Rome vs Han China

Ender's Shadow said:

Problem with your arguement. Anyone who knows about Alexander knows he used small armies that lived off the land. You act as if he had big giant armies with huge supply lines. Wrong. Macedonian Cavalry, if used properly, was probably some of the best in the ancient world. It could have easily trashed supposed Chinese Cavalry.

I honestly don't know of any situation a chinese army used before 1940 where they cut off another armies supply lines. Causing Alexander to slow down? He already has a fast moving army. Okay, the only way to BEAT Alexander is with an army with highly superior numbers.

Such an army would move slowly. No amount of light cavalry could slow Alexander (With an army of say, 40,000.) to the point he slowed for an army large enough to beat him, (400,000ish) to catch him. He has his entire army together still, because you have nothing to harass. (He has no supplies lines in the first place.)

If you "destroy the land's sources" you'll hurt your own people because eventually he'd decide to loot a city for food. Alexander might avoid that if he could, but if you did that to him, he'd strike back by doing that.

Alexander would have fought them probably between 321-315 BC. I'd like to point out Alexander had a reputation of being a a genius general. This would have hurt Chinese morale if they knew. You can't have a million man standing army when it comes to the Chinese, because they have a lot of people to feed! They, like Rome, had an agricultural based society.

They couldn't afford to have giant standing armies because they would have to be able to feed them and pay them as well as have enough food production to feed the people. So, their army was mainly conscripts. Conscripts are inexperienced and wouldn't stand well to Alexander's battle hardened troops, especially if he used his Phalanx's effectively and incorporated his Javelin/Phalanx combo. He had other kinds of infantry, although his army was mostly phalanx infantry. (He had mercenaries and recruited Thracians.)

They didn't have the cross bow, so they can't even use that against Alexander. Alexander would have cleaned house against the Chinese. Chinese cavalry isn't as great as everyone thinks. I'd also like to point out that the Chinese couldn't have had steel until around 300 BC at the earliest, so they don't have that. Steel is expensive and time consuming to make anyway, so it would be rather hard to equip a large army with steel weaponry.

The chinese relied more on leather armor and iron/bronze weapons. (They did have Bronze and iron armor though.) So, throw in the fact the Chinese didn't have the cross bow then, didn't have steel, and they were mostly conscripted. Alexander's army was professional. Now, I'm gonna drop one more bomb. An average Chinese general wouldn't have the brains to know to do all of what you said. You're saying it from the view point of about 2300 years later.

Some, a summary of my points. The Chinese army was probably mostly inexperienced men. They didn't have the crossbow to hand to conscripts, so they would have had to teach them how to fight as infantry. Alexander had better Cavalry than the Chinese. He had other kinds of infantry. (Thracian Hypaspists, Foot Companions, and allied Greek infantrymen all of which were sword and shield users.) The Macedonian army was experienced, and lived off the land. THEY had a battle cry that would have disturbed the Chinese. "Psychological warfare" my foot, Alexander would have been on the giving end, not the recieving.

Alexander's cavalry used a wedge attack style, so they would have broken any Chinese infantry. The Chinese didn't even have the Phalanx or any Legion style of troops. They would have broken. (Again, conscripts.) Alexander had archers as well as Javelin throwers. I don't believe the Chinese ever fought a Phalanx, and on their first battle a Chinese general would probably throw tons of soldiers at the Phalanx, treating it like normal infantry. This would have slaughtered lots of Chinese infantry. Eventually one of them might have gotten the clever idea of attacking the rear or the flanks, and they'd be met with a lot of Cavalry. After the first battle Chinese morale would be horrible.
Oh, and you make it sound like all the kingdowns would unite against Alexander. Not likely. They'd probably take advantage of each other.

Anyway I'll respond with more later.

EDIT: Alexander would have also fought the Chinese during the Warring States period, not the Qin Dynasty.



Chinese military was conscript based actually. It's impossible to have a gigantic standing army and have such a large population to feed, as well as the army. (And paying them.) Their cavalry was in fact, not similar to Hunnish cavalry, but basically WAS Hunnish cavalry. (They got Cavalry in the Warring States Period from the North.) Yes, they probably had a small professional standing army, but not a gigantic one. Romans were in fact, better trained. I mean, if the Chinese were so disciplined, it would have been easy cake to conquer outside of china, but aside from conquering present day Mongolia, they never did much.

