Other than the Roman Empire, was there any other major civilization that could defeat the Han infantry in battle? This would be during the same relative time period of course. Thus, even though some of these civilizations fell before Han China did, you should still include them.

Examples are: Parthians, Xiongnu, Indians, and etc.

The period of the Han Dynasty would have coincided with the period of the Three Kingdoms of Korea: Goguryeo, Baekje and Silla. Of these three kingdoms, Goguryeo was the largest and most advanced.

In 612 AD, Goguryeo successfully resisted a Sui invasion of 30 armies comprising over 1.1 million men. Nine of these armies broke through the main Korean line of resistance along the Liao River. They planned to rendezvous with Sui naval forces at Pyongyang where reinforcements and supplies supposed to be waiting for them. Unfortunately for the Sui, the Koreans defeated their naval forces. When the Sui armies arrived at Pyongyang, they didn't have sufficient supplies to lay siege to the city. The failure of their navy would also have made a siege impractical as the city could have been resupplied and reinforced by Korean ships.

The Sui forces retreated but were successfully ambushed at the Salsu River. Goguryeo troops destroyed a dam, raising a river to a flood level stage. Only a fraction of the Sui vanguard made it across the river. Of the 305,000 soldiers in the Sui forces which had penetrated the Korean lines, only 2,700 lived to return to China.

Not only did the Kingdom of Goguryeo deliver a crushing defeat to the Sui but the failure of the invasion depleted the Sui national treasury. After six years of internal revolts, the Sui Dynasty collapsed.

The Kingdom of Goguryeo survived until 668 AD, when it finally finally fell to the combined alliance of the Silla kingdom and the T'ang Empire.

If they were indeed 30 armies of 1 mil, then they are like a 3000 man unit. Quite small.

I only heard of 9 armies, where did you get 30?


Cough. Where did you get this information?


I don't buy that. Where did you get that.


The invasion itself hurt Sui, but the first invasion, this one we speak of, did little to Sui rule.


I am not too sure if it would went different without Silla.

The Sui example is not a reliable comparison, since both the Sui and late Goguryeo armies used heavy cavalry much more than did the Han and early Goguryeo armies.

The Korean Samguk Sagi 三国史记 does contain an account of a Goguryeo force of several thousand cavalry annihilating a much larger Eastern Han army in AD 172:

八年冬十一月,汉以大兵向我,王问群臣战守孰便? 众议曰:‘汉兵恃众轻我,若不出战,彼以为怯,数来。且中国山险而路隘,此所谓一夫当关,万夫莫当者也。汉兵虽众,无如我何,请出师御之。’答夫曰:‘不然。汉国大民众,今以强兵远斗,其锋不可当也。而又兵众者宜战,兵少者宜守,兵家之常也。今汉人千里转粮,不能持久。若我深沟高垒,清野以待之,彼必不过旬月,饥困而归。我以劲卒薄之,可以得志。’王然之,婴城固守。汉人攻之不克,士卒饥饿引还。答夫帅数千骑追之,战于坐原,汉军大败,匹马不反。

Translation: In winter, the 11th month of the 8th year [of King Sindae, i.e. 172], the Han Empire attacked us with a large army. The King asked his ministers whether it was better to fight in the open or to defend the city. Most of them said, "The Han soldiers are contemptuous of us because of their great numbers, and if we do not go out and fight them, they will think we are cowards and attack us again and again. Besides, our country [note Goguryeo's use of 中国 as a self-reference] has high mountains and narrow roads, and it is as they say: Ten thousand man cannot get past a single man guarding a mountain pass. The Han soldiers may be many, but they can do nothing against us. Please send the army out to repel them." [Prime Minister] Myeongnim Dap-bu 明臨答夫 said, "Not so. The Han Empire is large and populous, and is now attacking us from a distance with a strong army. Their momentum is unstoppable. Furthermore, it is a well-known principle in military strategy that an army that outnumbers it enemy should seek to fight in the open, while an army that is outnumbered should seek to defend a city. Now the Han people are transporting grain supplies from a thousand li away, and cannot keep this up for long. If we dig deep moats and build high walls, and use a scorched-earth policy to outlast them, they will surely return to their own land starving by the end of the month. If we then pursue them with our crack troops, we will be victorious." The King approved of this and had the city firmly defended on all sides. The Han people attacked the city but could not breach it, and the soldiers retreated due to starvation. Myeongnim Dap-bu led several thousand cavalry in pursuit and fought them at Jwa-won (坐原, Zuoyuan in Chinese Putonghua). The Han army suffered a major defeat, and not a single horse returned.

