Alexander VS Qin dynasty

Infra_Man99 · Jul 14, 2009

Zraver continues to cherry pick data. Read a collection of history. Early European historians claimed the Mongols won because of overwhelming numbers (Mongol horde), until deeper analysis showed this was not to be the case. The Mongols used multiple horses/ponies and dummy soldiers/scare crows. They also sent lots of spies, scouts, and divided units around their targeted lands, which made the Mongols look like they were everywhere.

The Mongols were outnumbered in Eastern Europe, fought on foreign territory, and still had decisive victories. Part of the reason was Mongol bows and xbows were similar in design to Qin and Han bows and xbows, so both had superb penetration capabilities as demonstrated by Mongols in Europe. Mongols were able to use their bows and xbows as their leading or primary weapon against any type of their European opponents.

You continue to say bronze is better than iron by cherry picking pros and cons, yet civilizations switched from bronze to iron once they got the technology. Chinese bronze and iron was probably the best in the world during Qin and Han Dynasty: length of weapons, strength, durability, anti-corrosion treatment, manufacturing capacity, and design. You cherry pick data and say this is because bronze was too expensive/rare compared to iron. Maybe for some civilizations, but not all. Even for these civilizations, they still were better off with lots of good iron than a few good bronze.

The Qin Dynasty faced lots of competitors, yet the Qin effectively used their bows, crossbows, and a variety of artillery as their primary weapon to defeat various foes, even heavily armored foes (such as layered clothes including silk, leather, wood, bronze, and iron). Then they switched to very long spears and lances (a variety of sharp points). Then they switched to shorter spears and lances, then to long to medium to short swords. The Qin Dynasty depended on ranged weapons because they were very effective.

Romans soldiers with their turtle formation got shot up by Han soldiers at Sogdiana. Han soldiers had very low casualties.

Roman soldiers had inferior bows and xbows than Parthia until hundreds of years after AD 1. In one early battle, Roman soldiers outnumbered Parthian soldiers, but the Romans got shot up and were forced to turtle up to slow the defeat. Then Parthia used their numerically smaller, but qualitatively superior heavily armored, mounted soldiers to run over weakened Roman soldiers. Parthia bows had less draw weight than Qin and Han bows and xbows (70 lb vs 90 lb and up). I don't have details on Parthian projectiles.

Romans were not known for their bows and xbows, and neither were other ancient Europeans. They were effective, but not effective enough to be a leading or primary weapon.

All this points to: Qin and Han Dynasty bows and xbows were superior than ancient European bows and xbows, and the former could defeat ancient European armor.

zraver · Jul 14, 2009

crobato said:
Definitely didn't save him in India.

actually it did, he died years later in Babylon probably of poisoning.

Asian bows use a bamboo core, which is an excellent, if unsurpassed material for its constant tension and strength, the basis of all bows from Mongol to Japan.

materials from Europe and Asia minor made bows that could shoot across the Bosporus Strait.

Please address the question directly.

I did, your not your taking writings that might or might be be an accurate translation to mean what you think it means in the modern tongue. Real historical research needs more than writings when talking about technology, but examples in some form.

Do you have any physical evidence of the composition and construction of the Linothorax?

The words of the armor itself, images from antiquity and reports by those who wore it or were around those who wore it.

It does not change the fact that it can be precocked before a battle.

If you want to ruin the weapon.

Partly has to do with the decreased importance of the shield, which is difficult against a mounted rider and the larger, heavier two handed swords that became increasingly favored. Plywood shields can be hacked to pieces against battle axes and two handed swords.

It has more to do with the increases in armor beginign in the 1300's. Sure you can hack a sheild to pieces- whats the the guy behind the shield going to be hacking on if your using a 2 handed weapon- you, is what he'll be hacking on. The two handed sword is only a useful weapon in a very narrow set of roles. The claymore in the Scottish highlands here sheilds were small, evne then it was used more like a combination all metal spear/quarter staff/ sword or the German Flamberge used to cut at pikes.

Nonetheless it is a speculated recreation.

Often that is the best we can get.

There are also recreations of the Han crossbow as well. In a History Channel episode, they demonstrated it having the projectile fly through a speed trap faster than the arrow of a bow, and showed it penetrating a board better than the arrow.

Link please

Take your pick what you want to believe.

The evidence.