By the way, saying that because an army has been around longer means it's better trained is wrong. In fact, it's more likely it's worse trained if it doesn't innovate regularly, and unlike the Romans, the Chinese only fought themselves, so war was basically the same thing. They didn't innovate as much, because they rarely fought anything new. The Romans fought a variety of cultures, so their army probably was more flexible than the Chinese.
Time doesn't mean discipline will be higher, or skill of training. In fact, in most cases that's the opposite. (The French had a standing army longer than the US and our military is probably "more disciplined and better trained". In some cases, anyway.)

Click to expand...

You are kiddin' me right? Seriously, you don't know jack about Chinese history.

Alexander was a genius, by western standards. His cavalry was top in the "known world," but not up to par to that of the Chinese (in fact, the only reason Alexander's armies was superior was because the rest of the western world had no professional army). His tactics were primative. His weapons far inferior. The far more likely outcome is that his morale would be hurt if he knew what he was up against in the Chinese. And the Macedonia warcries? I'm sure the Chinese would be very impressed if they hadn't faced it in the so many "barbarian tribes" they've ecountered. The better question is what would the Phalanx do upon hearing the Chinese war drums, which when beaten together, shakes the earth.

Your claim that "I honestly don't know of any situation a chinese army used before 1940 where they cut off another armies supply lines" shows your lack of knowledge in Chinese history. I can think so many off my head it's not even funny.

Want proof? Since there is a Three Kingdoms thread on the page, I'll stay in the spirit and use the Battle of Guan Du, specifically that little incident at Chen Cang as example.

You must also be kidding that the Chinese didn't have the crossbow, considering that it's been around since about the time Alexander was born, and certainly when he was old enough to lead an army.

It really makes no difference whether the Chinese kingdoms take advantage of the situation or unite, because each one of them were far superior to Alexander's armies. Furthermore, geography would have taken Alexander to either Qin or Chu, the two strongest of the Chinese kingdoms. It would have ended the Alexander the Great myth right there and then.

Nor do I see how supporting large armies enter the equation. China's agricultural output, thanks to far far superior technology that won't be matched until Medieval times, is several times that of all of Europe, Egypt and Asia Minor combined. Nor does China maintain a two million army for all of time. They raise the levels as needed and drops it as not needed. In any case, China never maintained less than 400000 men, even during peace times and never had a problem doing so, which would still place it far ahead of either the Romans or the Greeks, save maybe a year or two in the middle.

And let me put away this "China's army was largely conscript" myth away once and for all. Since the mid Western Han dynasty, long before Alexander or the Romans were around, China's armies were EXCLUSIVELY PROFESSIONAL. A peasant army had long disapperaed from sight.

In fact, it was only until 685 BC, some 50 years after the legendary founding of Rome, did peasant army re-appear again. 685 BC falls in the early Spring and Autumns period. At the time, the prime minister of the State of Qi, a brilliant man named Guan Zhong, correctly realized that a balance of power had occurred in China. It's quite interesting the Guan Zhong had, in such an early time, understood the concept of the zero sums game.

He correctly pointed out that if one kingdom (specifically Qi) was to raise another army, this would prompt the others to do so as well, effectively cancelling out all benefits of such action and only add to the expenses of the army. Thus, he proposed his famous reforms, which involved dividing Qi's 21 provinces into 6 production/economy provinces and 16 war support provinces. His trained the peasants do be capable to defend their land while the much larger and superiorly trained professional army can go about their conquest. If needed, the peasants can also reinforce the professional armies. Had this not happened, Chinese armies would have likely stayed EXCLUSIVELY PROFESSIONAL for even longer.

So your claims that Chinese troops were no more than conscripts is not only ludicrus, it's outright pathetic. Later armies followed the same format. In fact, this is the same format used by the Romans with their legions and auxilia. The professional troops in the Chinese armies FAR OUTNUMBERED the conscripts, many of which are used in sentry/logistics duty, not intended to hold a line.

So like I said, if "superiior Roman training" is your only point, chances are you've ran out of arguments.

Even more pathetic is your claims of "if the Chinese were so disciplined, it would have been easy cake to conquer outside of china, but aside from conquering present day Mongolia, they never did much." I don't know if you've ever checked a map, but the Yellow River Valley is not much bigger than Italy. But China the Han dynasty map is a lot bigger. The reason they did not venture further is two folded.

1. Their frontiers is one of the the largest wastelands in the world. NOTHING grows there. This stopped the settlement of a traditional sedentry people like the Chinese. Hell, even posting troops on the frontiers proved astronomically expensive. To imagine the effect of this, imagine everything north of Italy is desert and grassland.

