Rome vs Han China

Samurai like? A stereotype. There is no samurai who charges mindlessly into the enemy. Japan has formations. A massive stereotype. In fact, It would be a wonder that any major country who don't fight in formations of some sort would still exist.

Anthrophobia said:

Samurai like? A stereotype. There is no samurai who charges mindlessly into the enemy. Japan has formations. A massive stereotype. In fact, It would be a wonder that any major country who don't fight in formations of some sort would still exist.

Click to expand...

Well Anthrophobia ... that's not what I said, so those must be your stereotypes?

Of course they all had formations. The difference is whether or not each soldier would fight individually or actively cooperate with his neighbors. Because in the first case a more open and loose formation is used, but in the second a very tight one is needed. Samurai belong in the first category, phalangites in the second, some troops could do both, like vikings.
More open formations can move faster and have less problems with difficult terrain (less dressing of ranks etc). Close formations on the other hand have a bigger push and better staying power (for example, to resist cavalry charging home).

I do not know much about Han heavy infantry, so that was my question: what category do they fit in?

BeeJay

BeeJay said:

Well Anthrophobia ... that's not what I said, so those must be your stereotypes?

Of course they all had formations. The difference is whether or not each soldier would fight individually or actively cooperate with his neighbors. Because in the first case a more open and loose formation is used, but in the second a very tight one is needed. Samurai belong in the first category, phalangites in the second, some troops could do both, like vikings.
More open formations can move faster and have less problems with difficult terrain (less dressing of ranks etc). Close formations on the other hand have a bigger push and better staying power (for example, to resist cavalry charging home).

I do not know much about Han heavy infantry, so that was my question: what category do they fit in?

BeeJay

Click to expand...

According to the Book Soldiers of the Dragon (I think), the Han troops consists of full time volunteers (professional core), conscription, and convicts. The conscripts typically serve 2 year terms with one year devoted to training and other years on garrison duty as part of an army formation. The main weapon for the majority of these conscripts were the crossbow due to ease of training. These soldiers are trained to volley fire in three ranks to ensure continous fire. The draw strength of these crossbows were inversely proportional to their portability, the more portable they are, the less powerful they are. Its a balance.

Crossbow men typically carry a quiver of about 30-40 bolts that give them a 15 minute sustained rate of fire (2 rounds per minute) before reloading.

The full time soldiers serve as the officers and infantry and cavalry. The Han heavy infantry were wore lamellar and armed with a heavy sheild, an L-shape halbeard and a straight sword. Their formation depends on their enemy. My guess is that since they are most likely facing cavalry, a dense formation is appropriate. The hook on the Halbeards are especially effective at unhorsing heavy cavalry with out stirrups.

Thanks IDonT, great links.

The images remind me of 15-16th century European armies: early Swiss infantry with halberds and later Dutch sword & buckler men. The Swiss were very successful against infantry of those days but had difficulty fending off charging knights, so eventually they switched over to pikes. Pike blocks in turn were vulnerable to sword & buckler men, who fought individualistically, hacking their way into the pike formations. But s&b-men were very vulnerable to any kind of cavalry.
Apart from pikes, missile salvos have always been successful against cavalry (and of course any kind of unprotected troops ). So it seems that the Han infantry used missiles to keep cavalry at a distance, halberds to take care of infantry and any cavalry that managed to charge home (Han cavalry does not seem to be very heavy: no horse protection of any kind) and swordmen to dispatch of enemy pike/spear/halberd units. Cavalry was probably mainly used against cavalry (and to ride down routers).
The swordmen would have a more open formation, the halberds close - though probably not as close as shieldwall infantry (Alex, Roman) - the crossbowmen probably similar to the halberds.

Do you know if the crossbowmen exchanged ranks while firing? (what was their routine?)
Any contemporary art of field battles? (I found the picture of the bridge storming btw).

Now back to the original question: what exact time frame are we looking at? Because 200 BC - 200 AD saw a lot of change within the Roman army, from a civilian infantry army to a well balanced army with all types of infantry artillery and cavalry, including a significant amount of very heavily armored knights (Roman or Asian allies / mercenaries).
The former would not venture into open terrain in presence of a cavalry army and the latter had rehearsed methods of how to cope with cavalry masses. That later one would be the most interesting choice.

