Rome vs Han China

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).

Click to expand...

Did you even read my post? This has nothing to do with my post at all. My post has nothing to do with pikemen being "pushed in the back by his colleagues". I have provided examples, read them instead of skimming what they are please.

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).

Click to expand...

Actually, it was very successful since this exact formation was used in the the last battle of the Second American Civil war, in which the heavily outnumbered Americans were able to mow down oncoming British troops precisely b/c of this. The only difference is that they used muskets instead of crossbows. Btw, the formation you are referring to is the third one, not the second one.

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 ).

Click to expand...

Can you provide more info on where you got that from?

Anthrophobia said:

This has nothing to do with my post at all. My post has nothing to do with pikemen being "pushed in the back by his colleagues".

Click to expand...

Actually it has: I used the pikemen as an example to try to explain the difference between men in the same formation fighting individually or cooperatively, a point I introduced several posts ago. Maybe you prefer to use other words then ‘individually’ or ‘cooperatively’ to describe the difference. Or is it that you do not see / agree to the difference?
To me the difference is real and important as it might give us an idea about what would happen if the Roman and the Han infantry close for melee.
Are there any descriptions of Han infantry in melee with heavy, closely packed infantry?

Anthrophobia said:

Actually, it was very successful [...] Btw, the formation you are referring to is the third one, not the second one.

Click to expand...

I was talking about the second formation, the one with multiple ranks in which the third or later rank would fire over the others (it does not matter if the first two ranks have a range weapon or not).
If you refer to the success of the third formation, then yes: it was used many times over thru-out history, especially by troops defending obstacles. But on a field of battle it has drawbacks.
It would be interesting to read if (and how often) it was ever used by the Han during a field battle and what happened.

Anthrophobia said:

Can you provide more info on where you got that from?

Click to expand...

You mean the swordmen or how they fought? Both from contemporary art and manuals, up to modern day military analysis.

BeeJay

Anthrophobia said:

Can you provide more info on where you got that from?

Click to expand...

They fought like the Gauls and Germans, attack in a group and then find an enemy yourself and fight it.

You seriously think they would line up with each other and just fight the guy drectly in front of them?

The sheer size of the two handed swords made keeping a formation impossible, bascially they mash together with the enemy.

They is also how they fought during the British civil war in melee. Yet they had a very close formation of pikeman but in close hand melee, it's still the very same as medieval melee combat.

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.

Click to expand...

it only takes 3 minute for the legions to approach melee range. thats not good enough.

silverster said:

it only takes 3 minute for the legions to approach melee range. thats not good enough.

Click to expand...

You're assuming that the Legion would win in a melee against Han heavy infantry. The standard "Legions were professional and Han infantry is a mob defence" does not work. The Han army had a trained professional soldier (aka legions) and conscripts (aka levied allied auxiliary). Does that sound similar? The Romans used the same method in war, Legions and Auxilia. The only difference is that the conscript has a years worth of training before he goes to serve a years worth of service.

I found the Han organization!!!!
from

The Qin and Han military system had Generals (jiangjun) commanding armies, each divided into bu (divisions) commanded by a Lieutenant-General (xiaowei). Each bu was divided into several (usually in multiples of five) qu (regiments) of about 1,000 men each, commanded by Colonels (junhou). The qu were subdivided into tun (battalions) of 500 men under Majors (tunzhang), dui (companies or platoons) of 50 or 100 men under Captains (duishuai), shi (sections) of 10 men under Sergeants (shizhang), and wu (squads) of five men under Corporals (wuzhang).

Each commanding officer of a larger unit was also entitled to a personal staff numbering 10% of the size of his unit (e.g. 50 men for a Major), serving as bodyguards or runners and other such support roles.

IDonT said:

You're assuming that the Legion would win in a melee against Han heavy infantry. The standard "Legions were professional and Han infantry is a mob defence" does not work. ...

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link!

I don't think anybody really means 'mob defence' and nobody is disputing Han professionalism. However, the Romans were trained to fight in tightly packed formations and keep at it until the other side broke, whereas the Han infantry seems to be trained and equiped to be mobile (relatively lightly armored ... maybe in order to rush enemy cross bow units?), yet able to resist cavalry (with their ji ... that's their 'halberd' right?), both relatively fluid and short lived affairs (crossbow men will try to evade, cavalry can turn and fall back) compared to the endless shoving and poking in a phalanx fight.