2. They considered everything else not worth conquoring. Aside from the fact that these lands are useless, they are occupied by "uncivilized" people, whom the Chinese couldn't stand. Once again, this discouraged them from settling these lands.

But alright, I'll humour you in your little game. When Han Wudi finally decided he'll have no more of the Huns, his armies chased them all the way to the Caspian Sea, desert and grassland or not. This is simply an incredible achievement in then logistics capabilities.

Later, in the Tang dynasty, with only 30000 troops, the Chinese reached all the way to Afhganistan and Iran before being defeated by a far superiorly numbered foe at Talas.

And boy, if the Chinese didn't innovate much when it came to war, the rest of the world would have been going backwards. They faced far superior foes than the Romans ever did. There is always the sheer idiotic notion in the west that China grew out of isolation. Do I need to bring up how many tens of thousands of tribes (and later, states, and countreis) there were in early Chinese history? Saying China grew out of isolation is like saying if the Greeks and Romans had the strength of power to couquor Europe (which they didn't) and the strength of culture to hold on to their gains (which they also didn't), then Europe grew out of isolation. This claim of superior Roman innovation is simply asinine. No matter how you look at it, the advantage is the opposite way.

I'd suggest you actually take the time to study some history before posting again, which not only thoroughly embarrass yourself, but also wastes my time.

Certainly the Qin army is made by professionals. One would note how individualized the faces of the Terra Cotta army. Each statue does not represent a Qin soldier in a generic sense. Rather each statue is basically a bust or representation of every individual Qin soldier whom the Emperor had the highest regard with and would want to "accompany" the Emperor in the afterworld.

Another thing, the social engineering Zheng (Qin Shi Huang Di) imposed on the Qin state meant he is able to efficiently conscript larger numbers of men in ratio to his population, and at the same time, able to agriculturally produce for his armies more efficiently with less remaining people. Alexander certainly understood the meaning of logistics, but he never went as far as turning an entire state into a total war machine as Qin Shi Huang Di did. But then Alexander isn't as brutal or repressive as QSHD, which would require that kind of personality to pull off a coercive social experiment in a grand scale.

At the end of Chou and the beginning of the Warring States period, China had passed a golden age and certainly had a large population. However, many battles were done in the 'traditional' way of having a lot of massive frontal assaults with large armies, causing immense casualties. Then came the crossbow and casualties escalated even further.

If anything, the crossbow put an end to mass frontal assaults. That and the rapidly declining population meant and forced warfare in a grand evolution scale to be much more efficient. Technology and means are developed to make each soldier more efficient, resulting in advances in armor, weaponry and tactics. This meant more training, trying to get the most out of each soldier, and led to professional standing armies. At the same time because "missile" and "artillery" technology is much more advanced, tactics in land warfare has to change accordingly to meet the new technology. Frontal attacks become less encouraged. We got more skirmishes, probing attacks, flanking attacks, flexible tactics that emphasize more mobility and ambush, in order to throw and harass the enemy into revealing his weak points, which would server as a precursor to a massed shock attack. There is a lot of organizational experiments in order to determine the most efficient unit possible. Hence the invention of squads which is a unit of 5 men.

So you have warfare evolution being experimented and developed in a grand scale. It is at this fermentive period that the thesis like the Art of War and the other Military Classics were born.

A crossbow isn't exactly superior to the composite longbow in terms of power,although probably the leg drawn crossbow probably is. The main advantage of the crossbow is that it is much easier to train conscripts to use them and so you don't need to rely on archers who have trained an entire lifetime on mastering their skills. At the same time, the user need not be as physically strong as a professional archer and he can mount his bolts as fast or even faster. The result is a force multiplier; you can greatly multiply the number of forces that can throw missiles as opposed to just using skilled archers alone. This would mean much greater total artillery power than a traditional army relying mostly on archers. A regular infantry formation that could have withstood the density of arrows from archers may not be standing this time against a much more dense rain of bolts from larger, more numerous crossbow using infantry formations. This is also the reason why Chinese armor bypassed the development of plate type armor like in the West and went to scale, chain and mail armor. Unlike the West where swords and long arms are the main killers, arrows and bolts are the main killers and the main consideration in the development of armor.

mindreader said:

Even more pathetic is your claims of "if the Chinese were so disciplined, it would have been easy cake to conquer outside of china, but aside from conquering present day Mongolia, they never did much." I don't know if you've ever checked a map, but the Yellow River Valley is not much bigger than Italy. But China the Han dynasty map is a lot bigger. The reason they did not venture further is two folded.

