Rome vs Han China

And how many bolts can be fired off even in 3 minutes? These are fired like musket formations, first line fires and while it reloads, the second would fire, then the third,

I kind of think it would be stupid to march up to a crossbow. Consider that a long metal bolt fired from a tension strength of 160lbs is like the ancient version of a sabot. By the time you reach melee range, there won't be much left, while your rear is torn open by the Han cavalry.

zraver,

The Romans never went through the same evolution. They evolved their army to fight Greek pikemen and over tight terrain.

What happened in China is that the crossbow and composite bows basically made close formations a suicide strategy early from the start. Let me repeat this again. Crossbow democratized warfare for the early Chinese because it meant that a peasant learning the tool in days could shoot as hard, as far and as accurately as an archer spending a lifetime on his field. Suddenly every farmer becomes a deadlier threat. Its like getting a handgun, suddenly there is that much awesome power in his hands. YOu have a weapon that has a trigger, a stock and a butt that can be lifted and aimed like any rifle. Some crossbows even had grids added to both ends of the crossbow, and here you advertently invented the first gunsights.

Here lies the real innovation of the crossbow: it is USER FRIENDLY

So you can recruit now a large population as missile throwers. Add the Chinese innovation of the blast furnace, and they were able to mass manufacture the precise trigger mechanisms that is the heart of a crossbow. Romans also had this ballista technology but they could not mass manufacture them in the same way as the Chinese did.

So now you have armies that can throw out a ridiculous amount of firepower that is not seen and witnessed before.

The best defense against missiles is sheer mobility. The ability to move up quickly and to hide from fire. Hence it forced the creation of treatises like the Art of War. All of sudden, this amount of missile fire changed the name of the game completely.

Crobato: So, BeeJay mentions Roman skirmishers. What would the Chinese do against that?

Just a few details:
- Pre-Marius Romans (early Han) did have spears in their army: the triari.
- Actually massed, drilled shooting was more effective against cavalry than against infantry ... because of the horses. It's more difficult (expensive) to protect the whole horse (thus hit easier); you have less combattants per square meter (thus need fewer hits); and once hit a horse is far likelier to disrupt its unit's formation (thus affecting every other combattant in the unit). Of course, unarmored and undrilled troops are easy prey for any mass drilled shooters: no matter if they are cav or inf, they will be shot to pieces. Btw, long before this period, the Egyptians already used massed, drilled shooter units. This is a proven and logical tactic as it spares your own troops (Assyrians did it too and many, many more).

Massed shooting is mainly used to disrupt an enemy formation (we're talking professional armies here, not over-eager, unarmored, disorganized tribal troops). You then have to move in and finish the job (rout them). You speed this up by moving in with shock tactics (like knights did, although a big enough shock will disrupt by itself as well). I suppose that is what the Han ji-infantry was for, plus probably a dual function for the cavalry (shoot, then move in when you see disruption).
The Romans understood that this moving in is most effective immediately after the main disruption, so they combined all 3 into one: disrupt with pila, immediately move in, using maximum shock (speed, shield, sword, momentum of ranks). It must be said that they always had a difficult time against other drilled phalanx troops, but there the long serving professional post-Marius soldier would come into play, because most probably they had a far greater melee-stamina than their adversary.
Remember that disruption is part morale. Apart from bloodshed, sudden high losses etc, being outflanked can then also be a disrupting factor. Something the Han cav should try.

The question then is, who can disrupt the other the quickest? For the Han this means how to get his cav and crossbows successfully into the game, for the Romans, how to get into melee asap. Han should avoid melee, Romans avoid a shoot out and cavalry in his back.

BeeJay

crobato,

1-One disadvantage of crossbows is you cannot move very fast at all and still reload. Using ranked volley fire does not increase the amount of total fire, it jsut creates a lesser but more sustained barrage. And the crossbows range and power is not enough to disrupt a legion who would be advacing under tortise formations blocking plunging fire, while the Scutum is strong enough to absord the direct fire effects. you would be lucky to achieve 1 severe causalty with every 100 bolts fired. sticking a arrow in some one is rarely a instant kill. The vital areas are protected by a very high level of protection. Roman helmets could ressit sling bullets and the Scutum/ segementa combination was also very effective. Rome knew her streagth relied on her highly trained infantry being able to closeeffectively and then dish out sever punishment while taking few losses in return, and she went to great leangths to protect them.

