Rome vs Han China

Status
Not open for further replies.

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
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.

Situational argument. You cannot take a best case basis and assume this will be true in all cases.

I have a problem with your argumentation is that you (and silvester here) basically take the best case scenario against crossbow troops, assumed that there is only one unit of them, and your melee troops will charge forward, run like athletes, keep a very tight formation that not even an arrow or bolt can get through. I have a problem seeing through all that. It does not assume so many chaotic factors in the battlefield, like for example, if you charge in one direction, you have another crossbow unit firing from another direction. Shields can only protect you in one direction.

If you are facing facing multiple crossbow units, and on top of that, you got professional archers with composite recurved bows mounted on horses and shooting on horseback, you are going to expect fire from all directions.

Then again, what are the chances of the Roman cavalry and auxilliaries that can survive the bolt and arrow onslaught? Not all of the Roman army are as well equipped as the professional legionarries. The auxilliaries will be even with the Han conscripts, but I find it hard to see how the Roman cavalry will survive against mounted archers wearing trousers, which makes quite a difference in riding a horse rather than skirts. You can have a situation where the cavalry will be wiped out, and then your auxilliaries wiped out as the Han cavalry turns its attention next, leaving legionnaires isolated and facing arrows and bolts from all directions.

In the ancient battlefield, speed and firepower still counts just as much as it is today. While strategically, you can march longer, but tactically the advantage is so much on the side of the horse that cavalry became the dominant force in the post AD period. Cavalry superiority is the equivalent of both tank and air power superiority for these peoples.
 

BeeJay

New Member
Let's try to avoid the argument about which weapon was better than which completely different other weapon, or - worse - what civilization had ueber-superior technology.

It's OK to mention that the majority of Han cav was made up of their border nomads, but then the same must be applied to a Roman army. As the armies will meet somewhere in the middle, the Romans would have similar allies, using similar tactics. I'd prefer to look at the standing armies only.

Of course we should not look at the best-case scenario for the Romans, but then neither should we for the Han? Do we really expect the Han to be able to deploy their crossbow units so that they have clear, overlapping fields of fire, with clear lines of sight to the Romans heavies? Maybe with a nitwit like Crassus commanding, marching his thirsty army, without preparation into the open against a cavalry army (which the Han's, btw was not), but that would be like sending the Han crossbow shooters and cavalry into woodland to attack Roman infantry: asking for trouble and not the way to judge the army's true capacity.
Even if we suppose the Han comander would have his whole frontline occupied with crossbow units firing in 3 ranks, AND the Roman infantry would deploy without screen or any other counter measure (remember: Han cavalry will not be able to assist the crossbows with this deployment: they would be sanwiched between the lines and with no room to maneuver would be lucky to get out alive), AND walk leasurely towards the shooters ...even then it does not add up to an automatic defeat and Roman bloodletting: just look at Napoleonic battles, where thousands of men would be firing their muskets against UNARMORED humans, who would just stand there and wait for the order to charge.

Likewise, Han cavalry might not be the battle winner that we hope / fear they would be. Look at how Sulla nullified all of Mitrhidates' cavalry by digging some trenches. Or how Lucullus defeated the much more numerous Armenians. And you do not need to dig trenches: just have each man throw out a few caltrops.

One thing about these supposedly super-crossbows ... how come the Han troops themselves only wear such light armor? Most armies tend to be equiped for the combat methods they know and use (for example, Romans are using weapons and armor for an infantry slug-out). One would think the Han followed similar thinking ... then if their crossbows are so super effective and all-piercing, why is the Han armor not much thicker (I hear you say: "Their crossbows were so effective, that armor was useless" ... but then the whole army would be using them, like later musket armies, or at least we would have found some kind of super-armor equipment for nobles and shock troops, like Parthian cataphracts had ... a troop type distincively lacking in Han armies I think).

As stated before, it's up to the commanders. The weapon systems themselves won't win the battle, let alone weapon systems' performance in ideal test surroundings, be they gladius, pilum, crossbow or cavalry.

