Rome vs Han China

zraver said:

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

Click to expand...

I am referring to saber not literally as a sword but as a concept where cavalry is used as an independent force, similar to the Germans using tanks as a main spearhead.

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.

Click to expand...

And while you like to note that Attila and the Parthians have horned bows, the ancient Han fought with both recurved bows and crossbows.

Attila and the Parthians would be like tasting the cake by its icing. The Hans dealt with the whole enchilada.

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

Click to expand...

Often sharpened on the end.

Yes but a slow rate of fire

Click to expand...

Nonetheless, consider the impact it coud do.

Crossbows are also more accurate than arrows. Lot easier to point and shoot with a crossbow than with an arrow.

I am referring to saber not literally as a sword but as a concept where cavalry is used as an independent force, similar to the Germans using tanks as a main spearhead.

Well you will have to forgive my mistake as both the saber and lance were the principle weapons of cavalry.

And while you like to note that Attila and the Parthians have horned bows, the ancient Han fought with both recurved bows and crossbows.

Attila and the Parthians would be like tasting the cake by its icing. The Hans dealt with the whole enchilada.

And once again the Romans were also a total force package with their own streangths. Enchilada meet Casserole.

Often sharpened on the end.

Ok, the scutum didnt have sharpened edges but it did have a brutal brass boss. or were you thinking the crossbow bolts.

Nonetheless, consider the impact it coud do.

Crossbows are also more accurate than arrows. Lot easier to point and shoot with a crossbow than with an arrow.

perhaps, the bow hunters around me here in Arkansas pull off some feats that are down right impressive.

Also I did some googling on the subject and a 150lb crossbow will penetrate 15" through 3/8" plywood according to a crossbow maker. That is not enough to reach the legionaire or penetrate armor. What it might do is pin the arm to the sheild.

heavier late medievel seige level crossbows with 2000lb draw could reportedly peirce 12" of bound oak, but that is not a battlefeild weapon.

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.

Click to expand...

And where do you think the Han got their cavalry from? At least the ancestors of who there.

And once again the Romans were also a total force package with their own streangths. Enchilada meet Casserole.

Click to expand...

And you want to consider the whole enchilada, not only does the Han have crossbows and laminar recurved bows, but their seige machines and counterweighted trebuchets are also superior. So you are in effect, dealing with an army with at least 3 missile systems superior in range, quantity and hitting power.

And by the way, Roman shields are only 1/4" thick of wood. The testudo formations were not meant as arrow defenses, but to defend against falling rocks thrown by defenders in the walls.

Another assumption you always put is that the roman formation will have to meet the crossbow formation exactly at 12 oclock. You are considering optimal possibilities, when in a real encounter, the crossbow formation could be shooting from any angle. For example, what if you're faced with a crossfire situation.

One thing is that you're comparing modern plywood. Its hard to say if the Roman shield is tougher or more flexible than this.

And where do you think the Han got their cavalry from? At least the ancestors of who there.

But the Han were not nomadic. The reason the Mongols and Amerindians could have such large herds was becuase thier migratory habits would never strand thier herds on used up pasture. The Han like every other civilisation that made extensive use of horses had to use fodder for it's military herds and that cut down the number of remounts. You will not find any eveidence that the Han Cavalry had extnesive remount herds on campaign.

And you want to consider the whole enchilada, not only does the Han have crossbows and laminar recurved bows, but their seige machines and counterweighted trebuchets are also superior. So you are in effect, dealing with an army with at least 3 missile systems superior in range, quantity and hitting power.

What bows the Romans did have were recurve, I find it doubtful that Han seige engines were anymore powerful than Roman catapult and ballista. The Romans did not have the crossbow but wha tthey did have was not inferior.

And by the way, Roman shields are only 1/4" thick of wood. The testudo formations were not meant as arrow defenses, but to defend against falling rocks thrown by defenders in the walls.

Source? Roman tortise fpormations were mutlipurpose vs all types of Missiles.

Another assumption you always put is that the roman formation will have to meet the crossbow formation exactly at 12 oclock. You are considering optimal possibilities, when in a real encounter, the crossbow formation could be shooting from any angle. For example, what if you're faced with a crossfire situation.