1. Their frontiers is one of the the largest wastelands in the world. NOTHING grows there. This stopped the settlement of a traditional sedentry people like the Chinese. Hell, even posting troops on the frontiers proved astronomically expensive. To imagine the effect of this, imagine everything north of Italy is desert and grassland.

2. They considered everything else not worth conquoring. Aside from the fact that these lands are useless, they are occupied by "uncivilized" people, whom the Chinese couldn't stand. Once again, this discouraged them from settling these lands.

But alright, I'll humour you in your little game. When Han Wudi finally decided he'll have no more of the Huns, his armies chased them all the way to the Caspian Sea, desert and grassland or not. This is simply an incredible achievement in then logistics capabilities.

Later, in the Tang dynasty, with only 30000 troops, the Chinese reached all the way to Afhganistan and Iran before being defeated by a far superiorly numbered foe at Talas.

And boy, if the Chinese didn't innovate much when it came to war, the rest of the world would have been going backwards. They faced far superior foes than the Romans ever did. There is always the sheer idiotic notion in the west that China grew out of isolation. Do I need to bring up how many tens of thousands of tribes (and later, states, and countreis) there were in early Chinese history? Saying China grew out of isolation is like saying if the Greeks and Romans had the strength of power to couquor Europe (which they didn't) and the strength of culture to hold on to their gains (which they also didn't), then Europe grew out of isolation. This claim of superior Roman innovation is simply asinine. No matter how you look at it, the advantage is the opposite way.

I'd suggest you actually take the time to study some history before posting again, which not only thoroughly embarrass yourself, but also wastes my time.

Click to expand...

Wow, I express what I know, and I'm called stupid, idiotic, asinine, and moronic. Is it because I'm 14? Or because you're just that kind of person? Someone says something they view as true, and because it contradicts your view and what you know, they're STUPID? Based off of knowledge, I'm somehow asinine, stupid, moronic, and idiotic? Well, if I'm the stupid one, figure this out. If I was ignorant of my ignorance of the subject, why would I openly admit I didn't know of any situations where the chinese used a cutting of supply lines tactic? (The 1940's bit you quoted.) Maybe it's because I know I don't know ancient Chinese history as well as Greek history, or Medieval history. Hell, most history. I was openly admitting I was ignorant on Chinese military history for the most part. However, I did look up enough information from various sources, including:

Friends with more historical knowledge then me. (much, much more.)

Wikipedia. (not my favorite, but I use it when I just need something fast and I'm not concerned about being perfectly precise.

Various other sites dedicated to Chinese history and that talked about crossbows or mentioned their date of invention.

Now, from what I've researched so far, (Yes, my sources aren't very accurate, I'm aware, but I don't have any books on anicent China and it's history.) The invention of the crossbow was between 260BC-200BC. Every site I went to told me that. Not one said otherwise. If one had, I would have never posted. If it's not true, give me some sources. I DID forget the Chinese had better agricultural techniques then others. They could have had a larger professional army than I realized. I forgot, in all seriousness. That I'm embarassed about. I'll honestly admit, I had to RESEARCH before posting. Nearly two hours. Everything in my post is previously knowledge, or found from somewhere on the internet. I chose what sounded accurate. Everything I found fit my arguement, and nothing I saw contradicted it. So, I researched, even if it wasn't accurate. I made the attempt. I even asked people with more knowledge of war and history. They said the sites were correct, and were the main reason I continued forward with my arguement.

"Saying China grew out of isolation is like saying if the Greeks and Romans had the strength of power to couquor Europe (which they didn't) and the strength of culture to hold on to their gains (which they also didn't), then Europe grew out of isolation. This claim of superior Roman innovation is simply asinine. No matter how you look at it, the advantage is the opposite way."

Okay, Rome didn't have the strength to conquer Europe? Then what in the world did they DO all those years?

crobato said:

Alexander faced what was basically a conscript army in India and eventually he lost. Much of Alexander's battle hardened troops have been attritioned. Morale gets lower and lower the farther they are longer from Greece. Battle hardened? More like Battle fatigued. More and more he was relying on Persians, Babylonians, and other indigenous peoples among his ranks.