Now, there are several problems with taking this account as evidence that Goguryeo cavalry could regularly defeat Han armies. First, there is no Chinese record of any such campaign or battle, so it is impossible to verify where the 12th-century author of Samguk Sagi obtained information about it - that is, if he even had any such information at all. Secondly, Goguryeo troops were badly defeated in a previous engagement between Han and Goguryeo armies in 169, when the Han prefect of Xuantu, Geng Lin 玄菟太守耿临 attacked Goguryeo in retaliation (according to Houhan Shu :《后汉书‧高句丽传》) for a Goguryeo raid on Lelang prefecture that had taken the prefect's wife and children prisoner (掠得乐浪太守妻子). Although Samguk Sagi does not mention the raid on Lelang and implies instead that Geng Lin's attack was an unprovoked invasion (来侵), both Samguk Sagi and the much earlier Chinese Houhan Shu state that several hundred Goguryeo soldiers were killed, and that King Sindae of Goguryeo then surrendered to Geng Lin and "requested to be a vassal under Xuantu" 乞属玄菟. So even if a demoralized and starving Han army could be wiped out by Goguryeo cavalry in 172, the earlier battle of 169, as well as Myeongnim Dap-bu's advice (in the Samguk Sagi account) against fighting a pitched battle with Han troops, suggests that Goguryeo's army was still at a tactical disadvantage against a Han army under normal conditions.

If anyone wants to disagree with the premise that the Roman army could defeat Han infantry in the first place, please do not do so here. Instead, go and read this long thread and find that we have covered just about everything that could be covered on this issue:

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=13206

True ... but you may be thinking about this based on a biased standard.

Merriam Webster defines an army as being: a large organized body of armed personnel trained for war especially on land

How large is an army?

The Vatican has an army that is comprised entirely of the Swiss Guard. This army includes four officers, 23 non-commissioned officers, 70 halberdiers, 2 drummers, and a chaplain for a total of 100 men.

The Army of Luxembourg has a current standing force of 450 soldiers.When Napoleon was exiled to the island of Elba, he was allowed a small personal guard. The guard was known as the Imperial Elban Army. It began with 300 soldiers but eventually grew to 2000.

In 1779, General Washington's field army consisted of just 3,468 men.

In 1519, Hernán Cortés landed at the Yucatan Peninsula with an army of just 600 men and seized the Mayan town of Tabasco.

At the Battle of Hedgeley Moor during the War of the Roses, 25 April 1464, the Yorks battled the Lancasters with just 5,000 men on each side.

As you can see, some armies of the present and past have been quite small.



Geez ... I'm just trying to respond to the original post. You are certainly welcome to disagree with it but the original question asked about a period contemporary army that might have stood up to the Han. I proposed the Korean kingdom of Goguryeo. I stand by this suggestion.

As far as your questions go, yes, I understand that you have questions about my figures. I'm sorry that you don't agree with them, but that's really not my concern. If I sound a bit irked, it's because I would have appreciated a single query rather than being repeatedly challenged one, two, and three times.

In answer to your repeated questions, here you go:
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goguryeo

If after reading it, you still feel the need to quibble, Wikipedia has a discussion comments page where you are more than welcome to pick away at your heart's content. Go get 'em!

Dave, I have no interest in debating about the Sui-Goguryeo wars, because I don't really find them relevant to this thread at all, unlike the Eastern Han vs. Goguryeo battles of 169 and (possibly) 172. Besides, we already have at least one or two threads dealing with various controversies surrounding the Sui-Goguryeo wars.

But I do feel the need to warn you that Wikipedia articles relating to early Korean history, especially Goguryeo, have been extensively edited in recent years by Korean nationalists with the aim of playing up Goguryeo's military victories over various Chinese empires. The result is that these articles are often heavily biased and exaggerated, and furthermore make many unsubstantiated claims for which the only references given are nationalistic Korean websites. As a historian, I find this very regrettable, even though I should make it clear that I am quite neutral about the ongoing dispute between Chinese and South Korean historians and nationalists over the anachronistic question of whether Goguryeo was a Chinese state or a Korean state. Nor do I have any sympathy for nationalistic versions of Chinese history. To me, bad history is bad history regardless of its nationality.

