Rome vs Han China

Anthrophobia said:

1) Nonsense. [...] I said [...] Anyway, as I have stated before, people are now once again resorting to stupid assumptions [...]

Click to expand...

You must be well read to do away with another's arguments so easily as 'nonsense' and 'stupid assumptions'. I merely try to find the strong- and weak points of both armies ... for fun. I do that by asking others to explain about the things I do not know that much about (Han armies) and inform others about the things I do know a lot about (Roman armies and any European army after that). Put together that allows us to infer and compare, because thru all ages, professional troops using similar formations and similar weaponry used similar tactics. Hence small shields and swords were used similarly in Han times as in 16th century Europe ... and that is just one example (for info: those small shields are called parrying shields ... they were used in a completely differrent way than large - Roman etc - shields).

Which army is better? I do not know, but it's fun to speculate and that is what it should be about. Ideally, combine Alexander's pikes, Seleucids' cataphracts and Galatians, Han crossbows & cavalry and Roman screens.

To me a forum is not a debate that one should try to win by outwitting the other with one's interpretations of their words. Besides, a debate is never won with 'solid' arguments like 'nonsense' and 'stupid' ... if you're just a kid then be forgiven and read to learn. Kid or not, there's no point answering such replies from you anymore, Anthrophobia :coffee: .

BeeJay

Inst said:

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.

Click to expand...

Not more luck, but they are more flexible because of their open formation (go prone when salvo is fired, always keep moving) and block the line of sight to the heavies behind. So the crossbow commander has to decide: keep shooting to inflict some losses on that screen, or hold fire for whatever is behind it. Or pick some sharp shooters to take out the skirmishers one by one, but that takes time and depletes or disorders the crossbow unit.
So same tactic as skirmishers in other eras, like Napoleonic (not even a little bit of armor back then, when they stood shooting it out with muskets). I suppose the Han would have their own screen, but I'm not sure how to mix those with crossbows and jin-infantry.

Does anybody know how Han crossbow units fired? By salvo? Individually at will? And was aiming done individually or by command? Straight ahead or angled?

BeeJay

If they go prone and stop screening the heavy infantry, the crossbowmen could be ordered to shoot at the heavy infantry behind them. Besides, the crossbowmen are faster than the legionnaires. If the legionnaires near shock or pilum range, the crossbowmen will just flee or retreat, preferably the latter.

According to Kenneth on Chinahistoryforum, if you look at the account in Plutarch, the Parthians were clearly capable of penetrating both scutum and scale armor. This suggests that crossbows, which are typically better suited to armor-piercing applications, could effectively decimate Roman heavy-infantry.

It doesn't matter anyways, does it? The Romans were better engineers than the Han, and lasted for at least 200 more years than the Han. Besides, give the Chinese some credit. After the Song dynasty, everything went downhill, China lost all of its technological advantages, and China ended up getting run over by European and Japanese imperialism.

When the Romans were building aquaducts, the Chinese were building large artificial rivers. The Chinese had stuff they invented, like steel plowshares, shovels and wheelbarrows, to help transform the landscape.

Dynastic China reached its technological peak around the late Ming. They had like 3000 cannons all over the Great Wall and there was no end to the devious inventions they built around gunpowder---fragmentation grenades, multiple rocket launchers, mines, are some of these inventions. Judging from artillery and ship development, the Chinese got overtaken around the 18th Century. At the start of Qian Long's reign, Chinese artillery was better than the Europeans. By the time of the Opium War, they were being outranged.

The real decisive development that came from the West was the Age of Rationalization that followed after the Rennaissance, which ushered the creation of the Scientific Method.

IDonT,

You missunder stand Roman effectiveness. The Han armies used a great variety of arms for differing situations. 1- halberds are useless for defeating the manipultive legion. Even longer macedonian and greek pikes crewed by lifetime warriors could not break it. The Roman way was close order battle, they were the best ever at this.

Taking the Han out of thier streangth (flexability) an dpititng them in a head to head close order battle is foolish. On eis a drag racer and on eis a Formula race car. Both ar eon top of thier game but if pitte dhead to head the one in it's natural enviroment will win.

When the Romans were building aquaducts, and paved roads so sound they would last 2000 years, steam engines, megalithic sized structures, the largest city in the ancient world blah blah you cannot use the accomplishments of one great empire to denigrate another. Both added to the richness of human history.

Yes but what is the natural environment? If it's Central Asia where the two empires are most likely to meet, this still favors the Han army. Sheer mobility drives the ancient Asian armies.

The Chinese started like the Romans. Their armies up to the Qin were based on fighting each other, a lot of it in close range and over rough terrain.

At the time of the Han Dynasty, the focus shifted to the Huns as the main threat, along with the proto-Mongol and proto-Turkish tribes in deserts of the north and northwest of China. There you begin to fight horse mounted nomads with the best archery in the world, armed with composite bows. The so called close combat manipular style of battle becomes outdated against a fast moving cavalry force with ranged attacks. So Han armies evolved against this threat, often not only just using technology to their advantage, but using fire to fight fire, creating their own elite cavalry forces using large horses obtained from the Silk Road and often manned by nomads themselves.

This is the kind of army the Romans had the most trouble, against Parthians and later against the Huns. Yet this is the kind of army the Han is meant to fight against and modeled their own. This is the kind of army that would later evolve and enjoy its most penultimate form under Genghiz Khan.

crobato said:

This is the kind of army the Romans had the most trouble, against Parthians and later against the Huns. Yet this is the kind of army the Han is meant to fight against and modeled their own. This is the kind of army that would later evolve and enjoy its most penultimate form under Genghiz Khan.

Click to expand...

Huns?? the Hun army lead by Attilia into hear of europe was consisted of mostly heavy infantry.

Attilia grew up in Rome, he was so impressed by roman disicipline that he used this on his army.

Another reason that Hun had to ditch cavalry in favor of infantry is because the terrians and forests of europe renders cavalry useless.

Just for a guide, A Roman legion can march from Britain to Athens within 70 days, fully supplied.

Italy it self does have a single legion in the early imperial period, but the legion in greece/illyria can arrive in Italy within 2 weeks, fully supplied and ready to fight.

Anthrophobia said:

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.

Click to expand...

You are thinking Catapults, not ballista... jeez

The Romans went through the same evolution.

But in som ehypothetical force on force a the height of Imperial power battle if the Han troops try to go into close combat with the legions they lose. No army in the world could stand up to the systematic slaughter the legion could dish out. It was weak on ranged attack and cavlary relying on auxillieries for those amrs. It's focus was purely close oder battle. Rember it evolved intially to end etruscan hoplite (greek style pike/sheild heavy infantry) domination of thier city.

The Han were never faced with an enviroment of super heavy infantry as found in Europe. The Han evolved a flexibility the Roamns dod not have but traded the shee rup close power. The Roman legionaire only had two tasks, fighting close and as an engineer. A hand soilder was a crossbowman, swordsman, halberd/pike man as te situation required.

Roman Legionarries is also spearman (the cavalry repel formation) and Marines at the sea, actually.

As I said before, It takes less than 3 minutes for Romans to march from the Max range of Chinese Crossbow into melee range.

The Roman legionare did not use spears or pikes. The only long arms were javalins called pilums that had a hard iron or steel tip a fixed to a soft iron shaft designed to bend on impact with an enemy shield, it was attached to a weight at the end of wooden haft.

It was useless as an anti-cavalry weapon.

The only long arms wer elances used by cavalry.