So Han infantry was less prepared (also mentally) to slug it out with closely packed, well armored infantry. Therefore, I suppose the infantry battle would see the Romans having the advantage. The cavalry battle is for the Han.
In other words, the Roman general must seek to decisively engage the Han infantry and avoid / delay Han cavalry (while neutralising all those Han arrow clouds with a smart combo of his light infantry screens and aggressive auxilia), while the Han commander has to find a way to use his cavalry superiority against that heavy Roman infantry.
Another problem for the Roman might be the Han's larger numbers (in case that Han army so far abroad would be as big as one within China itself).

With their triari, the early Romans were better equiped to fight Han than the later Romans of the Han period I think (not counting the very end of the Han period, when the Romans did have plenty of anti-cav specialists).

I could be wrong of course (we're all just theorizing here), so:
1- Was Han cavalry trained to charge home against steady infantry?
2- How did Han infantry perform against heavy infantry? (any contemporary accounts?)

BeeJay

For what it's woth, recently played a historic miniatures game, Han vs Roman Early Imperial. Han cross bows decimated Roman cavalry, Han infantry bested Roman Auxilia. Heavy Roman infantry (about half the Roman infantry total), never realy got into the fight, although one section that became isolated was destroyed by Han cavalry.
For their part, Roman troop type that gave the Han the most trouble was a unit of ballista artillery. Game could have gone differently if Roman heavy infantry lead main attack, but surprising how one sided it was. Better player was pushing the Romans.

somua said:

For what it's woth, recently played a historic miniatures game, Han vs Roman Early Imperial. Han cross bows decimated Roman cavalry, Han infantry bested Roman Auxilia. Heavy Roman infantry (about half the Roman infantry total), never realy got into the fight, although one section that became isolated was destroyed by Han cavalry.
For their part, Roman troop type that gave the Han the most trouble was a unit of ballista artillery. Game could have gone differently if Roman heavy infantry lead main attack, but surprising how one sided it was. Better player was pushing the Romans.

Click to expand...

What was the name of the game, Anachronism?

Would be nice to see a Han Dynasty expansion or mod of Rome Total War. I know that some people are working on an ancient Chinese mod of the game.

BeeJay:

Is the Ji properly a halberd? According to Wikipedia it was intended for top attack, a sort of spike on a stick you swing onto your target's head.

Rules set used for the Han/Roman simulation was DBA v2.2. It is a great set of rules that has quite a cult following within the wargaming hobby. The rules set is deceptively simple and comes with lists of hundreds of armies from early ancient through to the 1600's. There is a web site called Fanaticus if you'd like to check them out.

Inst said:

BeeJay:

Is the Ji properly a halberd? According to Wikipedia it was intended for top attack, a sort of spike on a stick you swing onto your target's head.

Click to expand...

Yeah, also read it was mainly used as a spearlike weapon, as a cavalry defence. The dagger like part that sticks out could then probably act as a hook to unhorse riders and kneecap horses (was it double edged?). Like a halberd without the axe-blade, maybe.

DBA is great fun, although the rules are not well suited to competitive gaming as there are too many tricks to misuse the rules (or maybe that's the reason they are suitable?) and the design itself has some flaws. Was it the Roman army that lost, or its commander that mishandled it?

The visual part of Rome Total War is very unrealistic, with too small units in too open formations always running around and fighting too bloody battles in too short a time. So not unlike like movie scenes (Gladiator, the ones by Mel Gibson, etc): great to watch. (of course, their game engine could be realistic)

Anyway, browsing some books, I think that Han vs Rome would be most probable around 100 BC or 100AD. From what I read, Han logistics seems not that perfect as some on this thread say (Li Kuang Li (correct?) supposedly arrived in the west with less than half of his army and came back with about 10%) and a quite a large proportion of the Han army was similar to Roman auxilia: allied, hired, whatever but not part of the standing (professional) army.

BeeJay