27 replies to this topic

[machao]

Hey guys, I am wondering if anyone can give me a comparision of Roman tactics and Chinese tactics. I know that Romans generally used the checkboard formation and their tactics were generally the same while the Chinese had various types of formations and tactics to deal with different situations.

Edited by General_Zhaoyun, 21 June 2009 - 11:31 PM.

[General_Zhaoyun]

Hey guys, I am wondering if anyone can give me a comparision of Roman tactics and Chinese tactics. I know that Romans generally used the checkboard formation and their tactics were generally the same while the Chinese had various types of formations and tactics to deal with different situations.

I think it's very difficult for you to do comparison between Roman and "Chinese tactics". "Chinese" can range from the prehistoric period till modern period. The historical period is simply too long.

The common comparison is for Roman to be compared to the Chinese dynastic period of their times, for e.g. Qin or Han dynasty.

Even so, it's hard to compare. Roman tactics were based on infantry tactics (its formation were largely based on heavy infantry established to fight against infantry) such testudo (tortoise formation) etc.

Chinese tactics can range from infantry to cavalry, depending on the enemies they are fighting against. It can range from open warfare to siege warfare, from attack to defence, from encirclement to ambush tactics , from scouting to raiding tactics, from luring to intercepting logistics supply etc. The great development of cavalry tactics during Han dynasty allowed Chinese army to be highly mobile.

Chinese tactics before Spring/Autumn period were predominantly based on chariot warfare. Spring/Autumn and Warring States period were predominantly based on infantry/chariots warfare with cavalry used predominantly for scouting. After Han dynasty, cavalry became predominantly used as an attack force with great development in cavalry tactics.

Han tactics were predominantly based on light cavalry tactics, which the Han learned from fighting against Nomadic steppes horse-based enemies such as Xiongnu (Huns). The military threats from the Northern Nomadic tribes forced the Chinese Han armies to develop various cavalry tactics, such as:

1. Pre-emptive strike tactics

2. long-distance flanking tactics (developed by General Huo Qubing) emphasizing speed of attack, raiding, encirclement, ambush etc. Light cavalry forces are small but well-equipped with cavalry swordsmen, pikesmen, cavalry spearman, cavalry logistics/doctors etc.

3. Cavalry maneuver tactics (i.e. moving the cavalry in such a way that either tricks the enemy to mobilize the troops to move into a trap/objective or to move the cavalry in various ways to confuse the enemy, such that the enemy does not know your real intention, for e.g. where you are going to attack, where your main forces are)

3. isolation tactics (cutting off enemy's cavalry re-inforcement)

4. tactics of attacking/controlling enemy's forage/food center or cutting off food supply line

Edited by General_Zhaoyun, 22 June 2009 - 09:17 PM.

[machao]

So, the Chinese tactics of approximately the same time period were more diverse than the Roman Legions, is that right? But is there like some sort of standard troop formations like the Roman's checkerboard formations?
Thx in advance

[General_Zhaoyun]

So, the Chinese tactics of approximately the same time period were more diverse than the Roman Legions, is that right? But is there like some sort of standard troop formations like the Roman's checkerboard formations?
Thx in advance

There are many Chinese military formations used in ancient Chinese Army. Formations can change according to different battle situations.

For info regarding Chinese military formations, refer to the following thread:

Pictures of Eight Trigrams Formation
http://www.chinahist...showtopic=28477

Eight Array Maze & Formations
http://www.chinahist...?showtopic=7021

Wild Goose Formations (yan xing zhen 雁行阵）
http://www.chinahist...showtopic=26432

Warring States Battle Formations
http://www.chinahist...p?showtopic=100

Warring States Halberd (Ji) Formations
http://www.chinahist...?showtopic=6218

Force Structure of Qinshihuang's Army
http://www.chinahist...p?showtopic=234

Infantry formations from Warring States to Han
http://www.chinahist...?showtopic=5593

Edited by General_Zhaoyun, 22 June 2009 - 09:15 PM.

[tadamson]

So, the Chinese tactics of approximately the same time period were more diverse than the Roman Legions, is that right? But is there like some sort of standard troop formations like the Roman's checkerboard formations?
Thx in advance

We don't know. There are numerous sources from China and Rome that detail lots and lots of different strategies and tactics. These varied according to available troops, location, terrain, opponent and commanders.

Interestingly we have to extract our information from various sources:- manuals (designed to instill at least a minmum competence on bad generals), biographies (often the only descriptions of actual tactics), chronicles (usually with little or no detail), strategems (several authors wrote books of 'cunning tricks' for the military which may or may not have been used) etc.. so it can be very uncertain as to exactly what an ancient commander could get his troops to do.