Unfortunately, early Korean history is still very badly neglected in the English-speaking world, otherwise I am sure there would be more non-Korean English-speaking members knowledgeable enough to correct the Wikipedia articles and make them more objective.



Could you give some reasons for standing by it? As I have mentioned, the 7th-century army of Goguryeo was very different from its 2nd-century predecessor - so different that it should not be taken as a basis for assessment at all. I have analyzed the available information about two clashes between Goguryeo and Eastern Han armies in 169-172, one of which the Eastern Han won and one of which (if Samguk Sagi can be trusted) Goguryeo won. So I would be interested in having your comments on my analysis.

Parthians for one,
theyve been killing superior roman infantry for ages.

although when they kill Crassus, it was before roman infantry tactics fully matures.

as a side note, the korean nationalists is known for twisting facts on web based articles

Actually, the Parthians have been beating the Romans because of their cavalry and artillery. They did not rely on infantry that much, although, of course, the Parthian infantry did exist. On the other hand, the Hans, even thought they also put more emphasis on cavalry and artillery, rely more on infantry than the Parthians. In fact, I believed that someone in CHF has said that the role played between the three aspects (infantry, cavalry, and artillery) were sort of equal during the Han dynasty. I would guess that this would mean that the Han infantry is superior to that of the Parthians. Generally speaking, when you put more care into sponsoring, improving, and polishing up something, that something of yours tend to be a bit better than the counterpart of the less caring person.

you, sir, seem to misunderstood the question.
go read it again.
the question did not specify what other infantry can defeat Han infantry.

Wait, what question are you talking about? If you are talking about the original question of the post, then I would like to say (in case you haven't noticed) that it was I who have started the post.

The question asked what other infantry could defeat the Han infantry. You said the Parthians because they have given the Romans some trouble. I refute your claim by saying that the Parthians had given the Romans some trouble NOT because of their infantry, but because of their cavalry and artillery. I pushed further using a rule of thumb; if you finance on something more than your opponent, your something tends to be better than your opponents. The Chinese rely on their infantry more than the Parthians. Thus, I have proven that the Parthian infantry are NOT superior to the Chinese infantry.

Am I right? Or is it that I am talking some totally different thing than what you are thinking ? If that is the case, then my bad.

No, it asked which "other major civilization" could defeat the Han infantry. You did not specify if it should only be infantry vs. infantry, or whether it could be cavalry vs. infantry.

So I would say that it is indeed "your bad".

Ah, yes, my mistake, my mistake. I thought that it would be quite obvious to that the question meant infantry vs. infantry.

My intended question is: Besides the Roman Empire, what other major civilzations' infantry could defeat the Han Chinese infantry? You can only include the major civilization that existed in the relative time period, for anything far before or after that would be irrelevent.

well Dacian infantry i would say, they bested Romans in their times.
Romans had headaches dealing with them.
they had to do major army reforms to deal with falx.
in modern terms, I would describ them fighting like fanatics.

Em.......................................................

I don't think they have much chance on Han infantry since Han infantry will actually shoot you and I believe Darcian troops don't like to wear armour.

shoot them?

well, what do you call pilums?

so Romans wont "shoot"?

Are you placing too much confidence on 2nd century missile troops? Even up to the era of muskets, where muskets outrange arrows and have far greater penetrating power, they were still notoriously inaccurate weapons. The decisive weapon on the battlefield is still likely to be the spear and the sword, not the bow.

The Persian army fought primarily with missile troops; archers and javelineers, and yet they still failed to stop the slow-prodding Macedonian phalanx from closing the gap and cutting down their infantry. And the Macedonia phalanx are not armed with big shields either.

Actually, muskets of the 18th century had about the same range as composite bows, has a slower rate of fire and was much less accurate. According to Gabriel's calculation, in a bullet discharge at 200 yards, the accuracy rate for flintlocks was less than 1%, while that for the composite bow was 25%. The only superiority in muskets would be its penetration power.

And it was easier to teach an untrained force to use a musket than to aim with a bow.

