Rome vs Han China

They are farmers and peasants. Soldiering is not a profession to them. you cannot compare the training of a legionnary to a regular Hun infantry. so what huns have better metals? gauls have better metals than Romans too... look what happened to them...

Click to expand...

Actually they had a professional army. The Han always had a standing professional army, backed up by conscripts with at least 1 yr of training(and before that 1 yr of training it's 2 hours of training as well as 6 hours of farming a day, as a rule). By Eastern Han the Han army became fully proffesional.

besides, i am yet to see a chinese regular soldier with a decent helment or a decent shield. The concentrate too much on skirmish rather than shock, not like thats a bad thing but as the old saying goes "when the **** hit the fan" you got to be able to take it.

Click to expand...

That is a biased statement. You can't judge quality by the looks. What is "decent" in your standards?

Anthrophobia said:

can't judge quality by the looks. What is "decent" in your standards?

Click to expand...

one that can take a blow by a sword and has protection for the neck like the Gallic Helment by the later legionaries, not the bronze art piece, I wonder how many conscripts can actually afford them.



also,from what you have said, the Hun army organisation wise is similar to the Spartans, but it remains that fighting a shield wall by brute force is never gonna work, as Macedonians found out, the hardway. Especially when you are againest the Romans who are experts in close formation advancement.

I had a read in China history forum on the same topic, it seems that Hans infantry depends on a large number of Crossbows, and melee infantry deploy in a loose formation to avoid missle fire by other Chinese foes. if that is true, why they even have melee infantry is a question. But my later hun period, cavalry was on the rose so they became more pikemen, similar to hoplites (i said hoplites, not Phalanx).

It remains, however, if roman Allied cavalry got hold of the Crossbowman regiment, i do not think they will hold, fact remains, no one is gonna arm the skirmishers with full armor like front line infantry.

Crossbow is the key weapon in chinese warfare, but the Monguls managed to slaghuter them, why? because crossbow is not a weapon to be used againest fast moving targets, hence Alexander in the battle of issus, persian had a VERY large number of archers yet Alexander rode straight into the persian centre (i am talking about repid firing composite bows, not slow crossbows) ... During the medieval times, crossbows are an ideal weapon in castle sieges because the defenders can hide inside the castle and reload. However we are not talking about castle sieges, but rather an open battle, where there are not many places to hide. In addition, all range weapons have maximum range and effective range. The maximum range of a medieval crossbow is approximately 365meters and effective range is about 150 meters (i would assume chinese Crossbow would be a bit less powerful since it is shooting arrows, not bolts)


Take that into consideration, the speed of Roman advancement is impressive, which is 120 pace a minute for quick advancement, thats 89 meters a minute or 5.28Kph so according to above, it takes the legion around 3 minutes to reach the Chinese front line (4 minute to reach the Chinese Crossbowmen which is behind infantry) and it takes the legion less than 2 minutes to finish walking through the effective range of the crossbows.

the chinese has less than 2 minuts of firing window (providing the chinese infantry is not advancing as well, if the chinese also advances, the crossbow has a even lesser firing window) how many shots can they fire at that window, since crossbow is slow to load.

Crossbow is the key weapon in chinese warfare, but the Monguls managed to slaghuter them, why?

Click to expand...

Genghiz Khan actually never conquered China---it took a generation for that to happen. And compared to other places, the Mongols only held China for just a generation and lost it. Which was a mistake, since starting then, began a long process of decimation in the hands of the Ming Chinese, and later under the Manchus. And lets not forget, the Mongols often use the same weapons as the Chinese, including the crossbow.

The Mongol cavalry were also on stirrups. That does not make Roman cavalry comparable at all with the Mongol cavalry. Rather, the Mongol cavalry is following a long line of succession that goes back to the Han cavalry and the Xiongnu, both whom fought with stirrups. Not really sure where Roman cavalry would stand, but Han cavalry and their Xiongnu opponents, would undoubtedly the best and most technologically superior cavalry of the world at that time because of the stirrup, which allowed riders to ride faster, shoot farther and more accurately due to a much stabler ride and control of the horse. It would be like knife going through butter.