BeeJay

BeeJay said:

Thanks IDonT, great links.
Do you know if the crossbowmen exchanged ranks while firing? (what was their routine?)

Any contemporary art of field battles? (I found the picture of the bridge storming btw).

Now back to the original question: what exact time frame are we looking at? Because 200 BC - 200 AD saw a lot of change within the Roman army, from a civilian infantry army to a well balanced army with all types of infantry artillery and cavalry, including a significant amount of very heavily armored knights (Roman or Asian allies / mercenaries).
The former would not venture into open terrain in presence of a cavalry army and the latter had rehearsed methods of how to cope with cavalry masses. That later one would be the most interesting choice.

BeeJay

Click to expand...

From the Terracotta army formation. DIfferent dynasty but we can conject that they may fight similarly



Vanguard: 210 unarmoured bowmen and crossbowmen form the vanguard (the front ranks to the east), standing in 3 rows of 70 warriors. 3 armoured officers stand at both ends and the middle of the first row. The rest of the vanguard is unarmoured, wearing only course tunics girded with belts. Their footwear consisted of puttees and thonged square-toed sandals. The vanguard archers and crossbowmen had a variety of hairstyles but their weapons had deteriorated long ago.

The Main Force: 36 columns of infantrymen and charioteers stand in tight formation behind the vanguard in 9 corridors. All 6,000 warriors in this body wear armour, though the armour varied by functions and ranks. They were supposed to hold spears and halberds in their hands, while wearing bronze swords in wooden scabbards at their waists. However, the wooden parts had since decayed. The 35 4-horse chariots were escorted by infantrymen to offer better protection for the horses.

The Outer Flanks: Occupying the extreme left (northern) and right (southern) corridors are two rows of unarmoured archers in each corridor, facing north and south respectively.

The Rear-guard (to the west) consists of 3 rows, 2 facing front (i.e. east) with the last row facing the rear (i.e. west).

Pit II (the cavalry pit)

It is estimated to contain 80 chariot units and a proportionate (some say equal) number of cavalry, plus about 1,000 support troops consisting of infantry, crossbowmen and archers. The cavalrymen are dismounted, leading their steeds by the bridle (left). Leading this contingent was the figure of a general holding a 2-handed bronze sword.

This force was divided into 5 separate units:

* A vanguard of archers together with unarmoured infantrymen.
* A cavalry unit occupying the left flank.
* A chariot unit occupying the right flank.
* A main unit of cavalry and chariots subdivided into 8 columns occupied t the center in a rectangular formation.
* A cavalry unit covered the rear.

Weapons


Lets keep it in the 200 BC before OCtavius

IDonT said:

From the Terracotta army formation. DIfferent dynasty but we can conject that they may fight similarly

[...]

Lets keep it in the 200 BC before OCtavius

Click to expand...

Ouch ... instead of a Roman army I'd rather be a Seleucid army then: pikes and very heavy cavalry charging home! I suppose that Han did not employ that many chariots.
This would be a Roman army as they fought against the pike armies of Macedonia and Hannibal. Roman ratios would be 4 Romans to 4-5 Allies to 2 light specialists to 1 cavalry.

Their biggest challenge will be the Han cavalry ... what can the Romans do to counter the unavoidable cavalry encirclement? With some spear and pike armed allies the triari might form a third line kept back to face about so as to form a huge square ... then the hastati and primari engage the infantry, screened by velites and cavalry from the Han crossbows. Put some fast and aggressive allies on the flanks to try to overrun the crossbows and keep plenty cavalry on the flanks, but only to protect against Han cavalry ... will be tricky, to control Roman cavalry from charging away, though.
If possible, this whole square should be deployed towards a Han flank to negate numerical superiority. And of course never in open terrain, but leaning on some kind of terrain feature, and fill that forest (or whatever) with lots of greedy mercenary warriors.
Or you might try a gamble with a sort of attack column screend by the triari and with rear support of the cavalry. The column engages on the double and then veers of in two directions, rolling up the Han infantry line, before the cavalry or other infantry support can intervene. Screening the column to make this intention invisible is then very important.

