Rome vs Han China
- Thread starter IDonT
- Start date
- Status
You exagerate too much the capabities of Roman infantries. Even against Hannibal they were crushed at every battles except one the decisive one because Hannibal make a big mistake.
Sorry an infantrery is always inferior to cavalery.
If you know the Roman history, they will change the proportion between infanteries and cavaleries in theirs armies. They will use more heavy cavaleries (cataphracts, inspired by Persian cavaleries) because infantries are no match against cavaleries. And the tactics will change too. To be simple, the cataphracts charge against the ennemy forces to block or immobilize them then the archers will finish them. It is not a hazard if the infantries will become less and less the major forces in the armies.
Sorry an infantrery is always inferior to cavalery.
If you know the Roman history, they will change the proportion between infanteries and cavaleries in theirs armies. They will use more heavy cavaleries (cataphracts, inspired by Persian cavaleries) because infantries are no match against cavaleries. And the tactics will change too. To be simple, the cataphracts charge against the ennemy forces to block or immobilize them then the archers will finish them. It is not a hazard if the infantries will become less and less the major forces in the armies.
Liberator said:206 B.C. is when we are talking about.
Even if the legionaries reach the crossbowmen. Chinese are to let the crossbowmen to fend off the legions. A squad of infantry will begin to advance. Well, in many battles in history, China has been using tricks, and advantages. If legionaries advance fast, they will lose men, even if they move slowly with shield over their heads. The advancing troops are a major disadvantagement. Romans' tactics uses 1 huge squad of legionaries to advance, and then another squad following behide. 2 other squads behind the first 1. When they advance, its easier to blow a sum of men with large missile, bolts.
Again, China outnumbers Romans. Weapons are many, armours are protective. And cavalries are better.
Chinese soldiers are aswell very disciplane, u know.
You cannot see China as Brittanians, Brittanians are without armours, many of em, and well. LESS MANPOWER. Brittania's soldiers are not disciplane, the soldiers can be known as Chieftain, aswell as peasents. If Roman did not get sooo hungry for power. They would have lived longer.
O yeah! Sun Wu Kong, that monkey king. From JOURNEY TO THE WEST.
I am not questioning the discipline of China's armies. A roman legion consists fo 10 cohorts. In battle formation 4 Cohorts will make the front row with a gap between cohorts, 3 more cohorts in the next line, and 3 more after that. From a top down view, it looks like a chess board.
The first 4 rows can advance at double quick time and still retain a semblance of formation. Though crossbow fire is very deadly, disciplined and motivated soliders have advance and broke through much more devastating firepower in history. IN the Napolianic wars, soldiers in formation have charged through musket fire and broke through the enemies lines. I have no doubt the romans can do the same.
The Roman legions have faced a disciplined armies also. Check their wars with Seulicid, Macedon and their Phalanx infantry.
Bref history of Roman cavaleries:
-220: Roman cavalery (light cavalery) represent 10% of the army
-105: introduction of range weapons in cavalery
98-117: introduction of heavy cavalery with spears
117-138: introduction of heavy cavalery with armor (horse)
193-211: cavalery will represent 20% of the army
306-337: cavalery will represent 25% of the army but proportion higher more in the East empire
Consequence:
1/ Cavalery will become elite force and the effectif of every legion will be reduce to 1000 soldiers
2/ Tactics
a) The infantery will adopt a more dense formation to defend against the cavalery.
b) For more mobility, the infantry will drop armor so will have only the flat shield for protection
Effect: infantery will be more vulnerable to arrows and big growth in casualties
3/ Some innovations in favor of cavalery compare to infantery will give more saving in scale miitary economy
-220: Roman cavalery (light cavalery) represent 10% of the army
-105: introduction of range weapons in cavalery
98-117: introduction of heavy cavalery with spears
117-138: introduction of heavy cavalery with armor (horse)
193-211: cavalery will represent 20% of the army
306-337: cavalery will represent 25% of the army but proportion higher more in the East empire
Consequence:
1/ Cavalery will become elite force and the effectif of every legion will be reduce to 1000 soldiers
2/ Tactics
a) The infantery will adopt a more dense formation to defend against the cavalery.
b) For more mobility, the infantry will drop armor so will have only the flat shield for protection
Effect: infantery will be more vulnerable to arrows and big growth in casualties
3/ Some innovations in favor of cavalery compare to infantery will give more saving in scale miitary economy
Sun Wu Kong said:
Hannibal at Zama was out generaled. Rome's problem at that time was that it relied mostly on the brute forced of its legions. Against a general of the caliber as Hannibal, this is a losing battle.