And this fact is countered by the fact that it is also easy to train the people to use crossbows( not, as you have mentioned, bows; I know that you have said bows, but I would like to show you that there are also small ancient weapons that are easy to use)

i thought the constraint was anytime before 220CE?

muskets!? crossbows!?

if you want to compare infantry missle fire power, then Roman legionaire can top everyone in his time.

but of course as stated, Romans don't count, because they are professionals, can't rank them with amateurs.

Okay there are many problems with using the Romans as an argument:

1. If anyone is implying that some infantry was better than the Roman ones, then it doesn't make any sense. If the Roman infantry is at the 1st place, then how could any infantry be better? I don't think anyone has made this mistake though.

2. The Han had never faced the Romans before, so you cannot use that as a standard of comparison. We don't know whether or not the Han infantry had given the Roman infantry some "headache" more painful than the other infantry. I think that this the mistake that we have made.

Thus, we can't really used the Romans as a point of comparison.

Now, this is to those who said that the Han can shoot the Dacian down. We can't really argue using bows and things like that. Archery is the major component in the aspect of artillery. What we are talking about is pure infantry.

In other words, it would be spears vs. spears, swords vs. swords, and etc.

Sorry, I should have made myself clearer.

Actually, I thought that it has been made quite clear that the Hans were better in the aspect of artillery. And, even if it is not clear, remember the Rule of Thumb? The Roman army, which is being studied more than the Chinese military, have been shown to have a few number of archery weapons. Even when people do not really know much about the ancient Chinese army, archery weapons were discovered to have existed in a large number even as early as the Qin dynasty. This implies that the Chinese finance their artillery aspect more than the Romans. Using the Rule of Thumb, this could mean something.

amateurs?!!!!! Well I'll be!!!!!!! Shall we take this to the Roman vs. Han China thread? Let's solve this problem in a gangsta way, homie. lol

Well, that sort of ignorant stereotyping is precisely why the Roman vs. Han thread got so heated that we finally closed it. Let me put it this way: Han soldiers were conscripts, but they were not untrained amateurs. Roman soldiers were professionals, but they were not invincible against conscripts. So the professional vs. conscript angle is a big red herring.

Well said, Yun

Just as clarification, I suggest that "Artillery" be used to refer to catapults and such, while "Archery" be used for bows and crossbows in particular. The usage of nonstandard usage of "artillery" to refer to archery has caused no end of headache to me, and is probably pretty confusing to others as well.

As I already stated countless times in the Rome vs. Han thread, the Eastern Han standing army is professional, not conscripted.

what he said^^^

i think ppl get the idea of roman is more profesional because they r equipped better, and their barrack system.
but han has more ppl, so its likely for them to be under-equiped. doesnt make them less of a soldier.

basically, if your on a western forum, they say Romans would win, if you are on a asian forum, they say Han would win. its because its either bias, or people don't have expertise in the opposite side.
trust me, i read them all. -___-"

as an logic thing for me, if Han can push the Huns all the way to Europe, aka detroying the Roman Empire on the way, I say Han is pretty pwn.

if a>c, and c>b
a>b

and ps, use the edit button more. don't flood the thread, basic moral of posting

Throwing through strength of arm and shooting a bow/crossbow is 2 COMPLETELY different thing.

If you read my posts in the Han vs Rome, I place much faith in pilums, as they would do heavy damage to any formation.

However, the distance b/w a pilums and arrows are simply too great. And since after Marian reform, pilums were made to break after impact, you get perhaps 3 pilums at most to play with. I dare say a quiver of arrows are more deadly then 3 pilums?





Yang Zongbao pointed out about artillery so I won't go further.
However, you are in the mentality of archers are archers and infantry are infantry, while I believe archers are infantry and not part of the artillery family. Han infantry uses both close arm weapon and bows and crossbow. Why should Han gave up the core aspect of themselves, bows, and fight with spear when their training tell them to shoot first then stab? Besides, would the Romans not throw their pilums? And can archers not fight with knives? [They shouldn't...]


Then that is prior to the Marian reform, and Romans are no professional.
Egyptian bows will own Romans in any way shape or form if you believe the game Rome: Total War. However, I place just enough faith to believe them when they say Egyptian bowman are without equal of their time. [I paraphrase that.]