In addition to that the Han had a much better appreciation for the large horses from central Asia. They traded silk to get them, and for ancient people, a more powerful horse is the equivalent of a more powerful fighter jet. They can carry men with more armor and weapons for starters. The Han instituted a breeding program for these horses and these were allocated to their elite cavalry.

How many bolts Chinese crossbowmen could fire in two minutes? At least six bolts to 12 bolts. Each bolt is like brass or iron rod, with the comparitive kinetic energy of a bullet. Those with repeating crossbows could launch 10X faster. One reason why the Han don't weigh themselves down with excess armor---and they had the best metallurgy in the world at that time and China geographically has tremendous reserves of iron and coal needed to make steel---is that because it's useless against crossbows, and it's better to avoid being hit than to resist the hit.

As for the Persians have a very large number of archers, that's going to be dwarfed by the number of crossbowmen. The Han armed their armies as many as 500,000 crossbows at one time thanks to the world's first military industrial complex developed to manufacture precision mechanisms in large numbers at the lowest cost. Remember crossbowmen are easy to train from conscripts, and yet they could shoot faster, longer and more accurately than most archers.

the repeating crossbows, as I said before, already have hard time againest Chinese armor, it wouldnt do much againest the Romans, especially when they are fully shielded. If Chinese use metail bolts, then it means more energy was wasted to simply shift the weight of the bolt.

Say whatever you like about Scutum, 2 inches of multi-layer hard wood reinforced by iron in a curved shape is very effective protection againest any projectile.

The reason behind Chinese having no armor is pretty much the same as the persians. Large population - who gives, one die, million more where they come from.

Of course the Chinese Cavalry is much more effective than european cavalry because of the Strrup, but, as per Alexander, Roman Cavalry is usually supported with light infantry.

FYI, Mongul horses are small.

FYI, repeating crossbows were effective enough to be used right up to the beginning of the first Chinese republic. Hard against Chinese armor or Roman armor? The Chinese were using mail armor even in the Han period, when mail armor didn't come to use in Europe until the medieval period.

FYI Chinese crossbows are using metal bolts. METAL bolts. The kinetic energy is the equivalent of a bullet from a modern hand pistol. You see that helmet you posted there? A crossbow bolt could punch clean through it.

The Huns started with small mongolian ponies, but eventually the large steeds the Han imported through the Silk Road became free to intermingle with the native breeds. So the horses became larger and more powerful, and there was more than enough of them by the time of Genghiz.

The introduction of the stirrup, the development of steel in the same period, led to the introduction of the first heavy cavalry. Then too, Chinese cavalry weapons also evolved, among other things like laminar composite bows, but one sided swords like the dao or broadsword, and the halberd. That's like cavalry at Mohammed's time, relying on running slashing attacks, meant to cut their opponent in half.

Close formation would mean nothing but a target rich environment to crossbow. It also makes formation inflexible against a maneuvering army, and the ancient Chinese loved to maneuver.

The Chinese have lightly armored melee infantry, because that is fast enough to catch up and skirmish with crossbow troops. Speed and maneuver essentially are the best armor against missiles; better not to be hit than to be hit at all.

Early Chinese, at the Warring States period, had already gone through the same stages of warfare that you see with the ancient and classical periods in Europe and the Middle east. But because of the crossbow, the Chinese by the Han period had already left that, long abandoned devices like chariots which the Romans still hanged on. The armies and warfare the Han practiced were much more similar to the European medieval armies.

ChoKoNus were used for speed. Talking about its penetrative power is like talking about the Gladius' range. It's not what they were built for. The Chokonu aren't going to penetrate any armor, they will only penetrate skin.

The reason behind Chinese having no armor is pretty much the same as the persians. Large population - who gives, one die, million more where they come from.

Click to expand...

Where do you get "no armor" from? This is ridiculous, as Rome and Han had comparatively the same population size, and both their populations were larger than that of Persia(or Parthia, at the time).

