Rome vs Han China

IDon't

I think you are fundamentally flawed comparing a Chinese army to crowd control.

I also think you place far too much faith on formations facing under missile fire. Frankly I like to see you right in the middle of one and give me your tactile impressions as a hail of bolts coming raining down on you.

Chinese army is based on mobility first and all. All tenets of written strategies in Chinese warfare always point to this. You want to compare Roman infantry tactics to Chinese squad tactics? Why the Chinese evolve small units formations, as well as high speed cavalry units is mainly because large frontal assaults with large units of infantry has been obsoleted by the use of the crossbow and composite long bow. The Chinese have to evolve tactics to suit an environment forged by constant missile fire.

After the vast attritional losses in the Warring States, the idea of attacking head on don't generally appeal with Chinese armies, except those controlled by incompetent generals interested more on politics. Against Roman infantry, Chinese infantry would withdraw, rather than face it head on, allowing the Roman infantry to move forward and center, while being subjected to bolt and arrow fire from the flanks. A Han cavalry with composite crossbows and steel daos would cleave through any opposing cavalry and attack the rear. Chinese squad tactics would have meant that while the Romans are busy with their formations, Chinese squads would be wreaking havoc on their supply lines.

The general themes in ancient Eastern warfare is mobility, mobility and mobility, and flexibility in every word within.

Let me add that the Roman Legions never truly showed mastery over the barbarian tribes of Europe. Sure they managed to conquer the Saxons and the Gauls, but their advance was stopped by Germanic tribes. They also had trouble with the likes of Attila and eventually the western half of the Roman Empire fell to the 'barbarians'.

The European kingdoms that succeeded the barbarian tribes never relinguished the long straight slashing swords used by the Celts, Gauls and other barbarian tribes. Why? If the Roman manipular infantry tactics and gladius are so superior, why did the ever practical Europeans never adopted them? Why of course, because the Romans were eventually beaten with charges and slashing attacks and by people wielding long swords, not to mention battle axes and maces.

1.) Napoleonic era and US Civilwar era armies have charge an enemy line while being peppered by bullets and cannons, which are a lot more deadlier than 2nd centure BC crossbow bolts. They have kept their discipline, closed with the enemy, and in some cases, broken through. I don't see why the Roman Legions can't do the same.

Click to expand...

Let us not use this example because a lot of times, much more often than not, these formations only resulted in a lot of dead bodies, much more than what would have been necessary. Civil War armies appear to neglected many of the lessons of George Washington's colonial armies. Bullets were not really as accurate or have superior rate of fire even compared to crossbows and long bows. Not until the advent of the repeating and bolt action rifle are guns truly superior.

Interesting post crotabato!

1.) I am not using crowd control to compare the Han Army. I was comparing the "crowding" effects of a melee fight that have similar physical characteristics of a crowd. In such circumstances, a shorter stabbing weapon has a huge advantage over a longer slashing weapon.

2.) I believe flint lock muskets were much much more effective, firepower wise, than 2nd Century BC crossbows. Why else would Europe adapt such weapons when they already have the crossbows? While it is arguable that the Crossbow is more accurate, the rate of fire advantage is questionable. Drawing a crossbow fatigues even the most trained soldier. Do it in rapid succession and your rate of fire after the first dozen volley drops down significantly. Such limitations is not apparent to musket men, where loading a weapon consists of drilled steps. Then their is a question of ammunition, the standard Napoleanic soldier carriers about 150 bullets. How many bolts can a Han Crossbowmen carry? Since bolts are heavier and bulkier than bullets, I figure about 25-50 percent less in ammo are carried.

3.) My faith in formations under fire is not without merit. It has been done before. All you have to do is look at the Napoleanic wars.

4.) Rome never conquered the Germans not because the lack of ability but the lack of will. After the loss of Varus legions in an ambush, the Emperor Augustus mandated that the boundery of the empire will be the Rhine River.

5.) As for Roman defeat against the barbarians, you are taking it out of context. At this time, the Roman legions were not the same Roman legions from the late Republic era. The way they were employed and the weapons used were very different. They got rid of the Gladius and substitute it with spear as a cost saving measure.

6.) The Roman manipular warfare was not resurrected again in Europe because the concept of a disciplined professional army died with the ROman empire. During the middleages Knights and levied infantry were the norm. levied infantry are basically conscripted peasants while the knights were mounted heavy cavalry. Though granted, the Swiss Pikemen, did copy from the Greek Phalanx.

Overall, I like your posts about mobility. How would you imagine such a battle of manuever is handled against the Romans?

Let me start.