Heavy cavalry at this time were not as effective as during the middile ages. The stirrup was not yet invented and the weight of the horse cannot be transfered through the lance. Once the initial shock of the charged is absorb, the now stationary horsemen are easy to unhorse. Ever try riding bare back on a horse, its very difficult.
This can be seen in the Roman Parthian wars, the battle of Carrhae, though a Roman defeat, first started with a Cataphract charged which was repulsed with heavy casualties for the Parthians. After wards, the Parthians used their archers to wear the Romans down and ultimately defeated them.
During Trajan's invasion, The Parthian Cataphract / horse archer combo was not as effective. The Romans have adapted but having more cavalry.
I haven't read anything on this thread and don't intend to, so I will just say this:
1. Although they use different tactics and different types of troops, I think Rome would destroy Han.
2. The only really tough opponent China faced was Mongolia. Who later on proved to be quite ferocious in their migration toward Europe.
If we are talking about the pre-100AD roman army, we are talking about an army that constantly fought against insurgency, barbarians and other worth opponents. They had pretty much the most disciplined troop in the Ancient times outside of the Spartans. In addition, the weaponry used by the Romans were by far the most advanced at the time, since the Romans were great engineers. But if we are talking about post-200AD, that's a different story. All they had were mercenaries, they couldn't even defend against the Visogoths.
1. Although they use different tactics and different types of troops, I think Rome would destroy Han.
2. The only really tough opponent China faced was Mongolia. Who later on proved to be quite ferocious in their migration toward Europe.
If we are talking about the pre-100AD roman army, we are talking about an army that constantly fought against insurgency, barbarians and other worth opponents. They had pretty much the most disciplined troop in the Ancient times outside of the Spartans. In addition, the weaponry used by the Romans were by far the most advanced at the time, since the Romans were great engineers. But if we are talking about post-200AD, that's a different story. All they had were mercenaries, they couldn't even defend against the Visogoths.
Sorry i make a mistake at point 3/
Some innovations in favor of cavalery compare to infantery will give a blow to the scale military economy of the Roman empire. Some experts say it is one of the reason of the end Roman empire.
Some innovations in favor of cavalery compare to infantery will give a blow to the scale military economy of the Roman empire. Some experts say it is one of the reason of the end Roman empire.
You are totally wrong. The Han army have the best military technology. You must go to Xian to look at it. The Roman have far lower technology. And tacticly Roman army is only infantery based army. They will evolved to a cavalery army far later. So their tactics also. This only demonstrate the superiority of the cavalery. And already this demonstrate the more modern the Han army is!
Also Han army have 2 major advantages in their cavalery:
1/ saddle. Roman army will use it on the 1st century. The saddle give the stability to the cavalier particularly for archer. Han cavalery uses the crossbow wich is far more accurate and efficient (the best crossbow in the world, it is the truth).
2/ stirrup. No stirrup in Roman cavalery. It will be introduced only in 8th century in western Europe! Han cavalery have stirrup. The stirrup give the strength to the cavalier to break any infantery ligne.
Also Han army have 2 major advantages in their cavalery:
1/ saddle. Roman army will use it on the 1st century. The saddle give the stability to the cavalier particularly for archer. Han cavalery uses the crossbow wich is far more accurate and efficient (the best crossbow in the world, it is the truth).
2/ stirrup. No stirrup in Roman cavalery. It will be introduced only in 8th century in western Europe! Han cavalery have stirrup. The stirrup give the strength to the cavalier to break any infantery ligne.
After 200AD, it is not Roman army less good but it is only because their infantery based tactics don't fit anymore against cavalery tactics that are more modern. So they begin slowly to evolve to become a cavalery based army.
A look to crossbow
Attachments
-
Crossbow.jpg
- Status