Mounted or stand up. The draw strength of a foot archer and a mounted archer is not the same. The bow of a mounted archer cannot be past a certain length before it interferes with the way he rides, whereas a foot archer can have a longer, and therefore stronger bow. Armies for the Qin for example has both mounted and foot archers and so should other sedentary armies.

Most horse armies rode perpendicular to their enemy and fired off the left side allowing full draw and the use of the horse as a brace. They'd use an oval pattern and drop out on the back side to grab fresh quivers or horses when needed. The mass of arrows at anyone time was not as great as a line of bowmen firing in unison, but they could keep it up all day long to the dismay of infantry armies of armies that did not have horse archers of their own. If infantry bows were more powerful (they are more accurate at range vs a static target) then massed infantry bow fire could have stopped most horse armies but it couldn't and didn't.

Where did you get this? Steel was discovered nearly as soon as iron was. Simply the exposure of iron to carbon helped brought about steel, and with it, a superior material over bronze.

If it was so superior, why did it take so long to catch on?

Ancient peoples used Bronze because the ores were more abundant. But for people where iron ore is more abundant, they shifted to steel, e.g., China, Germanic peoples...

Funny, the first use of steel comes from a bronze using area, and area that continued to use bronze for another 3800 years. Bronze offered a strength early iron didn't. China, Sri lnaka and others overcame this fairly early, but not all that much faster than anyone else. Italy/Germany for exmaple had some steel swords by 300 B.C, although the Romans preferred point hardened iron for the gladius and projectile tips.

Advances in metallurgy is what drove swords to be longer. There is a direct proportion in sword length to the metallurgy. Why bronze swords, like in China, kept growing longer and longer as time passes, until a point it changed to steel, and from then on, kept growing longer and longer till they reach a zenith around the Ming Dynasty.

You are correct, but only to a point. Length and thickness are dictated by weight. The Germans used an Iron long sword while the more advanced Romans used a short sword. The greeks preferred a heavy short chopping or stabbing sword as well (Xiphos) made of bronze or iron.

zraver · Jul 14, 2009

LostWraith said:
zraver, I'm not saying a soldier can't march with full pack and gear and extra logistical equipment. Exactly the point I'm trying to make is that equipping each soldier with 40-80 extra lbs of heavy metal armor isn't gonna help. They've already got enough on their hands that if a Roman legion had to walk long distances with all those things you describe AND a 100 lb medieval plate mail set then they might as well lie down and die when they get to the battle.

Didn't you say most armies had wagons to carry the gear? I am pretty sure you did but I might be mistaken. I was simply pointing out that an infantry man can wear a lot of weight and do his job. If your claim about wagons is correct, then as long as most ancient armies had their baggage train intact the infantry could wear 80-100lbs or combat gear and still cover great distances.

Would you think Asian armies didn't march around with extra gear? Certainly ancient Chinese or Mongolian soldiers would be responsible to carry whatever equipment the army needed. Just think of all the arrows that a Chinese army has to lug around all the time. That alone would be an enormous burden on every man.

I am not saying they didn't, and yes it would be a huge logistics tail, one reason so many Chinese adventures into the wilds ended in disaster. An army of crossbow men needs as much food as an army of arches, but can put less volume into the air during a fight. To make of the volume you have to increase the number of men and that adds to the logistics burned. A force of 10,000 crossbow men will eat about 25,000lbs of food a day. Or about 12 single axel wagons worth each day. add in the grain supplements for the draft animals, tents, arrows, spare bows etc and then numbers of wagons just keeps climbing. You can use bigger wagons and slower oxen, but then the army doesn't move as fast.

zraver · Jul 14, 2009

Infra_Man99 said:
Zraver continues to cherry pick data. Read a collection of history. Early European historians claimed the Mongols won because of overwhelming numbers (Mongol horde), until deeper analysis showed this was not to be the case. The Mongols used multiple horses/ponies and dummy soldiers/scare crows. They also sent lots of spies, scouts, and divided units around their targeted lands, which made the Mongols look like they were everywhere.

The mongols own records show they were not outnumbered. Your the one cherry picking data. We all know you think the mongols were vastly outnumbered- your wrong. Even the numbers you put up show your wrong. You also cherry pick by ignoring how the mongols won- assuming it was just their awesomeness with laser beam like death arrows. It wasn't, it was superior mobility and command and control. In military speak- they go inside their enemies decision cycle.