Mark Anthony did lauched another invasion of Parthia 10-15 years after Crassus disaster. The cavalry based Parthians attacked his supply train and destroyed it along with his cavalry forcing him to retreat back to Roman territory. Though his main Legions remained un engaged and intact, the Parthians defended their empire brilliantly efficiently without heavy losses for both their army and the Romans. Perhaps a Han attack along such lines is possible? It is in line with Sun Tzu's principles.

How would a Han army be handled in an offensive?

Spears are far better for formations than gladius. It isn't due to a cost saving measure as you say. Short swords are practically useless when infantry battles against cavalry. The Han also used a lot of polearms for this reason.

The Romans are not better one on one than the barbarians. The Romans did in fact, suffered loses in Germany, which is the reason for them to set the boundary. When it comes to small unit battles, long swords and battle axes would own the gladius.

I have to disagree with you on the muskets. Lead balls are heavier than bolts and much harder to carry. Furthermore you have to carry a sack of gunpowder and a pole used to press in the powder deep into the gun. It is quite inefficient. Furthermore the muskets are pretty inaccurate at range. Formations could stand up to them for a while because they are slow and not accurate, quite heavy to carry over distances. A lot of the formations literally fired near point blank ranges. Remember the saying "Wait till you see the whites in their eyes!" The Europeans in the Napoleonic era did a lot more hand to hand fighting than most credit them for, if no other than to use the musket like a club.

The concept of the disciplined professional army did not die in Europe, who would also later resort to large formations, but that was only when there was substantial population growth to fill the ranks. In any case, a large amount of soldiers even in the Roman empire are really conscripts, or Roman citizens drafted to do that duty. The Roman empire cannot sustain large standing armies without impacting its agriculture.

As the population of breeds of larger, more powerful horses swelled in Asia, this lead to the creation of heavier cavalry. The Han tried to acquire as much of these horses in exchange for silk, and they formed the basis of the elite Han cavalry. Even horse rider nomads, no matter how experienced they are, would be in a serious disadvantage if they had to deal with such cavalry abord their "my little" ponies.

I have to say that the gladius is practically a dead end in the evolution of swords, whereas both the dao and the longswords, representatives of their genus, would become the dominant sword types all the way right to the era of the gun, all the result of battle hardened experience.

Some information on Chinese Qin-Han era crossbows are here.

1.) The Romans did employ a longer Gladius to their Cavalry. As for spears, Roman Legionaires carry 2 throwing spears (Pilum). The object was to throw these before they close. Roman Legions used to employ spears, most noteworthy were the triari formations. They got rid of them for their main legions. The Auxilia retained their spears. During the late Western Empire, the Gladius was abandoned.

2.) The Barbarians, at the height of the Pax Romana, never defeated a Roman army in a straight up fight. The largest loss was with the 16, 17, 18th legions which were wipe out in the Teutoberg forest. The reason for this was two fold: Germany trechery and terrain. The Romanized german (Arminius, I think that was his named) lured the 3 legions deeper in to the forest where they could not assemble as a whole army and ambushed them. The German's knew they could never defeat a Roman army in the field.

3.) Though lead balls might be heavier, crossbow bolts were bulkier. I don't think Han Crossbowmen carry 150 bolts on their person, while Napoleanic soldiers always did. 150 balls in a pouch and gun powder on a horn. Secondly, Qing Crossbows and cannons were slaughtered by smaller numbers of British soldiers in the first Opium war. These soldiers still used the inaccurate flintlock muskets. Clearly, muskets were superior to Chinese crossbows even the more recent ones. Arguing that 2nd century Crossbows are more effective than muskets is just plain wrong.

4.) Disciplined armies did die. After the Romans there were Knights with levied infantry, then the practice of hiring mercenaries. The concept of a a national army was only ressurected by Napolean in the napoleanic wars.

5.) Legionaires were all Roman citizen volunteers who signed up for 20 years, after which they get a Pension of land. At its height their were about 30 legions (6-7000 men each). What you are talking about is auxilia, support troops (infantry, cavalry, archers, etc) drafted or volunteered non citizen subjects from the provinces. They number twice as much as the legions.

6.) You are correct that the Gladius was a dead end becuase it cannot be used by itself. It needs a tower sheild and tight quarters to be effective. Unfortunately with the advent of the stirrup, infantry based armies were not as numerous (in Europe and elsewere). The main weapon in Europe became the Knight, which uses a long slashing sword. (similar to other heavy cavalries fo the era).


Damm we are soo off topic

Qing soldiers were using muskets/maybe melee weapons by the time of the Opium war. The only crossbow they used was the ChoKoNu. Real crossbows by this time ceased to exist due to that ranged weaponry can finally pierce all types of armor throughout the world. Why use a crossbow then when you can use a much faster bow?