The Han general should somehow move his cavalry to punch thru either flank with great numbers, not easy if there are armored spearmen waiting. The crossbows have to stay out of contact from Roman infantry, as should the other infantry. Possibly only engage (sacrifice) to pin the Romans. And Han has plenty of troops for diversions of course.

BeeJay

Well Anthrophobia ... that's not what I said, so those must be your stereotypes?

Click to expand...

If you didn't say it then, then you definitely said it now, as here is the bottom quote.

Of course they all had formations. The difference is whether or not each soldier would fight individually or actively cooperate with his neighbors. Because in the first case a more open and loose formation is used, but in the second a very tight one is needed. Samurai belong in the first category, phalangites in the second, some troops could do both, like vikings.

Click to expand...

A formation means that each soldier "must" act cooperatively with his neighbors. Else we wouldn't call it a "formation", we would call it a "mob". What do you think a formations for? Definitely not to look nice and pretty. Samurai, Romans, Chinese, whatever, all had different formations for different purposes. Dispersed against heavy arrow fire and for speed, tightened when two formations are about to meet, etc... As I said, anybody without a formation would be hard-pressed to become a major nation. I doubt any major nation in history didn't have formations in their military. It's like taking English majors trying to understand calculus. Undoable.

Anthrophobia said:

If you didn't say it then, then you definitely said it now, as here is the bottom quote.

A formation means that each soldier "must" act cooperatively with his neighbors. Else we wouldn't call it a "formation", we would call it a "mob". What do you think a formations for? Definitely not to look nice and pretty. Samurai, Romans, Chinese, whatever, all had different formations for different purposes. Dispersed against heavy arrow fire and for speed, tightened when two formations are about to meet, etc... As I said, anybody without a formation would be hard-pressed to become a major nation. I doubt any major nation in history didn't have formations in their military. It's like taking English majors trying to understand calculus. Undoable.

Click to expand...

OK Anthrophobia, I'll try to explain again. I was talking about the actual melee: what are the individuals in a formation doing during melee? (if you'd read my text, you can see I was using the word 'fight' both times. I presume that when you are talking about formations, you mean melee PLUS everything else, like maneuvring) In a melee you can fight by yourself - your neighbors of course doing the same and thus in a way supporting you, but that is not cooperating - or you can fight by needing the active cooperation of the people around you.
An example: 15th sword and buckler men move and charge as a group, in a certain formation (maybe wedge, maybe column, whatever), but as soon as they enter melee, it is every man for himself (even though they might maintain a wegde formation). That is what they are good at and that is why they were successful against pike blocks. Because in a melee, soldiers in a pike block need the cooperation of all the people around them: the 4+ behind them to engage the men in front and to lean in for extra momentum, the ones to the left and right to shield each other from missiles etc (either with their shield, as in the classic (Greek) spear phalanx, or by wobbling the pikes as was done in the 14th+ centuries).

All the books I've read so far put the samurai firmly in the "sword & buckler men" category, and not the "pike block" one (if you don't agree, then please explain why not?)
My original question was in which of those two categories the Han heavy ('halberd') infantry belong, because a weapon like theirs could fit both categories.

I suppose the remark about English majors is a joke? Better put a smiley with it next time then. And of course the joke works the other way just as well

BeeJay

OK Anthrophobia, I'll try to explain again. I was talking about the actual melee: what are the individuals in a formation doing during melee? (if you'd read my text, you can see I was using the word 'fight' both times. I presume that when you are talking about formations, you mean melee PLUS everything else, like maneuvring) In a melee you can fight by yourself - your neighbors of course doing the same and thus in a way supporting you, but that is not cooperating - or you can fight by needing the active cooperation of the people around you.

Click to expand...

Most formations, if not all, fight collectively, not individually, or else the reasons that militaries have formations would be lessened extensively. As stated before, any major nation without using these in warfare would be hard pressed to even exist. Here are some examples of typical Han formations. As you'll see, some of them are similar to Roman ones.

