Rome vs Han China

-With regard to stone slingers, may I venture rate of fire?

-Also, crossbowmen are probably arrayed in relatively dense formations against horse archers, concentrating their firepower. The German infantry were probably using dispersed formations.

-What about Chinese chariots? It was argued on another thread that Chinese chariots were superior to their Western counterparts due to the horse collar, giving them about 150% the pull-strength with only half the horses.

-For Chinese Crossbows, does anyone have a quote on the draw-strength of the Parthian bow? If you claim Persians were light infantry, and that the Parthians fought mostly the Persians, one would tend to use a lower draw-strength in order to increase rate of fire.

-And what about the Chinese professional army? Both the Qin and the Han had a core professional army. What were their specializations, and what were their capabilities? Even with a conscript army; you'd still need an elite within the ranks. They need to hold the line until you can conscript and train your citizenry, and later on, they'll provide an elite hammer to your conscript shield. The Persians, for example, had ten thousand immortals; who were brutalized by the Spartans, of course.

Crobato:

My point was that the Chinese failed to develop medieval heavy cavalry for some reason, and because of that, the Chinese first failed to develop cranked crossbows. Is that because the Song dynasty lacked grazing land for cavalry? You guys had a conversation on CHF about how the Southern Song never really had the cavalry to retake the north. It could also be terrain; Northern China favors cavalry, Southern China favors infantry.

-And could cranked crossbows ever defeat heavy cavalry? Supposedly in Agincourt, the English only won because of terrain.

May have something to do that the north is also a desert. Wearing heavy armor is a good way to cook in the desert. Its a constant factor against the Crusaders in the Middle East. Juerchen can get away with it as the north east is cold. Europe is cool or cold, wearing more armor even keeps you warm. But on the desert?

Heavy, armored cavalry isn't going to do well against Chinese main enemy at the time, the Mongols. Slow, and you suffer from the heat of the northern and western deserts, you're no match to the speed of the Mongols, who generally wear lighter and cooler clothing.

Also I don't participate on the CHF.

Inst:

Parthians mostly harrased the Selucids, who favored heavy infantry centre, light eastern infantry flanks, and then archers on elephants. and finally, their elite of the elite units. Cataphracts, very heavy armored cavalry armed with bows as well.

Parthians never got the chance to defeat the Seleucids, they only raise to power when the selecuid empire collapsed. Simply because they are too broke to start a campaign, and the selecuids can't be bothered.

As per the drawing strength of Parthian bows, parthian bows are the same as persian composite bows, and they are made out of pretty much the same material as the Mongul bow, and the sizes are pretty much the same, so it is correct to assume the drawing strengh of the Parthian bow as the same as the mongal bow.

The drawing strength of Chinese crossbow would definately be a LOT less than the greek Gastraphetes (belly bow) simply due to the fact that the string had to be pulled by hand and the fact that the Gastraphetes is a lot larger than the chinese crossbow.

And this brings to an interesting point. If anyone who tries to argue that the chinese crossbow WOULD have the same or more drawing strength as the Gastraphetes, then I would question how he could draw the string in the first place and that would have an significant effect on the rate of fire, after all, the Gastraphetes had a rapid drawing mechnism, something the chinese crossbow does not have. Gastraphetes has a maxium range of 300 yrds, and that was based on an composite bow. The belly bow went out of fashion because if does not have the intended effect on mass bronze shields of the phanlanx


I also had a look in the repeating crossbow, if this is what it is like, the romans dont need to be worried at all. that is not gonna hurt anybody, simply because the fact that is has little drawing strength.

Wrong. Chinese crossbows are pulled by the leg.

Chinese crossbows also introduced features that are standard in modern firearms.

The gunsight
The trigger
The butt and shoulder stock

This allows the crossbow to be handled and used in a way very similar to a modern firearm. They're a lot more accurate than a belly bow.

You forgot the repeating crossbow also comes with a magazine, which is fitted on the slot you see ahead of the bow. Yes, a magazine. Its a thin square box where a lot of bolts loaded from the top.

To use the repeating crossbow, you pull then release, pull and release. You can shoot as fast as a bolt per second. Don't judge from the size, you have no idea of the tension of the string itself.

The fact that these weapons are used right up to the modern period, attest to their effectivity.

Parthian bows are not built like Mongol bows, though they are similar in use of materials and has a recurve design. The draw strength of a Mongol bow is like 160lbs and that's much greater than English lowbows at Agincourt.

The repeating crossbow was invented after the Han Dynasty fell and therefore irrelevant to this time period.

The Han crossbows were very powerful but they used lighter bolts for longer range. The Qin used heavier bolts for power and penetration over range. The main reason was the opponent. The Qins were fighting against heavy infantry where battles tend to be at shorter ranges and penetrating power was the norm. The Han were fighting against the light cavalry of the huns.

Han literary sources suggest that 200-300 paces was the expected range of the hand-held crossbow. They were used with saturation fire from three ranks of crossbowmen. The draw-weight was about 160lbs. The bows were braced against the feet.