2- The Romans did go through the same evolution, It was a large force of Roman cavalry that proved criticla in Western Romes defeat of Atilla. Roman cavalry also served as the basis for the later European knightly orders.

not only that but the Romans fought in alsorts of terrain. Mountains, plains, forest, desert ect all saw the tramp of the Roman sandal. Rome and Persia went at it hammer and tongs with Rome pushing deep into Arabia.

The defeat of later Roman armies to horse soilders owes as much to the lack of proffesional legionares of of Roman and Italian decent as found in the earlier era as it does to the arrow storms.

As me and bejay have pointe dout the side that wins is the side that gets the enemy to fight on it's terms. If the Han troops stand and deleiver and elt the legions close they lose. They have to use thier mobility to seperate and divide the legions so that can engage them peice meal.

beejay, I concede the point about spears in early Republican Rome, I was refering to Imperial legioniares.

Yes but even I don't see how any of the Roman armor can stand up to an arrow or bolt yanked up with at least 160lbs of pull. While crossbows are used by the infantry, the cavalry is using laminar recurved bows. Rome did not go through the same period and evolution where one experienced mass firepower. The ancient Chinese learned quickly that frontal attacks was bloody suicide. The crossbow alone is so lethal a weapon, the Pope banned it and threatened to excommunicate anyone who used it.

Close in melee is advantageous in certain forms of terrain. This however is a bit more situational, particularly in Central Asia, where you're going to find open spaces being the norm.

Like its been said, the Han army is a complete army. You got different levels of infantry and an autonomous elite cavalry that isn't there for infantry support, but rather has become the main spearhead of the army. This is in contrast to the Warring States armies, which follows more of the classical ancient model of mainly infantry with cavalry (at the last stages of the period) as infantry support. Towards the end of the period, chariots were on the decline, and cavalry became more and more used as their own. The Han emperors were quick to realize both the tactical and strategic advantages offered by an autonomous cavalry force. This is in analogy with tank history, when in WWI, tanks are used as mainly infantry support and in the Blitzkrieg, where tanks are used for their own sake.

In addition to recurved bows, this is the time the singled edged curved sword started to appear. Hacking and slashing motion is much more desirable for cavalry, along with having a "safe" edge on the sword. The more complex geometry of the sword was made possible. The Han also adopted trousers, Steepe horsemen invention, and while stirrups first appeared in 500BC, they become prominent starting towards the late to the end of the Han period. Once the elements are in place, you have the prototype of the horseman that would dominate Asia for centuries in various forms from the Moslems to the Mongols. Suffice to say, the Asian cavalryman is lot more different in respects to the Knight as you see it in the West.

Another thing I want to point out. You cannot rush a fast charge on foot and expect to hold a very tight formation. In some respects the decline of the Roman army has something to do with the increasing fluidness of the battlefield and a more "open" style of fighting, that later became the prototype for the early medieval armies.

The streangth of the Roman Phalanx vs missile storms is the scutum. You can take a peace of 3/8" plywood and shoot it with a bolt and test it your self. behind that plywood was armor over the vital areas.

Frontal attacks may have been suicide for more lightly armed and armored foes, but for the Romans it wasn't suicide.

Rome did not go through the same period and evolution where one experienced mass firepower.

Yes they did, after attilla started ripping into the eastern Roman Empire the legions evolved even faster than they had been. With the decline in enlistment the Roman armies took on more and mor enative auxilleries and this included a large amount of steppe horse.

The crossbow alone is so lethal a weapon, the Pope banned it and threatened to excommunicate anyone who used it.

less to do with leathaility than in protecting the status quo. A crossbow gave a peasant the ability to take down nobles. As a weapon it was not all that effective when compared to the bow.

You cannot rush a fast charge on foot and expect to hold a very tight formation

Yes you can, soldiers routinely double time in formation. And those are formations filled with barely trained soldiers not the 10+ years in service of the average legionaire.

One reason the Romans did not need large amounts of cavalry while the army was still a professional force was that Roman armies could outmarch cavalry*. Rome didnt fight battles it fought campaigns. Once when beseiging a city the defenders claimed they had supplies for 10 years. The Romans replied they would wait 11 years. The city surrendered the next day.