Crossbows and muskets are both easier then bow. You need almost no training what-so-ever, or so most websites and military buff claims.

thats why there was tortoise. to push close then disform, throw, engage.



marian reforms happened already? in 107 BC aka BCE. didnt teacher teach you that CE = Common Era aka AD = Anno Domini.
i can tear apart any egyptian army in that game, proven with my 546 win 17 loss online record, and they r not egyptians btw. greeks. macedonian hybrids if you want to be technical.


they r easier, you don't need to calculate the angle. just point and shoot.

Then the question would be whether one is comparing pre-Marian Roman armies with Western Han armies (e.g. in the time of Han Wudi or earlier), or post-Marian Roman armies with late Western Han armies, or post-Marian Roman armies with Eastern Han armies.

In the first case, it would be militia vs. conscripts; in the second, it would be professional soldiers vs. conscripts; in the third, it would be professionals vs. professionals (including a large number of 'barbarian' auxiliaries or mercenaries on both sides).

But since Rome is excluded from the comparison for this thread, let us press on.

I　wouldn't call pre Marian Romans militia. I mean, every adult male have to serve either 3 years in the military or 7 campaigns. They are hardly militia.



Remind me why Crassus lost?




Hum. My mistake.
But in my defense, my teacher use BC and AD, and my textbook uses BC and AD. So, I wiki CE and Anno Domini, and I thought its a stupid reason to change.

Then as to Egyptian army, what? So what do you call the nation that was called Egypt and the units called Pharaoh's bowman? When you fight the Egyptian army on the strategic map, it says Egyptian, so don't argue with me, take it up with Creative and Activision.

As for your wins and losses, which clan do you belong to, or which clans have you fought against?

yes, yun is absolutely right, i brought it up on some other forum. roman vs han thing would never end due to the fact that there were different eras, one which roman is weaker internally and externally, and same goes with han, if romans came at them during the early three kingdoms, prior to Han collapsing, who knows.
They are not techically militia, but they are not far from it.
do a research on maniple legionary system, you'll know.


do you know why he lost?
he only brought infantry against heavy cavalry and horse archers.
tortoise is used in sieges or stationary archer position during an assualt.
furthermore he pushed in too far, neglecting ally support and his support line and retreat rout was cut.
this came from my friend at west point doing military history.
and if you actually look anywhere, every source will tell you the same thing.



i thought the name change was common knowledge, my books and teachers don't use it, but at least i paid attention in my middle school history class
anyways no offense just joking.

as for egypt, it is Ptolemaic Egypt, ruler still uses title Pharaoh. Ever wondered why Cleopetra looks semi-white? Yes, we, the total war community, already took it up against CA, they say it is just for ease of understanding and gameplay. And btw, CA stands for Creative Assembly, not Creative and Activision, and Activision is just the publisher. they have nothing to do with the game contents. the publisher is now SEGA.
I belong to TWK, Taiwan Knights, we scrimmed with CWB clans, but it lacked efficient league system like CAL, ESL, or CEVO.
We mostly play with other taiwanese clans. we were almost undefeated, unless we have minor screw ups.

I can see that this debate here is not your forte, so lets get back on topic no offense again.

Hum....

how about a combo of Alexander's armies without cavalries? I am sure it would be hard pressed to say Han could beat that.

Every adult male property-owning citizen who was eligible and volunteered to fight. That is a very different system from conscription, the chief aim of which is to get as many soldiers as possible through compulsion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_reform..._Marian_reforms



Or Antiochus III's Seleucid phalanxes (supported by archers), which are essentially the same but correspond to early Western Han?

well, phanlaxes were outdated by the time romans came around.

here's book that tells it all,

The Histories of Polybius

I found a concised version on the internet.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/polybius-maniple.html

basically the morale of the story is, romans can run around more.

I think the phanlax would not do well against Han do the fact, that Han soldiers is more agile and mobile. they are more flexible then the roman legionaires.
And to put it all together, Han has more people, and could easily surround a slow moving phalanx, and the mounted archers could easily annoy the flanks.

I think the first battle might be intimidating for Han, but after a few engagements, the phalanx is easily defeatable.

Alexander's infantry army consists more then just phalanx.

I mean, Roman didn't just have legionaries.

