Rome vs Han China
- Thread starter IDonT
- Start date
- Status
Rate of fire is too slow, they require 2 to 4 men to move and arm them, and they're not portable weapons. They're great as psychological weapons when bolts are thrown against fortresses or formations, but no way they can match the sheer output and the mobility of a squad of crossbowmen.
Roman cavalry was not very much of a threat. Thye usually use auxilia for that from Gaul. It is their heavy infantry (legionaires) that you have to worry about. Yes, there is a high probability that that crossbow can penetrate their tower sheild and their chain armor (early legions). Napoleanic warfare has proven that a professional and discipline army can advanced under musket and cannon fire in formation and close with the enemy.
Han China CANNOT rely EXCLUSIVELY on the crossbow to defeat the Roman Legions.
There is a flaw to that, I think.
Let's use the typical Roman way of getting around. Marching in columns. Recall the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest? You bet China will try a trick like that. Afterall the Chinese prefered way of warfare is not a frontal assault but through cunning and deceit.
My second example on that - against low morale troops the mass disciplined army may succeed, but there were several situations in the Napoleonic Wars in which the French Column failed to break through the enemy lines, to disastrous effects. As well, this kind of massed infantry creates a lot of unnecessary casualties.
Another disadvantage the Romans has is that the commanders of the legions are usually politicians. Some are just glory-mongers with little or no military experience (of course, everything has its exceptions).
Even if a large closed infantry formation managed to march through a gauntlet of raining crossbow fire, by the time it would faced the opposing---ready and rested---large infantry formation, the first infantry formation isn't going to be in top shape. Tired, often wounded, psychologically demoralized, and that's against fresh troops.
Of course military commanders have a huge say on the outcome but the Roma Legions, under good commanders, have never lost a battle. All the Roman losses has been due to inept commanders, from Varus to Crassus. If someone like Scipio Africanus were in command, a Roman politician nonetheless, such tactics would seldom work.
Roman tactics employ the manipular system based on rotation, where each cohort is rotated to ensure a fresh troops to be always facing the enemy. On each cohort, they also employ rotation to ensure that tired soldiers go in the back of the line to rest.
My strategy would be a disciplined charge against a crossbow line using close formation with the front cohorts absorbing the Crossbow fire. The moment they get close, they throw their javelins and make way for the unengaged cohort behind them to charge and close with the enemy. The charging cohort then reforms to the rear.
Furthermore, never underestimate the demoralizing effect of a disciplined force charging quitely towards and absorbing the damage you inflict on the crossbowmen.
Also, does anybody know how many bolts each crossbow men carry?
By the way, I am not assuming that Rome always beats Han in melee combat. I'm just trying to reason the effectiveness of the crossbow against charging heavy infantry.
Last edited:
Crossbow troops are likely to be lightly or no armored but they can move away faster. What do you gain from charging them? They will simply fade away and retreat away faster and keep shooting. Weighed less without armor and without need to maintain formation, they will have the advantage of stamina and lightness, and gain the advantage climbing up on higher terrain and rain down more bolts. Chasing down a crossbow unit puts you in a position that you end up in a trap. An infantry formation will be worn down, and will be vulnerable to a cavalry or melee infantry charge. Its mobility, firepower, mobility, firepower, and in the end, the Han crossbow army will dictate the pace, dictate the tempo, dictate the terms, dictate when and where they engage.
Crobato,
These are crossbow men not horse archers. They can't run that fast for that long. Besides they still need to stop to reload (cock the crossbow, especially the ones where you use your feet) and shoot.
Roman Legionaires are extremely fit soldiers. Part of their training regimen is to be able to march 30 miles in a day with full armor and baggage (tents, food , etc). Marius mules, rememeber? Their armor is not that heavy as you might think.
Third, crossbow bolts eventually run out of ammo. The Gladius never runs out of ammo. An average musket armed infantry (18th century) carries about 60 bullets, now for crossbow men, I beleive they carry much less due to heavier weight and bulkiness of the bolts. Furthermore, reloads are possible but that would require a large supply chain, which complicates your logistics and slows your mobility.
Fourth, what happens when the Han crossbowmen is in a situation can no longer run, such is a seige (either being seiged or relieving a seige)?
I think you are wrong on your assessment as how one uses a crossbow oriented army. Only horse archers uses a harrass feigned retreat strategy because of their greater mobility. Foot infantry, no matter light cannot run that fast for that long.
An infantry base firepower centric (crossbows) strategy is similar to that of Napoleanic armies. The firepower of the crossbows is used to create gaps and weakpoints of the enemy battle line. Heavy cavalry then charges through this lineto break it. Once the enemy routes, light cavalry (horse archers, etc) pursue to prevent them from rallying.
BLUEJACKET
Banned Idiot
What if the Han put those crossbowmen on horses trained to obey by knee pressure when shooting? Not only they would have been more mobile, but also a horse could carry more bolts, and once those are out pikes and long sabers could be used against the Roman cavalry and infantry. The Han would have probably developed field artillery as well, and could have employed Bactrian and/or hybrid camels like the Mongols had done in the 1300s. The Roman cavalry horses would be so scared at the sight of them that their riders would become infantry!
Last edited:
March and speed is not the same. And regardless they still carry armor, while the crossbow men are likly light and in leather. Bolts are not as bulky as you think, being wood and all, and you can carry an amount. So yes, they can hit and fade. While the gladius does not run out of ammo, it does have an extremely short range. The javelin only has one shot.
Of course the crossbow formations work with light and heavy infantry and cavalry, along with professional archer formations and archers in cavalry both whom tend to be Hunnic. For what its worth, the crossbow formations add to all the tactical options already available to the Qin and Han armies. And as I said, the crossbow in China (along with the composite bow) helped change warfare in a very fundamental way, as melee warfare gave way to missile warfare, and in turn, put factors like considering mobility, psychology, distance, logistics, and topography into very detailed ways. This would introduce the concept of assymetrical warfare, and at the same time, destroyed feudal concepts like warrior castes, "honor" and symmetry in battle.
- Status