Infantry forces have sometimes defeated or held their ground against much larger cavalry forces.I have heard of battles such as 99bc were 5000 han crossbowmen proved very effective against 30,000 Xiongnu cavalry,although eventually the han were defeated.Also Ran mins infantry succeses over cavalry.And Wei vs Jin war were Hammering lances into cavalry won great battles.Is infantry beating cavalry a Abnormal thing in chinese history? Cavalry seems to have prominence in northern china especially during the age of fragmentation, so how come some infantries have been so succesful and why havent there techniques or tactics been copied

I think that battle was won with large crossbow like machines or ballista like machines instead of lances. The weaponry had such a strong pull that the trigger mechanism can't be released by mere human hand, so the trigger was released instead by smashing it with a hammer.

Its all a matter of terrain, and holding tactical positions. The major disadvantage of infantry is its ability to be surprised and outflanked or repeatedly harrassed. Speed is crucial in this aspect. Otherwise, a prepared infantry will have no problem holding its own against a cavalry, since infantry archers can shoot further, and can form closer shock formations. If infantry is protected by cavalry units, a combined arm army will usually be superior to a pure cavalry unit in tactical combat because the infantry can act as a defensive tactical base of operation where your cavalry can retreat to(and attack if your infantry is disciplined enough). But strategy is another matter, here the nomads can travel hundreds of miles away with their whole army and rest to fight again. The pure cavalry armies also have the advantage of timing, and strategic distribution(they are more flexible in choosing where they want to fight and can group larger armies at any area due to their superior mobility), for example, if there is two infantry units of 10,000 each and two cavalry units of 10,000 each at an interval apart, the cavalry army can easily concentrate both units and form a 20,000 army to finish one division of the infatry first, then the other, which is exactly what the Manchus did to the 6 divisions of the Ming army at Liao Dong).

Standing archery does have the advamtages of using more powerful bows and faster rate of fire.But can it defeat horse archery as the caracole tactics and running in circles makes it harder for the archers to shoot them.I was thinking the straigh shooting high velocity crossbow bolt may make it alot easier to hit a moving target,and this is why the barbarians feared the crossbow alot.

If infantry is good when protected by cavalry, why is it that most* northern states in the Age of Fragmentation prefer not to use infantry.

arrow fire are usually not aimed at any particular object in the first place, but simply firing a rain of volleys in the hope of landing at their massive targets.
Regarding to the neglect of infantry in the initial phase of the AOF, as mentiond before, an army of pure cavalry has strategic advantages, it can cover large areas of space across the map in a short time. Cavalries, due to their superior mobility, are more maneuverable and hence controls the timing and opportunities in the whole strategic picture. They can easily tie down larger infantry armies with small cavalry forces while attacking other isolated infantry divisions before the enemy infantries can support each other. However the southern terrain of mountains greatly restrict such manuvers and hence infantry are required. The later northern armies do have large amounts of infantry in their army.

Horse archers attack in loose formatation so if the eenemy shoots shower they will lose alot of ammunition to kill few horse archers.About strategical maneovability why didnt they dismount in battle.

Why should they? The major purpose of cavalry in Chinese warfare is the qi mode of warfare with the element of surprise. Cavalry is used for shock power and has to be in constant alert in getting away. A dismounted cavalry is no longer a cavalry, but a mounted infantry, and severely slows down the ability to conduct a fast retreat when the situation is turned against them.

I thought I just made a pretty strong case against that, using another example from 434? See my posts in the pinned thread Chinese Warfare Articles.

If the text says the spears were shortened and then hammered into the enemy with hammers or axes, and no mention is made of ballistas being used with them, then why interpret it as ballistas?

Yes you did, but I didn't read that part. I read the posts in yr 2004 though, but I kind of skipped over 2006. However, I find it hard to believe that a spear of only around 1 meter can ram through 10 people(given the length), maybe three, but 10 is too much to believe. With a ballista it's certainly plausible, given that most of the ten were NOT wearing rhinocerus hide armour. But then again, you needed to hammer the release mechanism in order for it to shoot.

I think it would depend mainly on the build of each enemy soldier, the thickness of the rhino-hide armour, and the material of the spear.

Note that in the 434 case, the specific number of chi for each shortened spear is not stated (it is just "several chi"), and could well be more than the 3-4 chi for the 417 case. You're assuming that a ballista bolt would be longer than a spear of several chi, but the text clearly states that the ballista bolts had no effect in 417 and it was the hammered spears of 3-4 chi that did the damage. This suggests the ballista bolts were not only shorter, but also weaker in penetrative power.

Also, the spear would not need to ram through that number of people at once (unlike with a ballista), because one can continue hammering the spear into enemy soldiers even after it has skewered a few, provided the enemy are densely packed in rows. In other words, the ten or more skewered by the spear are built up cumulatively, and not instantaneously.

I admit to being skeptical if this is actually possible. I assume the enemy do not obliging stand in row to be hammered through after the first guy gets speared. Is the spear and the hammer used by one individual? This would mean the spearer would need to both position the spear correctly, while hammering down on the spear. Again on this while we assume the enemy obliging allow themselves to be so speared. Surely a counter-thrust by a quicker weapon would take care of our would-be hammerers?

You misunderstand me. For a ballista bolt, it can be as short as it like, as long as it has enough power to go through the required number of people. This can be made possible if the bolt goes completely through the first to 3rd or so soldier. If it is used as a melee weapon, in order to go through several people at once it needs to be longer since one can't just make it go completely through one person due to that the user has to have a grip on the handle.

It's possible in the case of human wave attacks on a fortified position, where the momentum of those behind keeps pushing those in front and channeling them into particular spaces. I do recognize, of course, that the battle against cavalry in 417 should have a slightly different dynamic. My guess would be that because the cavalry were charging an enclosed wagon laager, they dismounted for the close-range attempt to storm the laager.



OK, I get the picture now.

Still, what are the odds that the Song Shu would mention this tactic twice without explaining that what was being hammered was a ballista trigger and not the spear itself? Remember that in both cases, the words right after the line on shortening the spears are "yi chui chui zhi" - "hammered them with hammers", or "yi dafu chui zhi" - "hammered them with big axes".

Focus on the fundamentals of strategy:

A battle can be determined by many factors: climate, terrain, strategic leadership, the training of the troop, the deployment of the troops, general weaponry, specialized weaponry, trust between leader and troops, etc.

Never presume one significant factor is prevailing.

The ["Road to Perdition"] is paved w. good intentions and littered w. sloppy analysis.

Don't presume, always consciously know.

You make a good point. I also do not at this point think it was fired by some form of artillery, especially if in the case of Zhaoshi they went to the extent of describing bringing additonal lances (can I use 'pikes'? that is the translation I got) and hammers, the action of hammering, yet no mention of any mechanical device.

Will wait for your article and try to translate it.

maybe after going through one body instead of having to remove the spear and attack again they used hammers to keep driving the spears through more bodys