No, I keep saying it comes down to the commanders as each army has certain abilites that if employed properly will let it win.

You are over estimating the power of arrows and bolts. Look at how long the Spartans held out agaisnt the Persians, 300 vs 50,000. if arrow storms wer ethe be all and end of ancient combat and sheilds were unable to stop missies why didn't pure archery armies evolve and why carry the excess weight that is a sheild?

Each army ha sit's own streangths and if it can aopply that power to enemy in the proper manner it wins. And that comes down to the commanders.

Crobato:

According to Liang Jieming's site on Chinese Siege Warfare, the Chinese never developed the counterweight trebuchet. It was brought in by the Mongols, who in turn derived it from the Muslim world.

Also, the Han apparently never developed any indirect fire devices which could store energy.

zraver said:

And where do you think the Han got their cavalry from? At least the ancestors of who there.

But the Han were not nomadic. The reason the Mongols and Amerindians could have such large herds was becuase thier migratory habits would never strand thier herds on used up pasture. The Han like every other civilisation that made extensive use of horses had to use fodder for it's military herds and that cut down the number of remounts. You will not find any eveidence that the Han Cavalry had extnesive remount herds on campaign.

Click to expand...

You don't understand. The Han cavalry is made up of "hu" people,which is the collective term the Han referred tor all the steepe nomadic horsemen. So these are essentially, proto Mongols, Turks, Huns, and other peoples living in the west of China that had basically sworn their loyalty to the Han. They brought all their stuff along for the ride.

What bows the Romans did have were recurve, I find it doubtful that Han seige engines were anymore powerful than Roman catapult and ballista. The Romans did not have the crossbow but wha tthey did have was not inferior.

Click to expand...

That's contrary to known view. The Han were using counterweight systems while the Romans were using a torsion system that was inferior in range. Medieval Europe used counterweighted systems that can be traced back to the east.

The chinese also had everything the equivalent of the Ballistas; their crossbows ranged from the small repeating type, to the large artillery types. A frequent design is the double ended ballista, which is set on a rotating stand. While one is aiming and firing, the other end is being rearmed. This doubles the fire rate.

And by the way, Roman shields are only 1/4" thick of wood. The testudo formations were not meant as arrow defenses, but to defend against falling rocks thrown by defenders in the walls.

Source? Roman tortise fpormations were mutlipurpose vs all types of Missiles.

Click to expand...

I read that from the Sim Quan forum. It came from another poster who was adamant in defending the Roman side of argument.

Tortoise formations are most often depicted in carvings as being in siege use.

You are over estimating the power of arrows and bolts. Look at how long the Spartans held out agaisnt the Persians, 300 vs 50,000. if arrow storms wer ethe be all and end of ancient combat and sheilds were unable to stop missies why didn't pure archery armies evolve and why carry the excess weight that is a sheild?

Click to expand...

Lol. The Persians never had the same kind of recurved bows as that wasn't even available then. Even the recurved bows of the Parthians were not as strong as the ones as the Steepe people's and which was adopted and improved by the Han. I kind of doubt the Spartans would have held up against an army using Mongol recurved bows.

The West never evolved the same kind of archery army in the East because they didn't have the same weapons in large numbers. Ancient armies still work with joint concepts of integrating archery, cavalry, infantry and artillery, though with an emphasis on or the other. So while you can never get rid of infantry, the archery-cavalry unit became the spearhead of northern Asian armies starting from the Han period and never truly let up until the demise of Mongol power more than a millenia later.

crobato said:

The Persians never had the same kind of recurved bows as that wasn't even available then. Even the recurved bows of the Parthians were not as strong as the ones as the Steepe people's and which was adopted and improved by the Han.

Click to expand...

Good point! Also, a man with just 1 arrow sticking out of his body is basicaly disabled, at least until it is removed and his wounds bundaged- and even then the internal damage/pain would prevent him from fighting well! Do an experiment: insert an accupuncture or cactus needle into your own flesh (avoid blood vessels/lungs!) and see how well you can move with it.
The Romans met their match in Parthia; if they couldn't conquer them how in the world would they have been able to defeat the Han? The Roman legions were more mobile than the Macedonian phalanx, but the Han army was even more mobile than the Roman one!