It seems that this tactic was very effective at breaking cavalry attacks. The main objective was to disable the horses, as the Xiongnu were perceived to be weak fighters on the ground. (See Han author Chao Cuo.) In Chinese literature, the phrase 'the sound of crossbows being fired was unceasing; the enemy can get nowhere near us.' (弩发不绝声， 敌不与我。).

Gastraphetes I believe was a seige weapon or what the modern army calls a crew served weapon similar to a mortar. It is used in seiges.
Here the Chinese equivalent, thhe Chuangzi Nu.

The drawing strength of Chinese crossbow would definately be a LOT less than the greek Gastraphetes (belly bow) simply due to the fact that the string had to be pulled by hand and the fact that the Gastraphetes is a lot larger than the chinese crossbow.

Click to expand...

Actually, the Greek Gastraphetes is pulled by hand and stomach while the Chinese one is pulled by hand and foot. Both are hand drawn.

And this brings to an interesting point. If anyone who tries to argue that the chinese crossbow WOULD have the same or more drawing strength as the Gastraphetes, then I would question how he could draw the string in the first place and that would have an significant effect on the rate of fire, after all, the Gastraphetes had a rapid drawing mechnism, something the chinese crossbow does not have. Gastraphetes has a maxium range of 300 yrds, and that was based on an composite bow. The belly bow went out of fashion because if does not have the intended effect on mass bronze shields of the phanlanx

Click to expand...

Actually the Gastraphetes have a very slow drawing mechanism, same with the Chinese one. The Gastraphete is used by setting the crossbow on the floor, putting you abs on the stock, and to draw the crossbow inch by inch every time until the string is fully cocked. That is why it is reserved only for sieges. The Chinese one is when the user sits on the floor, puts the crossbow under the feet, and then draws using hand+legs. This is also pretty time consuming.

Han literary sources suggest that 200-300 paces was the expected range of the hand-held crossbow. They were used with saturation fire from three ranks of crossbowmen. The draw-weight was about 160lbs. The bows were braced against the feet.

Click to expand...

Where did you get that information? I would like to see it. According to my sources, the draw weight of 160 pounds would only be the weakest of the crossbows, a 2 dan crossbow.

Parthian bows are not built like Mongol bows, though they are similar in use of materials and has a recurve design. The draw strength of a Mongol bow is like 160lbs and that's much greater than English lowbows at Agincourt.

Click to expand...

Maybe on foot but on horse the Mongol bow probably won't exceed even 90 lbs. Heck, Tang cavalry archers used 90 pd bows as practice bows. Cavalry archers would never use bows over 100 pounds in combat at full gallop. No one can achieve such a feat.

btw, English bows can reach up to 160 pds, and the max so far is actually 180 pds. However, that's obviously a practice bow since 180 pds is way too much for any of use to draw to the bow's full extent, much less to aim with such a monster bow.

They had to SIT DOWN?!?! that will take toll on their Rate of fire for sure.

Well I guess the question now would be whether the Chinese Crossbow at the period would have enough penetrating power to penetrate both the Scutum and The Lorica Segmentata?

The Roman army that was defeated in Parthia wore Lorica Hamata, the loose chainmail, not the later plate armor (lorica segmentata)

I have doubts that the chinese crossbowmen, if they had to sit down to reload, would fire more than 3 shots a minute if they organise the shots in volleys.

Providing that that chinese infantry do not go fourth to fight the enermy, then it would take the Romans 2 and a half minute to reach Pilum (javalin) range, and another 30sec to charge home.

If you're loading crossbows with both your feet and hands, the draw strength may be well over 160lbs for a hand drawn one. Crossbows are known to reach as far as 300lbs if you want to do by feet. Compare that to the longbows of Agincourt, which is like 80 to 120lbs . The Mongol recurved bows are in the area up to 160lbs.

And yes, it can be done quickly. One set of crossbows can be drawn, while another is fired.

I really doubt Roman plate armor (just iron compared to the steel plates the French used in Agincourt) could stand up to a crossbow. The bolt could probably have enough energy to bore through through two soldiers.

There is a tradeoff between Han's choice of arrows, if they choose to use the heavy bronze arrow, they lose range. If they choose the wooden arrow, they lose power.

I have no doubt that in clsoe range direct shot that the chinese crossbow is the death of Romans, but if it's a longer ranged cruved shot, the arrow would probably skid off the shields overhead.

I have no doubt that in clsoe range direct shot that the chinese crossbow is the death of Romans, but if it's a longer ranged cruved shot, the arrow would probably skid off the shields overhead.

Click to expand...

That's true for every classical ranged weaponry except siege machines.

I have doubts that the chinese crossbowmen, if they had to sit down to reload, would fire more than 3 shots a minute if they organise the shots in volleys.

Click to expand...

It doesn't work that way. Usually they shoot like the British musketeers(front row shoot, sit, second row shoot, sit, third row shoot, sit, etc...).

I really doubt Roman plate armor (just iron compared to the steel plates the French used in Agincourt) could stand up to a crossbow.

Click to expand...

Actually the French knights at Agincourt had excellent protection against longbow fire. Only at certain spots were arrows able to penetrate(or find unprotected holes in) their armor.