Phalanx is worthless on irregular ground, as the Romans later discovered. And Alexander was abandoning the Phalanx the more he got deeper into Asia. Turns out that light infantry could go inside the gaps in irregular ground, and with small short, and straight double edged swords, do much better infighting than the soldiers within the Phalanx holding their spears.


From Ralph D. Sawyer, a historian on this topic from his book Nature of Warfare in China.

Not true. Crossbows was developed in the Warring States period.

Not true. Hunnish style cavalry only appeared in the Han Dynasty. The Northern States were also using chariots, and their cavalry is closer to the Middle Eastern style. The warring States to the South were mainly infantry.
.

Click to expand...

I wrote up an original post, but it didn't post for some reason, so I'm gonna try again. I've read the crossbow wasn't invented until 260BC at the earliest.
Alexander's army was mostly Macedonian. Another Greek weapon one could use against the Chinese is Greek fire. (Irrelevant, Alexander didn't use it.) I only know of him using light infantry in his guerilla warfare days against Darius. (My original most was more detailed.) I've been told Chinese cavalry sucked, and I've been told it was really good. I'd like some more sources on the subject. (My source of Alexander the Great is "Alexander The Great" by Nick Sekunda And John Warry.) I really want to learn more about Chinese cavalry. And general Chinese history, actually. What battle did Alexander lose at exactly? I know one battle was debatable. Was it Hydapses or Porus? Wouldn't the Phalanx be effective in some situations in fighting the Chinese anyway? And yeah, I know how useless the Phalanx is on irregular ground. But it was a fundamental part of his army. However, in one battle of the Balkan Campaigns Arrian said that Alexander told his infantry to crouch down and link their shields together to shoot Thracian carts coming down a hill to disrupt their phalanx over their heads. So, they were a lot more useful then we think. Oh well, I'd appreciate some sources on Chinese History. (I could use accurate ones.)

PS: I originally thought Han China would beat Rome, but after my research I thought Rome would win. (And after a few of my historically knowledgable friends saying Rome would win.)

Ender's Shadow said:

I wrote up an original post, but it didn't post for some reason, so I'm gonna try again. I've read the crossbow wasn't invented until 260BC at the earliest.

Click to expand...

The actual invention date is quite fuzzy. But we do know that tactics and strategies in Chinese armies changed, and that factor of change is due to missile power.

Alexander's army was mostly Macedonian. Another Greek weapon one could use against the Chinese is Greek fire. (Irrelevant, Alexander didn't use it.) I only know of him using light infantry in his guerilla warfare days against Darius.

Click to expand...

Correction, his army was mostly Macedonian in the past tense. By the time he was attacking India he would have been using a lot of Persian and non Greek conscripts. Most of the original Macedonians are either dead, fed up and returned home, or left governing conquered territories. The non-Greeks are not very loyal to Alexander.

(My original most was more detailed.) I've been told Chinese cavalry sucked, and I've been told it was really good. I'd like some more sources on the subject.

Click to expand...

Chinese cavalry wasn't good until the Han Dynasty. Previous to that, warfare is mainly infantry with cavalry and missile support.

(My source of Alexander the Great is "Alexander The Great" by Nick Sekunda And John Warry.) I really want to learn more about Chinese cavalry. And general Chinese history, actually. What battle did Alexander lose at exactly? I know one battle was debatable. Was it Hydapses or Porus? Wouldn't the Phalanx be effective in some situations in fighting the Chinese anyway? And yeah, I know how useless the Phalanx is on irregular ground. But it was a fundamental part of his army. However, in one battle of the Balkan Campaigns Arrian said that Alexander told his infantry to crouch down and link their shields together to shoot Thracian carts coming down a hill to disrupt their phalanx over their heads. So, they were a lot more useful then we think. Oh well, I'd appreciate some sources on Chinese History. (I could use accurate ones.)

Click to expand...

The Phalanx would be useless in irregular terrain, just as the Romans discovered. A lot of China's terrain happens to be irregular. And besides, at the start of the Warring States, the Chinese were throwing large infantry armies and formations at each other in frontal shock attacks, and casualties were immense. When better archery and the crossbow came, such formations were rendered useless, and the Chinese moved to smaller, more flexible formations.

I would wager that Chinese squad tactics would beat Greek Phalanx tactics anytime. The Chinese certainly understood the concept of unit flexibility and mobility whereas the Phalanx is quite inflexible and requires cavalry support to cover the flanks. Chinese squad tactics were in the right track towards the evolution of warfare while the Phalanx proved to be a dead end.