1) swordsmen or short spearmen at the front ranks. Long spears or long halbadiers(Ji) at the back. That way each enemy will be fighting two guys at once. The guy he is facing and the guy behind him.

2) Ji soldiers in the first several lines. Archers in lines behind them, and crossbowmen behind the archers. The Ji wielders crouch, and the archers fire their arrows over the Ji soldiers. When the crossbowmen finish reloading, the archers crouch as well, while the crossbowmen unleashes their bolts at once. Then the archers stand up, continue firing while the crossbowmen starts reloading. This way the enemy would not only have to fight the Ji halbadiers but also face problems against the arrows, and sometimes a hail of crossbow bolts.

3) 3 ranks of crossbowmen, with the most accurate men at the front line. The front line shoots the crossbows, passes it to rank 2, who passes the crossbow to rank 3. Men in rank 3 passes the reloaded bows to rank two, and men in rank two passes the reloaded bows to rank 1 for shooting, while rank one passes the recently shot crossbows to rank 2, and so on.

15th sword and buckler men move and charge as a group, in a certain formation (maybe wedge, maybe column, whatever), but as soon as they enter melee, it is every man for himself (even though they might maintain a wegde formation). That is what they are good at and that is why they were successful against pike blocks.

Click to expand...

Who are these 15th century men?

Anthrophobia said:

Most formations, if not all, fight collectively, not individually, or else the reasons that militaries have formations would be lessened extensively. As stated before, any major nation without using these in warfare would be hard pressed to even exist. Here are some examples of typical Han formations. As you'll see, some of them are similar to Roman ones.

1) swordsmen or short spearmen at the front ranks. Long spears or long halbadiers(Ji) at the back. That way each enemy will be fighting two guys at once. The guy he is facing and the guy behind him.

2) Ji soldiers in the first several lines. Archers in lines behind them, and crossbowmen behind the archers. The Ji wielders crouch, and the archers fire their arrows over the Ji soldiers. When the crossbowmen finish reloading, the archers crouch as well, while the crossbowmen unleashes their bolts at once. Then the archers stand up, continue firing while the crossbowmen starts reloading. This way the enemy would not only have to fight the Ji halbadiers but also face problems against the arrows, and sometimes a hail of crossbow bolts.

3) 3 ranks of crossbowmen, with the most accurate men at the front line. The front line shoots the crossbows, passes it to rank 2, who passes the crossbow to rank 3. Men in rank 3 passes the reloaded bows to rank two, and men in rank two passes the reloaded bows to rank 1 for shooting, while rank one passes the recently shot crossbows to rank 2, and so on.

Who are these 15th century men?

Click to expand...

Let's agree to disagree on the definition of 'fighting individually', although I still see a big difference between the pikeman being pushed in the back by his colleagues to give him extra momentum (cooperating) and the swordman stabbing someone who just happened to try to fight his neighbor (supporting). Of course all of them are grouped in formations that move, attack, flee or whatever collectively (but that was never my point).

The first formation seems like a formation to fight infantry that aren't in shoulder-to-shoulder formation, with the spears as a defence against cavalry. Are these the swordmen with the small shields? That implies having (needing) space and maneuverability to operate the sword, so a rather open formation. The spearmen would (could) not interfere during the swordmen's melee, so this fits the 'fights individually'.

The method of the second formation you describe is very difficult to maintain during actual combat (during 18th wars they tried the same: 3 ranks shooting in turn, but up to 25% of casulties could be from the 3rd rank shooting the first two in the back!). It looks more like a unit that uses crossbows for ranged combat and ji for melee (the way the Byzantines and 16th+ century Europeans etc did). The normal bows are either open formation troops screening the unit and protecting its flanks (taking cover behind them during melee) or possibly used to pepper a melee opponent with high angle fire during their charge and combat (also seen in many other armies, like viking).

The third formation uses a tactic also used by gun powder armies without much success, so I'm curious if it ever was with the Han.

Second and third could be closely packed formations or more open.

Examples of sword wielders in Renaissance Europe (15-16th C) Doppelsoldner in Landsknecht commands, Dutch sword and buckler troops, etc. All fighting individually (while being in a formation ).

BeeJay