* Infantry armies routinely move faster over long distances than cavalry. A cavalry unit is ussally faster for the first week or two and then the infantry pulls even and passes the horse. The Mongols and native Americans wer ethe excpetion beucase of the lage remudas they caried with them. Something proffesional forces did not posses beucase of the horses increased cost an dlogistical requirements.

zraver said:

The streangth of the Roman Phalanx vs missile storms is the scutum. You can take a peace of 3/8" plywood and shoot it with a bolt and test it your self. behind that plywood was armor over the vital areas.

Click to expand...

And you want to try that with crossbow with a metal bolt using the sabot principle and fired from a tension pull of at least 160lbs? The Chinese did have laminar wooden shields.

Frontal attacks may have been suicide for more lightly armed and armored foes, but for the Romans it wasn't suicide.

Click to expand...

Maybe because they have not met crossbows en masse.

Rome did not go through the same period and evolution where one experienced mass firepower.

Yes they did, after attilla started ripping into the eastern Roman Empire the legions evolved even faster than they had been. With the decline in enlistment the Roman armies took on more and mor enative auxilleries and this included a large amount of steppe horse.

Click to expand...

Attilla never had crossbows en masse. The Hans were so meticulous with their production inventory that they knew their armies had like 500,000 of these weapons.

The crossbow alone is so lethal a weapon, the Pope banned it and threatened to excommunicate anyone who used it.

less to do with leathaility than in protecting the status quo. A crossbow gave a peasant the ability to take down nobles. As a weapon it was not all that effective when compared to the bow.

Click to expand...

And nobles are the ones that can afford the best quality steel armor and the horse strong enough to mount those.

Without a composite recurved bow, your standard bow can only go up to 100lbs of pull at the most. Standard archers do like 70-80lbs. With the composite recurved bow which the Hans and Mongols use, the draw strength is about 160lbs.

But the draw strength of the crossbow is so high, you need your foot to load them. Once you have leg power into the equation, you're easily seeing 200 to 300lbs of draw strength easy.

You cannot rush a fast charge on foot and expect to hold a very tight formation

Yes you can, soldiers routinely double time in formation. And those are formations filled with barely trained soldiers not the 10+ years in service of the average legionaire.

Click to expand...

I kind of doubt they can hold it tight enough for not a single bolt to go through. Even if wounded, soldiers will drop ranks, and holes in the ranks will increasingly appear.

One reason the Romans did not need large amounts of cavalry while the army was still a professional force was that Roman armies could outmarch cavalry*. Rome didnt fight battles it fought campaigns. Once when beseiging a city the defenders claimed they had supplies for 10 years. The Romans replied they would wait 11 years. The city surrendered the next day.

* Infantry armies routinely move faster over long distances than cavalry. A cavalry unit is ussally faster for the first week or two and then the infantry pulls even and passes the horse. The Mongols and native Americans wer ethe excpetion beucase of the lage remudas they caried with them. Something proffesional forces did not posses beucase of the horses increased cost an dlogistical requirements.

Click to expand...

Hmm? Horses can live off the land much better than soldiers. They can graze off it. Furthermore, after a lot of marching, infantry is tired and needs time to rest. When you compare battle to battle ready situation it won't be the same.

The Han's success in conquering vast tracts of land west of China has a lot to do with using cavalry as a strategy linchpoint. In fact, what seperates the classical ancient army to the medieval post AD armies is the advent of the independent cavalry and its use in the battlefield as a saber force.

And you want to try that with crossbow with a metal bolt using the sabot principle and fired from a tension pull of at least 160lbs? The Chinese did have laminar wooden shields.

where they ballsitcially shaped? and remember there is armor behind that sheild.


Maybe because they have not met crossbows en masse.

No but they did meet Persian horn bows en masse

Attilla never had crossbows en masse. The Hans were so meticulous with their production inventory that they knew their armies had like 500,000 of these weapons.

he had even faster firing lamilar recurved horn bows

And nobles are the ones that can afford the best quality steel armor and the horse strong enough to mount those.

and the better the armor the more attraction you get for the ransom or plunder. The crossbow let peasents single out the richest for special attention.

Without a composite recurved bow, your standard bow can only go up to 100lbs of pull at the most. Standard archers do like 70-80lbs. With the composite recurved bow which the Hans and Mongols use, the draw strength is about 160lbs.

But the draw strength of the crossbow is so high, you need your foot to load them. Once you have leg power into the equation, you're easily seeing 200 to 300lbs of draw strength easy.