I would not wager either Phalanx or Roman Testudo tactics against a crossbow army. Crossbows could throw more missiles into the air than longbows. Call it superior rate of fire. Any kind of formation, no matter how disciplined, is going to melt away under a hail of fire from crossbows. Bolts will go through, men will die, gaps will open in the formation, and the more gaps are opened, the quicker the formation melts.

If the Greeks would try to invade China they would have to fight the proto-Huns and proto-Mongols. I kind of doubt that the Greeks could stand up to the Huns and the Mongols.

Okay, Rome didn't have the strength to conquer Europe? Then what in the world did they DO all those years?

Click to expand...

Rome only conquered part of Europe. They certainly did not conquered Germany.

Besides, I'm not going to put the Celts, Saxons, and Gauls in the same category as the Huns, Turks and proto-Mongols the Han is facing. Not to proto-Tibetans, Tungusic (ancestors to Koreans, Manchurians and Japanese), Thai, Khmer, and Viet.

PS: I originally thought Han China would beat Rome, but after my research I thought Rome would win. (And after a few of my historically knowledgable friends saying Rome would win.)

Click to expand...

Then they're not that historically knowledgeable then about ancient Chinese and Eastern armies.

I also like to add that the Chinese ships would also be superior to Meditarrenean ships, and hence would have superior naval power. Even though the Chinese Junk is superior to anything in the West made until the 17th Century. The Chinese understood that lateen ribbed sails (now used in modern racing yachts) is more efficient to square sails. They also invended the rudder, bulkheads, ribbed construction, the compass, and understood design concepts like raising the tail like a duck to enhance stability. In addition, they would also have used the naval skills of the Yuet people in the south, who have learned to develop fast catamarans.

I would like to post some corrections made in this thread.

1) Chinese crossbows were actually first recorded during 500BC during the Spring and Autumn, and there are evidence that it even existed by prehistoric times. The earliest recorded evidence of crossbows used in battle was before 300BC. You said that "every" internet sight you found said that it was invented around 200BC. I find that amusing.







2) The Han dynasty wasn't "way before" Alexander and Rome. It was after Alexander and coexisted with Rome. During Alexander's time it was the Warring states. Their technology was slightly behind that of the Han, but not by much. Crossbows and low carbonated steel still existed, though not to the degree of the Han.

3) "knowledgeble friends" such as wikipedia really don't account to much. There are plenty of historians such as Asdhead or Ralph Sawyer who says differently as well.

Here are some information about Chinese military training during the Warring States, which is the time of Alexander

"With the rise of the foot soldier, the commoner made inroads on the nobleman’s vested place in warfare. Hun Tzu states that the commoner was expected to have uncommon strength. The rulers of Wei (one of the Warring States), he said, selected their foot soldiers according to the most rigorous qualifications. They had to be able to wear three sets of armor(breastplates, waistguards, and shinguards), carry a crossbow weighing 168 pounds, bear on their backs a quiver with fifty arrows, and carry a spear. Each man also had to wear a helmet on his head, a sword at his waist, carry provisions for three days and be able to march more than thirty miles a day."

Pg 16
Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts
By Robert W Smith, Donn Draeger


"Chinese troops were strictly controlled and drilled from an early date. The good order of the Chou army at Mu has already been mentioned, and the account in ‘Tso Chuan’ of the Ch’u army of 595 also bears witness to a developed system of drill. The troops could all manoeuvre at once in response to signals, and were trained to deploy in emergencies without specific orders. The introduction of marching in step has been associated with Wu Ch’I around 380, but many have taken place much earlier. A music manual of the 1st century BC describes a military dance of ‘ancient times’ in which the dancers advanced ‘keeping together with perfect precision, like a military unit’, the pace being regulated by the beat of a drum. Such dances were used as early as the Western Chou as training for war……..etc etc etc"

Osprey, ancient Chinese armies 1500 – 200 BC
Pg 38

I cannot say how Alexander's army is like in terms of training, bc I do not know. I can only guess that at its height its training would be extremely varied due to the number of different people in it. I do know that Alexander's companion cavalry was one of the best, because its horsemen was trained at an early age.

Anthrophobia said:

I would like to post some corrections made in this thread.

1) Chinese crossbows were actually first recorded during 500BC during the Spring and Autumn, and there are evidence that it even existed by prehistoric times. The earliest recorded evidence of crossbows used in battle was before 300BC. You said that "every" internet sight you found said that it was invented around 200BC. I find that amusing.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

2) The Han dynasty wasn't "way before" Alexander and Rome. It was after Alexander and coexisted with Rome. During Alexander's time it was the Warring states. Their technology was slightly behind that of the Han, but not by much. Crossbows and low carbonated steel still existed, though not to the degree of the Han.

