Rome vs Han China

Just guessing but a highly trained legion should be able to do 100 meters every 45 seconds If the Chinese heavy crossbow had the ability to reach 400 yards and fire 2x a minute thats 8 volleys before impact plus 5 volleys of the repeating crossbow once the range is inside 80 yards.

Judging by the ineffectual results of arrow swarms vs other motivated and disciplined heavy infantry I fear for the Chinese. The Roman legionaire when properly trained and led was nearly unstoppable on the assault. Until the horse archer made its appearance they were only beaten by their own mistakes.

if the Chinese cavalry failed to stop the infantry the Romans would shatter the Chinese troops on impact. The gladius was the most leathal weapon in history until the advent of the maxim.

zraver said:

[...] If the Chinese heavy crossbow had the ability to reach 400 yards and fire 2x a minute thats 8 volleys before impact plus 5 volleys of the repeating crossbow once the range is inside 80 yards. [...]

Click to expand...

I don't think a Roman commander would deploy his heavies in front of missile troops without any light troops screening them. So the 400 yards should be much less, maybe 100.

Chinese cavalry can try to run down the Roman screen, who will evade among the heavies and run out again when the cav moves on. This game goes on until the lines meet.

BeeJay

And the line swill meet sooner rather than later. Roman dicipline, command and control and marching in step means they can move faster than the Chinese who also have to stop to reload.

BeeJay said:

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?



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.



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

BeeJay

Click to expand...

1) Nonsense. Your translation on my information on the formation is totally twisted. I said that back lines would fight the same enemy as those in the front lines, yet you somehow translated it into the back line troops giving "motivation" to the front lines. Nonsense. I said the swordsmen at the front would be fighting the same guy that the spearmen at the back would be fighting AT the same time. You simply implied that they didn't by assuming they have small shields, something I didn't talk about, not to mention small/big shields have nothing to do with the matter. Nonsense. I gave the example. If you like to twist the information to your own ends, fine. Just keep in mind Rome used just as much open formation as the Han did. You can fight just as "cooperatively" in open formation. It's a fact. The stereotypical closed formation as the symbol of Roman formations is for people who gets their history from Gladiator.
2) Every formation has "drawbacks". If you ask for information on Han formations and then say that it's ineffective as you did before simply b/c that it has drawbacks, then I advise you to simply not ask me for examples of Han formations. They all have drawbacks.
3) If you judge how people fought back then from contemporary art, then neither would Han/Roman troops fight in the way that you are talking about, "cooperatively". Romans would also have a lot of naked troops to boot.

btw, whoever think that a thin wooden shield can withstand the full might of a ballista at 15 meters needs some common sense. Whatever test that was, it was probably a failed test in which the poundage of the ballista is way not enough. Heck, if ballistas can't penetrate wooden shields, then Romans/Chinese wouldn't use ballistas to chip away at city walls. Common sense. City wall > thin wooden shield in strength. Period.

Anyway, as I have stated before, people are now once again resorting to stupid assumptions that has no historical basis and this thread is, once again, going back to a superiority contest. What did I say before? For God's sake, know about the other side before you start talking about how one side is better(if you Must talk about how one side is better). Suntzu vs Scipio? Suntzu lived when? 500BC. the Han dynasty is 300 yrs after that.

I believe the marching speed of troops were already stated; Qin or Han infantry was apparently 150% as fast as Roman infantry, due to their lighter loads.

BeeJay: why would skirmishers have any more luck against crossbowmen than legionnaires? They're not wearing heavy armor, so they would have no protection against missile attack.

Inst,

what ever advantage in speed the han infantry would have gotten from lighter armor would be negated by the extra weight of missiles and not marching in step. For an idea of jsut hownfast a legion can move track Constantine the greats wars acorss both halve sof the Emprire form Britian down into Italy and across to Byzantium, all of it on foot.

Every organised army in history has loaded thier primary infantry down with about the same amount of gear over time about 60lbs, so be cautious of claims that one side weighs less than the other. Arrows or bolts in bulk are quiet heavy and cumbersome.

Anthrophobia

3) If you judge how people fought back then from contemporary art, then neither would Han/Roman troops fight in the way that you are talking about, "cooperatively". Romans would also have a lot of naked troops to boot.


Source please, I think your confusing hoplites with legionaires.