The Mongols were outnumbered in Eastern Europe, fought on foreign territory, and still had decisive victories. Part of the reason was Mongol bows and xbows were similar in design to Qin and Han bows and xbows, so both had superb penetration capabilities as demonstrated by Mongols in Europe. Mongols were able to use their bows and xbows as their leading or primary weapon against any type of their European opponents.

That statement is a complete farce.

You continue to say bronze is better than iron by cherry picking pros and cons, yet civilizations switched from bronze to iron once they got the technology.

The problem of course, as Crobato pointed out in his post is that they didn't. The earliest known steel is from Anatolia- do you know where that is? Modern day Turkey. Troy, Assyrians, Hittites, Ionian Greek colonies you know some of the great bronze age cultures. Iron remained a disfavored metal for millennia because it was so hard to get right. The big shift away from bronze and the rapid increase in iron technology occurred as the easily exploited copper and tin deposits were being used up.

Chinese bronze and iron was probably the best in the world during Qin and Han Dynasty: length of weapons, strength, durability, anti-corrosion treatment, manufacturing capacity, and design. You cherry pick data and say this is because bronze was too expensive/rare compared to iron. Maybe for some civilizations, but not all. Even for these civilizations, they still were better off with lots of good iron than a few good bronze.

The best steel came from the Indian subcontinent- pop that was your ignorance bubble. Your not even tryign to talk history, just arguing China is great with out any basis is logic. I am going to let you in on something most of the rest of us all already know. China is great, and doesn't need less than half educated amateurs defending her honor and making fools of themselves instead.

China's greatness is self evident by the size of the armies. Logistics, ability to provide armaments, creatign conscript armies and not wrecking the countryside come planting/harvesting time by only have so many due to stripping the fields of farmers, building projects, early leader in a unified national feeling etc. Metallurgy is in there as well, but is not the reason China is great. Chinese metalworking was good, but not singular and not so different that the differences are just a matter of degrees.

The Qin Dynasty faced lots of competitors, yet the Qin effectively used their bows, crossbows, and a variety of artillery as their primary weapon to defeat various foes, even heavily armored foes (such as layered clothes including silk, leather, wood, bronze, and iron). Then they switched to very long spears and lances (a variety of sharp points). Then they switched to shorter spears and lances, then to long to medium to short swords. The Qin Dynasty depended on ranged weapons because they were very effective.

For their particular set of circumstances. Rome stretched from the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf and did it with a short sword.

Romans soldiers with their turtle formation got shot up by Han soldiers at Sogdiana. Han soldiers had very low casualties.

Source that actually says this.

Roman soldiers had inferior bows and xbows than Parthia until hundreds of years after AD 1.

Incorrect the bow technology was the same. The Romans did not have enough horse and arches in some battles along with a commander who was monumentally stupid and greedy.

In one early battle, Roman soldiers outnumbered Parthian soldiers, but the Romans got shot up and were forced to turtle up to slow the defeat. Then Parthia used their numerically smaller, but qualitatively superior heavily armored, mounted soldiers to run over weakened Roman soldiers. Parthia bows had less draw weight than Qin and Han bows and xbows (70 lb vs 90 lb and up). I don't have details on Parthian projectiles.

Source on the draw weight. The Romans who rallied fought their way free and 2 years later formed the core of an army that crushed the Persians.

Romans were not known for their bows and xbows, and neither were other ancient Europeans. They were effective, but not effective enough to be a leading or primary weapon.

Logical fallacy even if you refuse to see it.

All this points to: Qin and Han Dynasty bows and xbows were superior than ancient European bows and xbows, and the former could defeat ancient European armor.

A and B as usual.

LostWraith · Jul 14, 2009

zraver said:
Didn't you say most armies had wagons to carry the gear? I am pretty sure you did but I might be mistaken. I was simply pointing out that an infantry man can wear a lot of weight and do his job. If your claim about wagons is correct, then as long as most ancient armies had their baggage train intact the infantry could wear 80-100lbs or combat gear and still cover great distances.

I am not saying they didn't, and yes it would be a huge logistics tail, one reason so many Chinese adventures into the wilds ended in disaster. An army of crossbow men needs as much food as an army of arches, but can put less volume into the air during a fight. To make of the volume you have to increase the number of men and that adds to the logistics burned. A force of 10,000 crossbow men will eat about 25,000lbs of food a day. Or about 12 single axel wagons worth each day. add in the grain supplements for the draft animals, tents, arrows, spare bows etc and then numbers of wagons just keeps climbing. You can use bigger wagons and slower oxen, but then the army doesn't move as fast.