3) "knowledgeble friends" such as wikipedia really don't account to much. There are plenty of historians such as Asdhead or Ralph Sawyer who says differently as well.

Here are some information about Chinese military training during the Warring States, which is the time of Alexander

"With the rise of the foot soldier, the commoner made inroads on the nobleman’s vested place in warfare. Hun Tzu states that the commoner was expected to have uncommon strength. The rulers of Wei (one of the Warring States), he said, selected their foot soldiers according to the most rigorous qualifications. They had to be able to wear three sets of armor(breastplates, waistguards, and shinguards), carry a crossbow weighing 168 pounds, bear on their backs a quiver with fifty arrows, and carry a spear. Each man also had to wear a helmet on his head, a sword at his waist, carry provisions for three days and be able to march more than thirty miles a day."

Pg 16
Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts
By Robert W Smith, Donn Draeger


"Chinese troops were strictly controlled and drilled from an early date. The good order of the Chou army at Mu has already been mentioned, and the account in ‘Tso Chuan’ of the Ch’u army of 595 also bears witness to a developed system of drill. The troops could all manoeuvre at once in response to signals, and were trained to deploy in emergencies without specific orders. The introduction of marching in step has been associated with Wu Ch’I around 380, but many have taken place much earlier. A music manual of the 1st century BC describes a military dance of ‘ancient times’ in which the dancers advanced ‘keeping together with perfect precision, like a military unit’, the pace being regulated by the beat of a drum. Such dances were used as early as the Western Chou as training for war……..etc etc etc"

Osprey, ancient Chinese armies 1500 – 200 BC
Pg 38

I cannot say how Alexander's army is like in terms of training, bc I do not know. I can only guess that at its height its training would be extremely varied due to the number of different people in it. I do know that Alexander's companion cavalry was one of the best, because its horsemen was trained at an early age.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the sources. And yeah, I already knew that. Macedonian cavalry is really great. That was the first think Philip did to make great. I'd also like to ask about Mongolian and other sorts of battle cries. How did they go into battle exactly?

Alexander trained is men similar to the way his father did. He had recruits marching in the sun all day, wearing full armor and doing maneuvers and drills. Thats's really all I know. And I know they trained for a long time, over and over. That's really all I know. Odds are the core of Macedonian infantry would not leave. Well, until he decided to start dressing like a Persian and marrying a Persian to help make ties with the Persians. It sorta made the Macedonian army upset. But, the core of his army was still Macedonian when he fought at Porus.

I'll get into other types of training another day.

Back to Han China against Rome. I'm just going to give up on the arguement because I don't know enough. I'll just keep watching and see what happens.

Thanks for the sources on China.

Ender's Shadow said:

Wow, I express what I know, and I'm called stupid, idiotic, asinine, and moronic. Is it because I'm 14? Or because you're just that kind of person? Someone says something they view as true, and because it contradicts your view and what you know, they're STUPID? Based off of knowledge, I'm somehow asinine, stupid, moronic, and idiotic? Well, if I'm the stupid one, figure this out. If I was ignorant of my ignorance of the subject, why would I openly admit I didn't know of any situations where the chinese used a cutting of supply lines tactic? (The 1940's bit you quoted.) Maybe it's because I know I don't know ancient Chinese history as well as Greek history, or Medieval history. Hell, most history. I was openly admitting I was ignorant on Chinese military history for the most part. However, I did look up enough information from various sources, including:

Friends with more historical knowledge then me. (much, much more.)

Wikipedia. (not my favorite, but I use it when I just need something fast and I'm not concerned about being perfectly precise.

Various other sites dedicated to Chinese history and that talked about crossbows or mentioned their date of invention.

Now, from what I've researched so far, (Yes, my sources aren't very accurate, I'm aware, but I don't have any books on anicent China and it's history.) The invention of the crossbow was between 260BC-200BC. Every site I went to told me that. Not one said otherwise. If one had, I would have never posted. If it's not true, give me some sources. I DID forget the Chinese had better agricultural techniques then others. They could have had a larger professional army than I realized. I forgot, in all seriousness. That I'm embarassed about. I'll honestly admit, I had to RESEARCH before posting. Nearly two hours. Everything in my post is previously knowledge, or found from somewhere on the internet. I chose what sounded accurate. Everything I found fit my arguement, and nothing I saw contradicted it. So, I researched, even if it wasn't accurate. I made the attempt. I even asked people with more knowledge of war and history. They said the sites were correct, and were the main reason I continued forward with my arguement.