[nomooon]

Well for one thing, I know a Roman army never attacked an enemy when it is not ready. Romans never bother with surprising their enemies :/

[tadamson]

Well for one thing, I know a Roman army never attacked an enemy when it is not ready. Romans never bother with surprising their enemies :/

However, you are wrong. It happened lots of times.

If you are unaware of the diversity of Roman tactics you might be fascinated to read the 'Strategemata' by Frontinus. http://penelope.uchi...emata/home.html

Tom..

[Mortals_light]

if you looking for a victor in the comparison then theres probably going to be a stalemate between the two since it mainly depends on mobility of the army, and the capability of the generals to adapt in the situtation. Also for romans which era of roman are you talking about before the Marian reforms(107 BC) or after, the start of the roman empire? or at its height which is after marian reforms, and or are you talking about when the Empire was split into eastern and weatern Roman Empires? If before Marian reforms then the legions were split into three classes rich(triarii), modest(principes) or poor(Hastati) their main tactic was marching in a quincunx formation supported with light troops , cavalry was too light to cause any impact so their used mainly to hit and run flanking style, Hastai were infront Principes middle and Triarii as final line. If you talking about after Marian reforms then testudo formation, and or roman main medium infantry in centre supported by mercenaries or auxillary troops on the flanks, archers or Artillery to the rear on high ground or infront falling back after firing, cavalry can be either behind, on the flank or hidden used to flank enemies rear, or flanks(sides). Finally if your talking about when the roman empire was split between western and eastern then the main tactic for the east was Cataphracts charge while firing arrows and afterwards fall back this is continued on the battle field unless its become inaffective, thats when the heavy legionaries came in for the strike(testudo formation became less effective with the evolution of the shield where scutum was dropped for the oval shield and where the emergence of cavalry charges(heavy cavalry charge)). The western roman empire used the similar tactics however only difference is no cataphracts but heavy cavalry charges.

Siege battle tactics differentiated also from regular battles, Roman Empire is always famous for its engineering capability while chinese sieges varied depending on situtation such as sometimes storming the walled city(Qin Dynasty is pretty famous for amassing extrodinary large amount of armies with up to 1 million men), starving it, flooding it, burning it, building towers, catapults and other artillery weapons, also massacring the population of another city using the mental impact against the upcoming city(ex general who used this Xiang

Edited by Mortals_light, 22 September 2011 - 01:59 AM.

[ThunderzonXT]

The best strategies ever devised in China are grander than any Roman strategies, simply said, The Art of War, a simple book, consists of numerous strategies that the Roman never co-operate into their wars. The fact that Roman usually uses direct approach, where it has been seen numerous times in China that indirect approaches are used (one of the examples are obviously when Japan invaded China), there actually isn't much need to explain this any further, as anyone who studied military strategy will udnerstand. The fact that the US army have failed to defeat South Vietnam is obvious, as the South Vietnamese decides to take an indirect approach, some actually argues that if the political stability towards the Vietnam invasion still remains within USA, they would've won, these obviously havn't studied military strategy extensively, as undermining political stability is part of the indirect approach (which is also noted very clearly in The Art of War).

I could obviously understand that if you read one of the translation say... a decade old, the difference is noticable, the translation isn't really that good and there are certainly a few points that have been missed out, which is a shame.

Indirect approach have always shown to been very successful, one very obvious example is the Mongols.

The fact that the Roman civilization cease to exists, while China still remains, pretty much tells the story.

[mohistManiac]

The best strategies ever devised in China are grander than any Roman strategies, simply said, The Art of War, a simple book, consists of numerous strategies that the Roman never co-operate into their wars. The fact that Roman usually uses direct approach, where it has been seen numerous times in China that indirect approaches are used (one of the examples are obviously when Japan invaded China), there actually isn't much need to explain this any further, as anyone who studied military strategy will udnerstand. The fact that the US army have failed to defeat South Vietnam is obvious, as the South Vietnamese decides to take an indirect approach, some actually argues that if the political stability towards the Vietnam invasion still remains within USA, they would've won, these obviously havn't studied military strategy extensively, as undermining political stability is part of the indirect approach (which is also noted very clearly in The Art of War).

I could obviously understand that if you read one of the translation say... a decade old, the difference is noticable, the translation isn't really that good and there are certainly a few points that have been missed out, which is a shame.

Indirect approach have always shown to been very successful, one very obvious example is the Mongols.

The fact that the Roman civilization cease to exists, while China still remains, pretty much tells the story.

I think many say that Roman civilization still exists. There reasons are the imports from Roman into other civilizations are still substantial in amount. Romance language though not Latin, the continuation of some form of common law, calendar etc etc. I guess the answer to whether the Roman civilization still exists or not depends largely on how we take Chinese civilization to still exist or not from the Han dynasty. A book like the Art of War is no longer used in war but as a proverbial book for those enthusiasts that like war history such as Latin still used to make names for things in science or philosophical concepts.