Basic composition of Alexander's army. Not including allies.
Phalanx (Pezhetairoi) - main body(not kidding, main body) : "="
Heavy Infantry (Argyraspides aka Hypaspistai) -special forces, usually not deployed, but usually protects the flanks(right hand side) when they are deployed. : "_"
Champion Cavalry(Hetairoi) : "^"
Missles : "~"

Alexander's formation(almost the same everytime. Only difference is when the cavalry flanks or charges) (Allies : "-") (rought sketch, don't punish me )



alexander's initial army didn't hyave archers by the way.
he brought skirmishers, aka Peltasts, javelin throwers.
archers was added when he conquered persia, hence most archers in his army are easterners or people of Crete.
you mean mercenaries? (how trustworthy were they?)
and surrendered eastern army? (they lost against phalanx, and the incorporation of them caused a failed revolt and assaination)
if they actually could stand Alexander's invasion, they wouldn't surrender.

Basically, the point being, he only had phalanx basically.

I am beginning to feel that the only unit types to which the Han infantry had no effective counter would be armoured war elephants and cataphracts. In other words, it would be very hard for them to be defeated in open battle by another type of infantry, all other things being equal.

I am not sure if this would make the comparison more meaningful. You wish to know whether the Han are better at spears against other spear using infantry or better at swords against sword using infantry?

One of the things that makes ancient battles so interesting were the new tactics that arose time and time again in response to previous tactics on a unit or army level pitting asymmetrically armed troops.

Archers are traditionally considered infantry, not artillery. Archers also need not be exclusively limited to using their bows or crossbows, closed formed many are armed with a hand weapon and can engage in melee.

Again the differentiating factor is how missile armed troops are deployed, whether they took on skirmishing roles, close formed, rained arrows in a ordered manner etc.

Hi Yun,

can you list down some points that lead you to think that? Perhaps you mentioned it already and I missed it, just point me there. :-)

Personally while I find it interesting to speculate on whether one type of infantry is better than another, outside of historical match-ups we have no real means of trying to come up with evidence to support our speculations.

Interesting hypothetical question. What I'd like to know first is the scale you are imagining.

100 Han infantry versus 100 X infantry?

1000 Han infantry versus 1000 X infantry?

10000 Han infantry versus 10000 X infantry?

I think scale would affect tactics and the relative strength and weakness of respective troop types.

Likely many groups could have fielded 100 warriors that could beat 100 Han soldiers while the contenders at the higher scales are far fewer in number.

Cheers, Richard

well as it scales up, battle would become different.
more people = more ability for tactics.

if its only 1 v 1 one would consider body build and technics and eqipment.

Looking the Han dynasty time line which is at 206 -220 BC their military hardwares are superior than any known nations outside of ancient China. At that time Rome was expanding her empire across all over Europe, Middle East and north Africa.

But the arsenel of the Romans are nothing compare to the Hans. The Han infantry have the long lance that are design to stop cavalry as well to to break up infantry formation.

Range weapons of the Han army consist of crossbows and bow and arrows, the crossbows have, I think an effective range of 100 -150 yrds the bow and arrows 100 yrds or less. The crossbows have good penetrating power that could penetrate Roman infantry shields plus the Han army have the giant crossbows that fire like a missled design to break up infantry close formation as well as for seige purposes.

The Han like to use fire arrows as well and tip their arrows with poison too. The cavalry have I believe two groups one are the light cavalry that can shoot while riding. The other cavalry group are the lance cavalrymen armed with pudao or kwan dao type of lances that are design to chop away at infantry phalanx formation of spears.

War elephants can be stopped with fire arrows plus it is harder for riders to control elephants from panicking

In paper, the Han military are indeed much superior, the only military force that could defeat the Han will be those that are equipe with Hans military hardware as well.

That is why if we look at all the wars and battles in China we will notice that China would be conquered by nations that are armed with the same weaponries as they do. Dynasty one after the other their military will be defeated by their own type.

On the subject of infantry vs. infantry, I would say the Han infantry is superior in almost every aspects compare to existing infantry at that time.

I'm not sure that everything you say is correct. I just would like to add that composite bows, which are usually weaker than crossbows, also have armor piercing capabilities.