"Saying China grew out of isolation is like saying if the Greeks and Romans had the strength of power to couquor Europe (which they didn't) and the strength of culture to hold on to their gains (which they also didn't), then Europe grew out of isolation. This claim of superior Roman innovation is simply asinine. No matter how you look at it, the advantage is the opposite way."

Okay, Rome didn't have the strength to conquer Europe? Then what in the world did they DO all those years?



I wrote up an original post, but it didn't post for some reason, so I'm gonna try again. I've read the crossbow wasn't invented until 260BC at the earliest.
Alexander's army was mostly Macedonian. Another Greek weapon one could use against the Chinese is Greek fire. (Irrelevant, Alexander didn't use it.) I only know of him using light infantry in his guerilla warfare days against Darius. (My original most was more detailed.) I've been told Chinese cavalry sucked, and I've been told it was really good. I'd like some more sources on the subject. (My source of Alexander the Great is "Alexander The Great" by Nick Sekunda And John Warry.) I really want to learn more about Chinese cavalry. And general Chinese history, actually. What battle did Alexander lose at exactly? I know one battle was debatable. Was it Hydapses or Porus? Wouldn't the Phalanx be effective in some situations in fighting the Chinese anyway? And yeah, I know how useless the Phalanx is on irregular ground. But it was a fundamental part of his army. However, in one battle of the Balkan Campaigns Arrian said that Alexander told his infantry to crouch down and link their shields together to shoot Thracian carts coming down a hill to disrupt their phalanx over their heads. So, they were a lot more useful then we think. Oh well, I'd appreciate some sources on Chinese History. (I could use accurate ones.)

PS: I originally thought Han China would beat Rome, but after my research I thought Rome would win. (And after a few of my historically knowledgable friends saying Rome would win.)

Click to expand...

Most of the time it's not what YOU KNOW that makes the difference, it's what you DON'T KNOW. And you DON'T KNOW jack about China. It's not that your opinions differ from mine that makes you stupid. It's the fact that you didn't bother to do BASIC RESEARCH. Let's be quite honest, even your knowledge of Roman and Greek history is shaky at best.

Let's put some "value" to this argument. Suppose this is not a debate. Suppose it's a business proposal. Well then, you just went into a meeting with the Board of Directors claiming "I've done my research on one of the two proposed plans." How many seconds do you think it will be before you get fired?

As for Roman strength, I think you forgot that Roman never quite conquored the Germanic tribes, had enormous pains with the Britannia, their hold on Asia Minor (although it's not part of Europe so I'll let that one slide) was shaky at best. So all in all, they've conquored maybe three quarters of Europe and parts of Africa.

Now, you might ask why I use Europe as the determining factor. Well, quite simply, it's because all of Europe is approximately the same size as China.

The earlist crossbow according to RELIABLE HISTORY was from around 341 BC. Why did I use the word reliable? Because there are records of its usage far before that date. By the time 260 BC came around the technology was already quite developed. If you know better, then I'd suggest that you drop Wikipedia and in fact, all internet sources, all of which are far from credible and adopt a more traditional approach in hitting the nearest collegiate library.

As for your being 14, really, how the hell am I supposed to know that? In case you haven't noticed, this is the internet, where I do not have the benefit of reading facial expressions, hearing tones in the voice, etc.

Furthermore, I don't recall using the term moronic (I could be wrong, but to be safe, I did use the Edit/Find function). I also didn't call YOU idiotic or asinine. I called your argument idiotic and assinine, partly based on the assumption that you are older than 14. Because you see, when one goes to an argument without doing the necessary research (and hence, does not know what the hell he's talking about), his argument is invariably idiotic and assinine.

Come on Golly, this is the longest running thread in Chinese history, so it can't be that stupid:rofl: (Unless you think all of us who had been participant in this thread in here or other forums are all stupid:nono: ). Actually most history forum do have thread such as Roman VS Han, it is quick popular. But since they usually have senior members that could provide them with more soild datas, things would not be easily out of control or people would not make assumption without some people to correct them.

Eventhrough it had happened thousand years ago, there still are many facts that available. It is not that different from our comparison on modern day military equipment when everything we knew are on paper.

Just my two cents .