Roman Armor.

Likewise, I'd love to know strengths and weaknesses of Han Infantry, Cavalry, Weapons, and Armor.

Any reply would be welcome.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Romans...
Strengths...
Roman infantry, if we're talking about the centurions, seem to be well disiplined and trained for their formation fighting.
Roman Cavalry is... not very developed, compared to Han cavalry. They were a support role.
Weapons... the gladius is a short thrusting sword, good for the close order formation fighting of the romans. They also carry their pilums, a nice short ranged javalin that is well designed. Roman armor is well designed to resist blows.
The drawback though is that Romans have lower quality iron/steel and manufacturing techniques, Chinese steel (and even bronze) was stronger than Roman Iron. So while the legionaire's lorica segmentum is very nice looking, the Chinese lamellar is more resistant to blows.

Han strengths... well, high quality iron. I think most soldiers wore leather though. Han do not have heavy infantry, like the Romans do, but that is because they have much stronger 'firepower' units, crossbowmen and composite bow archers, which can pierce armor and shields, especially at short range. Han are also mobile and used/developed cavalry much more extensively. It is said the stirrup was a Chinese invention, but from what I know it was the horse nomads who first used cataphracts.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

"if the battle will end in One day... the great Julius Caesar and the Roman will win."

Care to explain more?

"I think most soldiers wore leather though."

No, they wore overlapping steel plates.

"Han do not have heavy infantry, "

yes they do




"Han are also mobile and used/developed cavalry much more extensively. It is said the stirrup was a Chinese invention, but from what I know it was the horse nomads who first used cataphracts."

It was actually the Iranians that first used the cataphracts