No they did not. They had the ji 戟, which is effective against light cavalry at close range, but ineffective against massed cataphracts. That is why the ji was replaced by long spears in the Age of Fragmentation, when cataphracts became common in China. Furthermore, the main anti-cavalry weapon in the Han period was the crossbow. Again, a single line of massed crossbows is not effective enough to stop a massed charge by cataphracts with lances. The rotating rank method of continuous volleyed crossbow fire had not yet been developed (it appeared only in the Song), so if enough cataphracts survived the first one or two crossbow volleys (and their heavy armour increased the chances of this), then they would be able to close in and break up the infantry.



Where did you read that Han archers use poison arrows?



The podao 朴刀 and guandao 关刀 (actually yanyuedao 偃月刀 is the more correct name) were only introduced in the Song period, 800-900 years later! Han cavalry were armed only with bows, single-edged swords (dao), and the ji. They were also lightly-armoured or unarmoured.



But armoured war elephants, provided the armour is of iron or steel, would not be vulnerable to fire arrows and would therefore not be driven into a reverse stampede by such arrows. Nor would they be vulnerable enough to crossbows, unless it were a giant siege crossbow.



Hi Ur, I think the reasons for cataphracts and armoured war elephants to pose a problem to Han infantry are already reflected in my comments earlier in this post. With regard to why no other infantry type would have a distinct advantage over Han infantry, I would say that this is because Han infantry enjoy a certain balance and versatility in terms of equipment. They would neither be outranged nor outfought, nor outmaneuvered. The Roman infantry seem to have been weak in polearms, especially after the hastae were phased out and everyone carried pila. The Macedonian phalanx, in contrast, invested almost exclusively in massed pikes. A mixed Han force consisting of ji halberdiers, swordsmen, archers, and crossbowmen was more balanced than either the phalanx or the Roman triple line, though obviously if the Han force comprised only one of the four types, it would be quickly outmatched.

Define...a han soldier . Is it a certain nationality or military doctrine? For questions like these it is hard to determine. Not matter how well trained nor drilled an infantry unit is, one of the main thing that rank one above another is mainly about morale, fighting spirit and tactic. Apart from that its also hard to generalise every unit of warriors in the Han period as they all differed in that.

Anyway since my above post may be classified as spam, i should add something more solid. Imo before the Han soldiers could adapt in combating them, the thracian warriors elite ( Thraikioi Rhomphaiaphoroi )would probably give a contingent of han infantry a run for their money in hand to hand. Being equipped with heavy armor, scary face mask, big 2 handed sword and pale skin , i doubt many Han soldiers will enjoy the proposal of holding the line against them. The rhompia was also an extremely powerful weapons, the western equivilant of a horse-slayer blade, these 2m of thick iron can cleave a man's torsal along with polearms in half or hamstring horse leg
without any problem.

Hi Yun,



True, although I am not certain armour plays a significant factor in using or dealing with war elephants tactically. The weapons need not inflict significant harm merely irritate the beasts sufficiently for them to be unwieldy and in some case go out of control. Tactically you might for example choose skirmishers for this role to harass the elephants. The loose formation nature of skirmishers would also mean they can retreat quickly and present less of a target for the elephants to break up, which I imagine would be the main use of elephants.



If considered on an army level with troop numbers in the tens of thousands or greater and assuming the usual battlefield limits apply (communications etc), I am inclined towards your view with the caveat that just perhaps there might be another infantry troop mix that might be better than the Han's. Both the Hellenistic 'hoplite' armies contemporary or slightly before Philip's Macedon and the later Carthaginian army (Roman comtemporary) were more varied than perhaps traditionally thought. It might be interesting to consider the infantry types in these army to speculate how they might fare against the Han. In the case of Macedonia their famous sarissa phalanx out-phalanx the Greeks while the more varied Carthaginian army won a number of victories over the famous Roman legionnaires. Note also how the Roman army evolved throughout the Roman period, tactically speaking it might be inconvenient to just think of one type of Roman army.

As you pointed out, all these arguments assumes all else being equal, I submit that those other factors are probably as important if not more so towards determining victory on the battlefield! :-)

Note that what the Han had was something John Fairbank described as equal arms in proportion, meaning that in each particular unit, there is always a proportionate number for each type of weapon that resembles their total numerical proportion in the entire army. Europe only had this concept in the 18th century.



The Carthaginian victories were due to the strength of their cavalries rather than their infantry. Hannibal knew that his infantry had trouble beating the Roman legions in direct confrontation.