IDonT said:

2.) The Barbarians, at the height of the Pax Romana, never defeated a Roman army in a straight up fight. The largest loss was with the 16, 17, 18th legions which were wipe out in the Teutoberg forest. The reason for this was two fold: Germany trechery and terrain. The Romanized german (Arminius, I think that was his named) lured the 3 legions deeper in to the forest where they could not assemble as a whole army and ambushed them. The German's knew they could never defeat a Roman army in the field.

Click to expand...

I don't know if a Han army would ever bother to fight the Romans "straight up" where Roman Legions would be able to fully utilize their strengths. Deception, ruses, and strategems are celebrated hallmarks of a competent general in ancient China, just read Three Kingdoms (San Guo Zhi) or Art of War and you'll see how much it's emphasized.

IDonT said:

3.) Though lead balls might be heavier, crossbow bolts were bulkier. I don't think Han Crossbowmen carry 150 bolts on their person, while Napoleanic soldiers always did. 150 balls in a pouch and gun powder on a horn. Secondly, Qing Crossbows and cannons were slaughtered by smaller numbers of British soldiers in the first Opium war. These soldiers still used the inaccurate flintlock muskets. Clearly, muskets were superior to Chinese crossbows even the more recent ones. Arguing that 2nd century Crossbows are more effective than muskets is just plain wrong.

Click to expand...

Qing forces were already in serious decline by the 19th century, and they didn't use conventional crossbows anyways. Also, the British only attacked coastal areas where they could fully utilize their naval guns to pound Qing fortifications, they did not try to go inland. In the Second Opium War, the Qing dynasty was already totally absorbed by the Taiping Rebellion and could barely mount any effective resistance. But anyways, I agree that flintlock muskets are better than crossbows in most situations. They are even easier to train with and have a faster reload time.

2.) The Barbarians, at the height of the Pax Romana, never defeated a Roman army in a straight up fight. The largest loss was with the 16, 17, 18th legions which were wipe out in the Teutoberg forest. The reason for this was two fold: Germany trechery and terrain. The Romanized german (Arminius, I think that was his named) lured the 3 legions deeper in to the forest where they could not assemble as a whole army and ambushed them. The German's knew they could never defeat a Roman army in the field.

Click to expand...

But that is exactly how the Hans would fight the Romans. They would not fight the Romans in terrain suited to the Romans, they would fight the Romans when the Romans are in their terrain. The Hans would also use every bit of trickery, deceit and treachery to win. Arminius would certainly have win the Sun Tzu award there for really understanding what the art of war is all about.

Anyone who concieves of fighting fair and square already loses the war.

IDonT said:

1.) The Romans did employ a longer Gladius to their Cavalry. As for spears, Roman Legionaires carry 2 throwing spears (Pilum). The object was to throw these before they close. Roman Legions used to employ spears, most noteworthy were the triari formations. They got rid of them for their main legions. The Auxilia retained their spears. During the late Western Empire, the Gladius was abandoned.

2.) The Barbarians, at the height of the Pax Romana, never defeated a Roman army in a straight up fight. The largest loss was with the 16, 17, 18th legions which were wipe out in the Teutoberg forest. The reason for this was two fold: Germany trechery and terrain. The Romanized german (Arminius, I think that was his named) lured the 3 legions deeper in to the forest where they could not assemble as a whole army and ambushed them. The German's knew they could never defeat a Roman army in the field.

3.) Though lead balls might be heavier, crossbow bolts were bulkier. I don't think Han Crossbowmen carry 150 bolts on their person, while Napoleanic soldiers always did. 150 balls in a pouch and gun powder on a horn. Secondly, Qing Crossbows and cannons were slaughtered by smaller numbers of British soldiers in the first Opium war. These soldiers still used the inaccurate flintlock muskets. Clearly, muskets were superior to Chinese crossbows even the more recent ones. Arguing that 2nd century Crossbows are more effective than muskets is just plain wrong.

4.) Disciplined armies did die. After the Romans there were Knights with levied infantry, then the practice of hiring mercenaries. The concept of a a national army was only ressurected by Napolean in the napoleanic wars.

5.) Legionaires were all Roman citizen volunteers who signed up for 20 years, after which they get a Pension of land. At its height their were about 30 legions (6-7000 men each). What you are talking about is auxilia, support troops (infantry, cavalry, archers, etc) drafted or volunteered non citizen subjects from the provinces. They number twice as much as the legions.

6.) You are correct that the Gladius was a dead end becuase it cannot be used by itself. It needs a tower sheild and tight quarters to be effective. Unfortunately with the advent of the stirrup, infantry based armies were not as numerous (in Europe and elsewere). The main weapon in Europe became the Knight, which uses a long slashing sword. (similar to other heavy cavalries fo the era).


Damm we are soo off topic

Click to expand...