More gear = more wagons, more animals, more burden on the animals. You can't possibly make sense out of an argument that carrying more can somehow doesn't increase the burden of an army on the march.

You have 30,000 men. You can't train them all in archery one month after they've been mobilized. You give them crossbows. End of discussion.

It's not choosing between 30 thousand archers and 30 thousand xbowmen, because the first choice is impossible. Chinese armies always had xbowmen and archers working in unison, and there were always more xbowmen because of the reasons that's already be listed. You are acting as if ancient commanders didn't know something you do and would choose 30 thousand xbowmen over 30 thousand archers because he felt like it.

zraver · Jul 14, 2009

LostWraith said:
More gear = more wagons, more animals, more burden on the animals. You can't possibly make sense out of an argument that carrying more can somehow doesn't increase the burden of an army on the march.

not making that argument. What I was sayign is that an army of crossbowmen needs to be larger than an army of archers to equal the same volume of fire during a battle and so would have a bigger logistics tail.

You have 30,000 men. You can't train them all in archery one month after they've been mobilized. You give them crossbows. End of discussion.

We've been in agreement on that point since the beginning.

It's not choosing between 30 thousand archers and 30 thousand xbowmen, because the first choice is impossible. Chinese armies always had xbowmen and archers working in unison, and there were always more xbowmen because of the reasons that's already be listed. You are acting as if ancient commanders didn't know something you do and would choose 30 thousand xbowmen over 30 thousand archers because he felt like it.

Commanders always pick the best tool they have. If they haven't already spent years investing in archers or bought them off the open market (mercs) then corssbows are the obvious solution despite some serious handicaps.

LostWraith · Jul 14, 2009

zraver said:
not making that argument. What I was sayign is that an army of crossbowmen needs to be larger than an army of archers to equal the same volume of fire during a battle and so would have a bigger logistics tail.

That is certainly true, though I think this is the wrong way to approach the situation.
Commanders are usually presented with a scenario such as "you have been given command of 20 thousand troops, make them ready in two months", not "you have been given the task of firing 5000 arrows a minute at the enemy 400 yards away". Resources is the limit in every war, and manpower is a very limited resource even for Chinese warring states or huge empires like Rome.

Time is a critical limit that favors the crossbow that cannot be bought or sold. You are certainly right that mercenaries are an option, but more so in Europe due to the divided land and lack of central authority. If there was sufficient time, and supposing all 20 thousand of my men were very strong, I would love to train them all in archery. It wasn't the case for most countries around the world. You cannot lead a country by constantly preparing the population for war. Training archers won't help crops grow in the field or metal refined from ore. It's better for the state to let the civilians, or even soldiers (in China's case) do farming and industrial work in time of peace rather than constantly training them.

crobato · Jul 14, 2009

zraver said:
actually it did, he died years later in Babylon probably of poisoning.

He was still injured, the injuries lasting.

And still no evidence, other than anecdote on the true nature and construction of the Linothorax.

materials from Europe and Asia minor made bows that could shoot across the Bosporus Strait.

Source please.

If you want to ruin the weapon.

Source please. I never heard of a crossbow being ruined by cocking.

It has more to do with the increases in armor beginign in the 1300's. Sure you can hack a sheild to pieces- whats the the guy behind the shield going to be hacking on if your using a 2 handed weapon- you, is what he'll be hacking on. The two handed sword is only a useful weapon in a very narrow set of roles. The claymore in the Scottish highlands here sheilds were small, evne then it was used more like a combination all metal spear/quarter staff/ sword or the German Flamberge used to cut at pikes.

Wrong. Two handed sword can be used both defensive and offensive in nature. It won't take a lot of blows to hack down a shield, which was used mostly for defensive glancing blows.

It does not take long to see that a long two handed sword is superior everyway to a short one. Not just in sheer reach, but the only way for a short sword to break armor is the stab. But when it came to stabbing purposes, the long sword is better, not just because of the reach, but the length of the sword also reinforces the tip, so it is much much harder and far more likely to break through armor. When swung, the arc point of the longer sword traves at a far higher speed, and blade itself holds more energy, again, good in hacking the enemy down.

Another factor in the removal of the shields lies with holding longer and longer pikes. At some point, the pike has to be held with two hands rather than one. Also another factor is the gradual incorporation of polearms, which are also two handed. Again, advantages in reach, thrust, and arc of the point.