You don't understand. The Han cavalry is made up of "hu" people,which is the collective term the Han referred tor all the steepe nomadic horsemen. So these are essentially, proto Mongols, Turks, Huns, and other peoples living in the west of China that had basically sworn their loyalty to the Han. They brought all their stuff along for the ride

You are not going to keep a standing cavalry force with 20 remounts per man in large enough concentrations to be military effective in one place. Iam not doubting the Hu's skill. But as soon as they stop being nomadic they lose thier strategic mobility. Every proffesional cavalry army in the world has run into the same problems logisitcs wise. This includes the Han.

That's contrary to known view. The Han were using counterweight systems while the Romans were using a torsion system that was inferior in range. Medieval Europe used counterweighted systems that can be traced back to the east.

Roman ballista had a range of 500m, some were cart mounted (mobile artillery) This compares vary favorably with the Han catapults 200 paces (5-600 yards) and the Roman polybolos repeating ballista could reportedly fire 10 shots a minute

Tortoise formations are most often depicted in carvings as being in siege
use.

Backwards, most victory carvings show the legionaires using the tortise formation which is logical since the attacks are depicting an assault on a wall where the threats would be coming from above. A carving of a particular tactical situation does not mean it was not used in other situations. Infact the evidence of the Romans covering their heads when facing topdown or plunging fire in one situation is evidence that they would do something similar in similar situations.

Lol. The Persians never had the same kind of recurved bows as that wasn't even available then. Even the recurved bows of the Parthians were not as strong as the ones as the Steepe people's and which was adopted and improved by the Han. I kind of doubt the Spartans would have held up against an army using Mongol recurved bows.

The Scythian's and thier horn bows were known to the ancient greeks. There is zero differnace in draw weight or range between them.

Good point! Also, a man with just 1 arrow sticking out of his body is basicaly disabled, at least until it is removed and his wounds bundaged

have you ever run on a broken ankle? lifted something witha broken arm? gritted through serious pain beucas ea situation demanded it? The Human body is incredibly tough when it has to be. Rember a coupl eof Olympics ago when an Americna female gymast took the gold after sticking a perfect balance bar routine, she did it on a broekn ankle. Why beucase her teammates were counting on her. You can work through pain.

The Romans met their match in Parthia

At the end of thier logistics line and still managed to take the Persian capitol of Cestiphon 5 times. The last war fought between Rome and Persia saw Rome winnin georgia and all of the transcaucus. In fact the wars with the Roman/Byzantine Empire so weakened the Persian's they folded like a house of cards before the Arab Islamic onslaught.

The Roman legions were more mobile than the Macedonian phalanx, but the Han army was even more mobile than the Roman one!

Tactically yes, tha tis an advantage of haivng a large contingent of horse. Strategically the speed advantage lies with the Roman's, the advantage of an infantry army.

Lol. The Persians never had the same kind of recurved bows as that wasn't even available then. Even the recurved bows of the Parthians were not as strong as the ones as the Steepe people's and which was adopted and improved by the Han. I kind of doubt the Spartans would have held up against an army using Mongol recurved bows.

The Scythian's and thier horn bows were known to the ancient greeks. There is zero differnace in draw weight or range between them.

Click to expand...

I don't know if Persians actually use Scythian bows in numbers that mattered. And even then are you going to compare it to the later and much longer Han/Mongol/Hun bows? Scythian bows are quite short, and they don't extend and curve on the ends with ears like the Hun bows do. The Hun bows are assymetrical, while the Han bows were symmetrical and quite wide. One thing to understand about Asiatic bows is that those made further in the east had another material in their laminar construction and that was bamboo.

What's the difference between a long bow and a short bow? It's not just draw strength, or the amount of energy that can be stored with a longer bow. It is that of a longer and a shorter arrow. You're a tank guy, you know what is the difference of penetration between a long and a short projectile.