Sorry IDonT, but you are a bit off base here:

1. The formation was used during the Napoleonic Wars not because it was superior but because it was the necessary evil. As I said, the muskets are terribly inaccurate. Suppose that we are both expert marksmen with the same skill level and same reload time. Armed with flintlocks and we each take three shots at each other from 80 feet, chances are, both of us will still be alive.

So the battlefield tactics of the day was to march in formation and fire in salvos. You are not hoping to hit your target, you just hope that collectively, your salvo will hit SOMETHING. It was the requirement just to cause casulties to your opponenents, otherwise why do you think European Armies line up and subject themselves to the fire of grapeshots and French 12 pounders?

2. You are overexaggerating the power of the musket. Yes it does have superior firepower IF it hits. So if hit by a bolt from a crossbow vs. a bullet (more like iron ball) from a musket in a non vital area, chances are the iron ball would do more damage. But the chances of you hitting is just so damn low it negates any advantage.

For example, have you seen the chart Florence Nightingale constructed to get the British Army to provide better field hospitals for its troops during the Crimean War? It showed that in the one year period between April 1854 and March 1855, at least 75 to 90% of all British casualties are caused by factors other than wounds in battle (which would be the direct result of musket fire). Over 50% was caused by disease (not including infections from wounds).

Let me remind you that over a million men on both sides died in this war. If we extrapolate this over the one million men lost, at least 750,000 would have died from diseases, accidents etc. Let me also remind you that by this time muzzle-loaded guns was already the standard of the day, which not only improved accuracy, but also firepower, yet most of the casualties of war are still from other factors. So if I had a choice of subjecting my formation to crossbow or muskets, I would pick the crossbow.

Finally, going off topic a bit, one sad fact that occurred to me is that the Han took better care of its troops well over a millennia earlier (despite inferior medicine) than the British did in 1854.

3. The Opium War doesn't apply. By the time the Opium War came around, the Qing dynasty troops were no longer armed with crossbows in the true sense. Further, most of the damage were done by British warships instead of muskets.

Hi;

i am rather neutural on this, but there are several issues i want to point out.

1) in reguard to the battle: Pydna (rome vs macedonia). this battle is not a good indication of pole arm based armies, the battle was fought on broken terrian which the phalanx cannot effectively lock sheilds. also the mededonian weapon of choice is a 6~7m long spear which is much longer than those fielded by the chinese armies of that period and those of classical greece. i do doubt that it will make a good repesentation of a fight between pole arm based armies versus melee based armies.

2) the gladius is an excelent melee weapon, but it does not mean that it reigns supreme in a crowed situation. in the battle of cannae (cathage vs rome, 2nd punic war). a numerical supeior roman army fought hannibal in a battle which is located in a very limited field and several ancient sources says that the cavalry cannot manuver and have to fight on foot. hannibal's army surrounded the roman army and compacted them. if i recall correctly some sources states that the romans was so compacted that weilding their gladius is nearly impossible. we should note that the romans were still in formation and that the opposing army consists of gauls, spanarids and africans. the gauls for one feilded longer slashing weapon than the gladius.

3)the han being a combined arms army, do we know it's composition. and was the ghe (dagger axe); a pole arm with a axe head/dagger point on the end; still in service? i bring this up because it is a top striking weapon, which the user will raise the dagger and smash it downwards with the aid of gravity on the enemy. generally their heads or shoulder which is normally not protected by the sheilds. this is not a weapon the romans would have faces and is, if i recall correctly used in combined arms where skimishers will move in with dao and jian while the ghe will crash ontop of the enemy. which forces the enemy to lift his sheilds to parry the ghe and expose his belly or allow the ghe to hit his head while protecting himself form the skimishers.

4) also what about hte discharge of roman javelins when they charge? it have always proven to be very capable at softening up enemy formations as the impact of the javilins is often followed by the impact of the roman charge. i am guesing that u can effectively throw a roman javilin 30 meters, and that being said, a man can run full gear at you in 4~5 seconds for 30m. that is a very disturbing impact.

5) a side note to the long weapon vs short weapon. french knights fielding single hand swords (which is longer than the gladius) were pushed back by german knights fielding double handed swords. do not forget that the knights were no less trained than the romans, and fully plated with sheilds. the longer weapon still retain it's offensive advantage.

6) and i would believe that seige warfare, han would be better. in my opion chinese cities are much better fortified than roman ones.

Actual wars between Rome and Han in History

In late 190's to early 200's, there was a general with his soldiers battling in a Rome way.

The general named Ma Chao 马超, even so some historians argue that Ma Chao is a Roman descendant.

The army were grouped every 5000-6000 soldiers who were throwing javelin and matching in a square matrix. The style was very similar to a Roman one.

Ma Chao's army won many battles even though sometimes they met more than 30000 enemies.

So I think at least in a midium scale filed battle, Roman would win the game.