Yes but a slow rate of fire

I kind of doubt they can hold it tight enough for not a single bolt to go through. Even if wounded, soldiers will drop ranks, and holes in the ranks will increasingly appear.

Yup it's a race, other armies tried arrow storms, sometimes it worked, often enough it didn't. Romes enemies were not stupid. She won her empire with blood and sweat.

Hmm? Horses can live off the land much better than soldiers. They can graze off it. Furthermore, after a lot of marching, infantry is tired and needs time to rest. When you compare battle to battle ready situation it won't be the same.

History disagrees with you. Yes horses can survoive off grass but a Horse needs high grade fodder to compensate for the heavy wear and tear of military use. Horses on the march cannot graze becuase off the bit in their mouth. They also need vast amounts of water. The more horses the more wagons you need. A good study would be the amount of Fodder the Germans had to poass forward to the troops in WW2 just to keep thier draft animals fit in the middle of the grass filled steppes.

The secret of the Mongols and Native Americans or an army on garrison is/was the remuda's. Remounts are far less common with an army on the march. The last great cavalry army in the world the US Army used 2 remounts per man. Mongols and Indians would have upwards of 20 remounts a man.

Infantry is capable of extended operations over long distances. Look at the CCP's campaign agains tthe nationalist, the march of the Gemran Infantry in 1940 and 1941. The bulk of the wermacht marched from Central Poland to within a few miles of Moscow in 5 months even with the rain and mud of the Russian fall.

The Han's success in conquering vast tracts of land west of China has a lot to do with using cavalry as a strategy linchpoint. In fact, what seperates the classical ancient army to the medieval post AD armies is the advent of the independent cavalry and its use in the battlefield as a saber force.

1- Yes they divided the vast tracts up taking a bite at a time. This is not so different than the Romans marching into an area and setting up a fort. neither empire sprung from the ground fully formed.

2- I have issues with your classical/medievil distinction. The European armies did not adopt the saber until the 17th century and still used lances in WW1 in all the major armies in 1914.

The fight does not hinge on crossbow or cavalry anymore than it does scutum and gladius. It hinges on the commanders, both armies are elite filled with veterans who know how to use thier streangths to overcome everything they ever faced.

2- I have issues with your classical/medievil distinction. The European armies did not adopt the saber until the 17th century and still used lances in WW1 in all the major armies in 1914.

Click to expand...

Read his damn argument carefully and you'll realize he wasn't referring to sabres at all.

Romes enemies were not stupid. She won her empire with blood and sweat.

Click to expand...

This has absolutely no relevance to anything whatsoever.

History disagrees with you. Yes horses can survoive off grass but a Horse needs high grade fodder to compensate for the heavy wear and tear of military use.

Click to expand...

Mongol cavalry traveled hundreds of miles through snow with virtually no logistics. Gee, I wonder where they got their "high grade fodder" from.

was flaming the only reason you posted?

Read his damn argument carefully and you'll realize he wasn't referring to sabres at all.

Ok

In fact, what seperates the classical ancient army to the medieval post AD armies is the advent of the independent cavalry and its use in the battlefield as a saber force

This has absolutely no relevance to anything whatsoever.

Actually it does, no discussion on an armies capabilites is trustworthy without considering how a foe would react. A magor part of crobato's argument is that arrow storms would cut down the legions. I felt the need to point out that Rome's legions had faced similar threats and often enough won the battle.

Mongol cavalry traveled hundreds of miles through snow with virtually no logistics. Gee, I wonder where they got their "high grade fodder" from.

I suggest you follow your own advice

Read his damn argument carefully

here I will help you out

1- The secret of the Mongols and Native Americans or an army on garrison is/was the remuda's. Remounts are far less common with an army on the march. The last great cavalry army in the world the US Army used 2 remounts per man. Mongols and Indians would have upwards of 20 remounts a man.

2- The Mongols and native Americans were the excpetion becuase of the large remudas they caried with them. Something proffesional forces did not posses beucase of the horses increased cost and logistical requirements.

ties directly into

Horses on the march cannot graze becuase off the bit in their mouth. They also need vast amounts of water. The more horses the more wagons you need. A good study would be the amount of Fodder the Germans had to poass forward to the troops in WW2 just to keep thier draft animals fit in the middle of the grass filled steppes.