China didn't have stirrup during the Han period. At most the Han had semi-stirrups that helped them get on the horse, but not stay on the horse.

one that can take a blow by a sword and has protection for the neck like the Gallic Helment by the later legionaries, not the bronze art piece, I wonder how many conscripts can actually afford them.

Click to expand...

If helmets can't take blows by the sword, no one would have helmets... Some helmets may take tougher blows, but that's about it.

Crossbow is the key weapon in chinese warfare, but the Monguls managed to slaghuter them, why? because crossbow is not a weapon to be used againest fast moving targets

Click to expand...

Maybe for siege crossbows. Mongols were 1000 yrs after the Han here, and they won through strategy, not tactics. If anything, crossbows were used ideally against cavalry and less against infantry, as according to the Han advisor ChaoCuo. I don't know why, but that's what the ancients said. You'd think it's the other way around, but it's not.

Anthrophobia said:

Maybe for siege crossbows. Mongols were 1000 yrs after the Han here, and they won through strategy, not tactics. If anything, crossbows were used ideally against cavalry and less against infantry, as according to the Han advisor ChaoCuo. I don't know why, but that's what the ancients said. You'd think it's the other way around, but it's not.

Click to expand...

The main Han enemy was the horse archers of the Xiongnu. The Han crossbow typically outranges the composite bow of the Hun horse archers negating their fire and flee tactic. Also, a man on a horse poses a bigger target than infantry.

Crossbows are especially deadly against charging cavalry. Killing the front ranks of a galloping cavalry of will create a traffic jam for the rear ranks. The horses either trip and fall or stop. Against heavy infantry like Legionaires, they are not that effective.

I noticed that in the CHF, there is some debate about the poipulation of the Roman empre vs. the Han Dynasty.

I believe that the Han had a greater population, given that some of the Warring States are already able to field million man armies. Though I do feel that the poipulation decreased at the end of the Warring States due to the obvious casualties of war.

A combination of technological innovations made Han agriculture the most advanced in the world at that time.

First was the invention of the metal plowshare. That was a major breakthrough in agriculture.

Second was the creation of steel. With it, steel plow shares. These plowshares do not wear out as much as their predecessors. This was of such importance that steel was prioritized into plowshare production rather than weapons.

With steel plowshares, led to the creation of large canal systems used to irrigate the farmlands. Again, the Han had the most extensive systems of canals, or I should say, artificial rivers, and in future dynasties, led to even grander projects such as the Grand Canal.

To help them farm and make canals, led to a third invention, the wheel barrow.

crobato said:

But because of the crossbow, the Chinese by the Han period had already left that, long abandoned devices like chariots which the Romans still hanged on.

Click to expand...

In the Roman Empire, chariots were not used for warfare, but for chariot racing or for processions, when they could be drawn by as many as ten horses or even by dogs, tigers, or ostriches. The main centre of chariot racing was the Circus Maximus, situated in the valley between the Palatine and Aventine Hills in Rome.

Click to expand...

What would have happened if Kubilai Khan's army invaded Japan from the North via Sakhalin & Hokkaido?
Could they with the help of the native Ainus then defeat the samurais?

IDonT said:

The main Han enemy was the horse archers of the Xiongnu. The Han crossbow typically outranges the composite bow of the Hun horse archers negating their fire and flee tactic. Also, a man on a horse poses a bigger target than infantry.

Crossbows are especially deadly against charging cavalry. Killing the front ranks of a galloping cavalry of will create a traffic jam for the rear ranks. The horses either trip and fall or stop. Against heavy infantry like Legionaires, they are not that effective.

Click to expand...

During early WWII, Poland, german infantry has encounters with Polish Lancers (or Dragoon as they call it). The Nazis found shooting a running horse is hard with their standard issue Kar98K infantry whoa re unprotected by armored vehicles were cutdown, and those are modern day rifles.

As per Roman experience in Parthia, for reasons unknown, Slings throwing rocks are much more effective agaienst Cavalry compaired to the Syrian archers they conscripted. Anyone care to explain why? Because i still dont know.