The end of Roman civilization is really the overtaking of them by a third generation of people being ushered into a new age of classicism. There was Egyptian as a first generation western civilization then Greco-Roman and then Romance-Teutonic. If the course of western history takes a parallel ride with Chinese/Eastern history then the end of Roman civilization would be like the Three Kingdoms period ushering in the Northern and Southern Dynasties Period while before the Han dynasty period the Egyptian period or Xia Shang Zhou period was coming to be overshadowed by the conglomerate areas of Han dynasty rule.

Edited by mohistManiac, 22 October 2012 - 06:44 PM.

[tadamson]

It's sad to see yet another thread descend to 'them vs us' Chinese civilisation has changed in lots of ways over time, Greco-Roman civilisation still lives on in Europe and the US. And both are stronger because of interactions between them.

Chinese posters need to be proud of their history, not to feel a need to defend it.

Tom..

[tadamson]

ps.

As a snippet of information..
When I started high school age 12 (waay back in 1968 in Scotland) my first lesson was Latin, and the text was Ceasar's 'Gallic Wars', specifically a section dealing with ambushes, night attacks and tricks to defeat his opponents. Some things are universal...

Tom..

[ThunderzonXT]

The Roman civilization is gone long ago, I think you're confusing yourself with Roman culture, althogh English is my second language, word play was never really that impressive and never works.
The Roman civilization have fallen apart, areas that used to be part of the Roman Empire have gradually been lost through the ages, even to the point where they were split up into two completely different factions under different rules. With China however, even in the Three Kingdoms, it was reunited, after Qin have reuinite all of China, it remains that way forever, China never fall apart.
The fact that Roman culture remains doesn't mean that the Roman Empire still exists (I suppose Roman Empire is more well defined than instead of saying civilization), simply said, it have completely fallen apart.

Sun Tzu's The Art of War is very important, and if anyone is to study military strategy and wants to actually be recognised, The Art of War is a very very important book which you must understand all its concepts, otherwise you'll never be recognised, this is actually one of the most important books even in US military academies. Not only does The Art of War includes the grandest strategies over most others (people who claims Clausewitz On War are on the same level to The Art of War is false, as Clausewitz approaches is too direct, Sun Tzu's innovative grand strategies actually counters Clausewitz).

In the Vietnam war against the US, South Vietnam survived and humiliated the US due to superiority in strageies (tactics are too simple, ambushes or night attacks can only be achieve through means of strategy), very similar to The Art of War.

[mohistManiac]

The Roman civilization is gone long ago, I think you're confusing yourself with Roman culture, althogh English is my second language, word play was never really that impressive and never works.
The Roman civilization have fallen apart, areas that used to be part of the Roman Empire have gradually been lost through the ages, even to the point where they were split up into two completely different factions under different rules. With China however, even in the Three Kingdoms, it was reunited, after Qin have reuinite all of China, it remains that way forever, China never fall apart.
The fact that Roman culture remains doesn't mean that the Roman Empire still exists (I suppose Roman Empire is more well defined than instead of saying civilization), simply said, it have completely fallen apart.

Sun Tzu's The Art of War is very important, and if anyone is to study military strategy and wants to actually be recognised, The Art of War is a very very important book which you must understand all its concepts, otherwise you'll never be recognised, this is actually one of the most important books even in US military academies. Not only does The Art of War includes the grandest strategies over most others (people who claims Clausewitz On War are on the same level to The Art of War is false, as Clausewitz approaches is too direct, Sun Tzu's innovative grand strategies actually counters Clausewitz).

In the Vietnam war against the US, South Vietnam survived and humiliated the US due to superiority in strageies (tactics are too simple, ambushes or night attacks can only be achieve through means of strategy), very similar to The Art of War.

Maybe you are right but civilization is not going to be duplicated exactly. It may not be continuous civilization like in China but the western world still uses a lot of its concepts. Latin phrases like primus inter pares or carpe diem are used more often than has the Art of War for day to day regular living. Furthermore it is my belief that China is only a manifestation of earlier generations of its cultures though one may choose to say these generations are directly linked. How can China possibly revive the spiritual ethos of the Shang for example when China is not very religious believes religion doesn't really hold great power. The Vatican on the other hand is a manifestation of great religious power within Western civilization that has occurred since its beginning in Egypt. Not the same gods but certainly it may have more ancient civilizational ethos which has survived into the present. However on both accounts there needs to be a 100 percent revival of ethos in order to accord the revival of civilization and both have not achieved this.

[ThunderzonXT]

There doesn't need to be a 100 percent revival of ethos in order to maintain the civilization, as that is not the definition.
China was originally an empire, but even in thousands of years it still remain intact, however, that is different for the Roman Empire, the Roman Empire no longer exist, you should stop confusing it with culture.