Often that is the best we can get.

Not good enough.

Link please

Check with History Channel. They had programs describing ancient weapons.

The evidence.

Which is seriously lacking on the Linothorax.

Most horse armies rode perpendicular to their enemy and fired off the left side allowing full draw and the use of the horse as a brace. They'd use an oval pattern and drop out on the back side to grab fresh quivers or horses when needed. The mass of arrows at anyone time was not as great as a line of bowmen firing in unison, but they could keep it up all day long to the dismay of infantry armies of armies that did not have horse archers of their own. If infantry bows were more powerful (they are more accurate at range vs a static target) then massed infantry bow fire could have stopped most horse armies but it couldn't and didn't.

Sigh. Infantry bows were indeed more powerful because of their length, and archers don't have to multitask between riding a horse and drawing the bow. There comes a point when the length of the bow would interfere with the leg of the rider.

If it was so superior, why did it take so long to catch on?

Sigh. Because the technology to make it wasn't that easy. It required a certain temperature which you can't achieve with a plain fire. Its simply a lot easier to smelter bronze because tin and copper melts relatively easier at a lower temperature. It is not until someone could develop the furnace technology hot enough that you can create steel.

Funny, the first use of steel comes from a bronze using area, and area that continued to use bronze for another 3800 years. Bronze offered a strength early iron didn't. China, Sri lnaka and others overcame this fairly early, but not all that much faster than anyone else. Italy/Germany for exmaple had some steel swords by 300 B.C, although the Romans preferred point hardened iron for the gladius and projectile tips.

Wrong. I don't believe any metallurgist and historian would ever back what you're saying. Iron as a material was much harder to work with, until the smelting technologies were in place. This is not to mention you need equally iron and steel tools to hammer the weapon.

Smelting, quenching, tempering were all skills that were not easily acquired, but gradually through trial and practice, that would create the Iron Age Sword.

You are correct, but only to a point. Length and thickness are dictated by weight. The Germans used an Iron long sword while the more advanced Romans used a short sword. The greeks preferred a heavy short chopping or stabbing sword as well (Xiphos) made of bronze or iron.

The Romans were not anywhere near as good as the Germans and the Celtics when it came to melting and forging iron. Best swordmaking in Europe at that time were with the Celts.

This is plus the fact that bronze can be annoyingly brittle (breaks easily) when made sharp while keeping the blade thin. Iron is more malleable and different compositions of iron with percentages of purities, can be layered, folded, layered again, and folded.

crobato · Jul 14, 2009

The best steel came from the Indian subcontinent

Are you referring to Wootz Steel? Yes there was evidence of this in Sri Lanka. Then again, the Warring States in China already did have quenched hardened steel, which was already way better than any bronze sword.

Wootz Steel was extremely difficult to make without a blast furnace. The Sri Lankans are only able to use this via monsoon wind blown furnaces, and the air entering the furnace has to be of such a degree to attain these temperatures.

The Chinese however, invented blast furnaces that would allow for mass production of quench hardened steel without being weather dependent.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"In China, these ironworking methods spread northward, and by 300 BC, iron was the material of choice throughout China for most tools and weapons. A mass grave in Hebei province, dated to the early third century BC, contains several soldiers buried with their weapons and other equipment. The artifacts recovered from this grave are variously made of wrought iron, cast iron, malleabilized cast iron, and quench-hardened steel, with only a few, probably ornamental, bronze weapons."

The earliest known steel is from Anatolia- do you know where that is? Modern day Turkey. Troy, Assyrians, Hittites, Ionian Greek colonies you know some of the great bronze age cultures. Iron remained a disfavored metal for millennia because it was so hard to get right. The big shift away from bronze and the rapid increase in iron technology occurred as the easily exploited copper and tin deposits were being used up.

Those regions were also scarce in iron deposits. They didn't use iron because it was not just harder to work with, but much scarcer and more difficult to obtain.

LostWraith · Jul 14, 2009

Bronze is less brittle and better resists corrosion. Tin is rare.
Iron is harder and stronger. Iron is very common.

Simple as that.

Alexander VS Qin dynasty

Infra_Man99

Banned Idiot

zraver

Junior Member

zraver

Junior Member

zraver

Junior Member

LostWraith

New Member

zraver

Junior Member

LostWraith

New Member

crobato

Colonel

crobato

Colonel

LostWraith

New Member