Also the romand fought in close order drill alternating the use of the scutum and gladius to push-stab. Spear/pikemen were lunch meat for the Romans who would surge forward slaming thier scutums into the spear points locking them in place and then side stepping as mor elegionaires poured forward. They tore imperial Macedonia and Seleucid armies apart. han use of swordsmen would not aid them as the swords men would be trapped between the impaled horistonal bars of their spearmen and would be trying to fight a roman legionaire trained and equipped for close order battle on his terms.

btw, whoever think that a thin wooden shield can withstand the full might of a ballista at 15 meters needs some common sense. Whatever test that was, it was probably a failed test in which the poundage of the ballista is way not enough. Heck, if ballistas can't penetrate wooden shields, then Romans/Chinese wouldn't use ballistas to chip away at city walls. Common sense. City wall > thin wooden shield in strength. Period.

Roman shields (scutum) were laminated plywood and ballistically curved and quite capable of deflecting (rather than resisting) a ballista shot.

Suntzu vs Scipio? Suntzu lived when? 500BC. the Han dynasty is 300 yrs after that.

Time periods aside they are arguably the greatest military minds of thier cultures.

zraver said:

Just guessing but a highly trained legion should be able to do 100 meters every 45 seconds If the Chinese heavy crossbow had the ability to reach 400 yards and fire 2x a minute thats 8 volleys before impact plus 5 volleys of the repeating crossbow once the range is inside 80 yards.

Judging by the ineffectual results of arrow swarms vs other motivated and disciplined heavy infantry I fear for the Chinese. The Roman legionaire when properly trained and led was nearly unstoppable on the assault. Until the horse archer made its appearance they were only beaten by their own mistakes.

if the Chinese cavalry failed to stop the infantry the Romans would shatter the Chinese troops on impact. The gladius was the most leathal weapon in history until the advent of the maxim.

Click to expand...

I will bet you that the troops of the Qin and the Han are every bit as disciplined as the Romans ever were and more. No one in history ever attempted the kind of social engineering with the same ruthlessness and results orientation as the Qin Emperor Shi Huang Di does, until the 20th Century.

The Gladius lethal? The Chinese have the equivalent Jian, the metallurgy of which is often better. China operated blast furnaces centuries before everyone did and was able to mass manufacture everything from swords to the precision triggers for the crossbows. One can say that China, even during the Warring Period, had already invented mass production, the embryo for a military industrial complex.

In any case, the advent of cavalry, the straight double edged sword was gradually replaced by the single edged broadsword, the dao.

what ever advantage in speed the han infantry would have gotten from lighter armor would be negated by the extra weight of missiles and not marching in step.

Click to expand...

Source please.

I will bet you that the troops of the Qin and the Han are every bit as disciplined as the Romans ever were and more.

So the Chinese practiced decimation? If wer eboth in the same legion and I screw up, you could pay for my crimes if you get picked by random. Roman discipline was absolute, even when beaten Roman armies often fought to the death with out breaking.

The Gladius lethal? The Chinese have the equivalent Jian,

Thank you for revealing that your comparing apples to oranges.

Jian 17-28' inches and 1.5 - 2 pounds and is a finese weapon

gladius 22" 3 pounds wedged V shaped armor piercing tip desinged for quick upward thrusting.

Do you know anythign at all about the Roman Legions? They marched in step (they invented it), the scutum was part and parcel with the gladius in the deadly symbosis of military technology until the modern age. backing these two piece sof equipment up was the pilum weighted armor piercing- sheild destroying javalin. Segmenta armor specially desinged for Roman warfare styles decades of training (20-30 year enlistments) a proffesional officer corps. The Romans even went so far as to have the legionaires swords buckeled on the sword arm side to prevent cross draws from injuring fellow legionaires.

No army in history with the possible exception of the British Red Coats was ever as disciplined or as fond of close order battle (the Brits used the Bayonet).

Trying to take Han troops out of the enviroment they excelled in and forcing them into Roman sandals is foolish. A Han army would have no more chance of winning a close order battle than a Roman army would have of winning a stand off missile fight.

As for social engineering, that is a matter of debate. Roman culture and traditions along with thier roads still permeates Europe and to a lesser extent America to this very day.

zraver said:

I will bet you that the troops of the Qin and the Han are every bit as disciplined as the Romans ever were and more.

So the Chinese practiced decimation? If wer eboth in the same legion and I screw up, you could pay for my crimes if you get picked by random. Roman discipline was absolute, even when beaten Roman armies often fought to the death with out breaking.

Click to expand...

Nope but there was one instance during the Qin campaign to unite CHina when a soldier broke ranks and charge the enemy. His charge was the catalyst of that victory. His reward, execution for not obeying orders.

The Gladius lethal? The Chinese have the equivalent Jian,

Trying to take Han troops out of the enviroment they excelled in and forcing them into Roman sandals is foolish. A Han army would have no more chance of winning a close order battle than a Roman army would have of winning a stand off missile fight.

Click to expand...

Your belief that Romans were superior obviously stems from a lack of Han military history. The crossbow arms is only a part of the HAN army, not the whole.

Here read this