So what tactics to use for each army?

BeeJay
 

zraver

Junior Member
VIP Professional
The key to beating a roman army is to destroy it's unity and get it split up so you can deal with it piece meal. The last thing you want to do is go toe to toe with it.


Situational argument. You cannot take a best case basis and assume this will be true in all cases.


Crobato thats what your doing. You ar easu,ming with out any evidecen to support your argument that a Han arrow storm will stop the legions when other arrow storms failed.

I have a problem with your argumentation is that you (and silvester here) basically take the best case scenario against crossbow troops, assumed that there is only one unit of them, and your melee troops will charge forward, run like athletes, keep a very tight formation

The thing is, that is exaclty what they did in real life. And they didn't run, they double stepped or quicktimed. This is about twice as fast as a man walking, equal to a medium paced jog. Fit troops with years of previous training and marching can keep this pace (with alternating walks) up for hours.

There would causalties form the arrow storms, but not enough to break the tide.

Then again, what are the chances of the Roman cavalry and auxilliaries that can survive the bolt and arrow onslaught? Not all of the Roman army are as well equipped as the professional legionarries. The auxilliaries will be even with the Han conscripts, but I find it hard to see how the Roman cavalry will survive against mounted archers wearing trousers, which makes quite a difference in riding a horse rather than skirts. You can have a situation where the cavalry will be wiped out, and then your auxilliaries wiped out as the Han cavalry turns its attention next, leaving legionnaires isolated and facing arrows and bolts from all directions.

Who are you going to fire at? the legionaires or the auxillery, or the cavalry? The Han armies wer enot pure archery/crossbow. There is a finite amount to the number of arrows you can fire.

In the ancient battlefield, speed and firepower still counts just as much as it is today. While strategically, you can march longer, but tactically the advantage is so much on the side of the horse that cavalry became the dominant force in the post AD period. Cavalry superiority is the equivalent of both tank and air power superiority for these peoples.

Yes, and the Romans pack "firepower" as well. You keep discounting the Roman feat of arms. This was the argubably the best trained, most experianced, motivated, equipped, and led army of the ancient world and you keep expecting them to react like country bumpkins and stand still and get mowed down, or lose cohesion. These guys would close in good order and losses to the arrows would be stepped over. They know that to sit still or panic is to die. you also keep trying to ignore just how fast a legion can manuver on the battlefeild. horse troops can outrun, but foot cannot not even light troops unless they just break formation and run. As big of an advantage as trousers are in riding horses, marching in step is to the infantry.

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.

They did use them in very large numbers, and regardless of how big (scythian hornbow was around 48" and 65-130+lb draw) or how small (Mongol was upto 65" and 70-160lb draw) massed Persian bowmen will sustain a rate of fire to put Han Crossbows to shame.
 

IDonT

Senior Member
VIP Professional
from chinahistory forum
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


当匈奴骑手高速冲锋的时候,传统的步兵很难抵挡。从历史记录来看,一种叫弩的远射兵器很可能在秦军击溃匈奴的战斗中发挥了主导作用。
When the Xiong Nu cavalryman makes a high speed charge, traditional infantrymen would find it hard to halt. From the historical records, a weapon called the Nu (crossbow) was possibly the major weapon by which the Qin army defeats the Xiong Nu in their battles.

  在兵马俑坑,由于时间太过久远,弩的木制部分已经朽烂,但完整的遗迹仍然可以复原当初的秦弩。据此复原的秦弩,有着惊人的力量。
In the terracotta army pits, the wooden stock and parts of the crossbow had totally decomposed over the long periods of time. But complete traces and depressions allows us to recreate the Qin crossbow. The recreated crossbow has some surprising powers.

  与弓不同,秦弩必须用脚蹬、借助全身的力量才能上弦。专家估计,这种秦弩的射程应该能够达到300米,有效杀伤距离在150米之内,秦弩的杀伤力远远高于当时任何一种弓。
Unlike the bow, the Qin crossbow must be loaded with the help of a stirrup and the strength of the whole body. Experts estimate that the range of the Qin crossbow is up to 300 meters (1000 feet) and effecive killing range is at 150 meters (500 feet). Qin crossbows thus have a much higher killing power than any type of bow.

  在弩腐烂后留下的痕迹中,考古人员发现了青铜制作的小机械。这些小小的青铜构件就是弩用来发射的扳机。它的设计得非常精巧。令人不解的是,秦人为什么不把它做得更简单一些呢?
In the traces left behind by the decomposed crossbows, archaeologists discover small mechanisms of bronze. These small mechanisms are the trigger of the crossbow that fires the bolt. Its design is intricate. It is confusing why the Qin didn't make it simpler.

  假设一种最简单的方案,制造成本可以大大降低。但是,射手完全靠手指的力量把勒得很紧的弓弦推出勾牙, 就要用很大的力气,在击发瞬间,弩肯定会抖动。今天的射击训练,击发瞬间连呼吸调整不好都有可能影响射击的准确性。
A simple protocol would be able to reduce cost by a great deal. But the crossbowman can only use the strength of his finger to fire the highly stressed crossbow to release the catch. This would need a lot of strength. At the moment of fire, the crossbow would quaver. In modern shooting practice, even a slight misstep in breathing at the moment of fire would affect the accuracy of the bullet.

  秦军的弩机通过一套灵巧的机械传递,让勾牙在放箭瞬间突然下沉,扣动扳机变得异常轻巧。这恰恰是弩对弓的优势之一,拉弓要用很大的力气,时间越长,越难控制瞄准的稳定。
The Qin crossbow thus has a delicate but intelligent mechanical trigger. At the moment of fire the catch would sink and this eases the trigger action. Thus, this is the advantage of the crossbow versus the bow. A bow requires a great strength to draw, and the longer the string is held, the harder it is to control accuracy.

  弩机上的望山,在上弦时可以自动地把扳机重新调整到击发的位置。但它还有另一个不可思议的功能!
The Wang Shan (viewing the mountain) on the crossbow can be readjusted automatically to the position before fire when the crossbow is reloaded. But it has another unbelievable ability!

  可以推想,在与匈奴骑兵厮杀的战场上,秦军弩兵射击的情形。当瞄准远处的目标时,射手参照望山估算弩抬高的角度,弩箭沿抛物线轨迹就可以准确命中敌人。望山,很可能是步兵武器最原始的瞄准系统。
We can extrapolate in the battlefields where Xiong Nu cavalry charges in melee and the Qin army retaliate with crossbow fire. When aiming for a distant tget, the crossbowman can estimate using the Wang Shan on how high he should elevate his crossbow. The crossbow bolts fired would thus follow a parabolic path and hit the enemies accurately. Thus, the Wang Shan might be the precursor of aiming systems on infantry weapons.

  在兵马俑坑,出土最多的青铜兵器是箭头,由于在坑中没有发现弓,考古人员认为,这些青铜箭头都是为弩配备的。
In the terracotta army pits, most of the unearthed bronze weapons are arrow heads. There isn't any bows discoverd. Hence, archaegologists believe that these bronze arrowheads are made for the crossbow.

  战国时代,箭头的种类繁多,这些箭头上的倒刺和血槽让人感到阵阵杀气。而在兵马俑坑中发现的箭头,几乎都是三棱形的。秦军为什么单单选择了这种三棱箭头呢?
In Warring states period, there are many forms of arrowheads with blood grooves and reverse hooks that give the beholders senses of dread and death. But the arrowheads discovered in the pits are almost entirely trigonal pyramidal. Why did the Qin army choose the trigonal pyramidal for their arrowheads?

  三棱箭头拥有三个锋利的棱角,在击中目标的瞬间,棱的锋刃处就会形成切割力,箭头就能够穿透铠甲、直达人体。
The trigonal pyramidal arrowheads has 3 sharp edges. At the moment of impact, the 3 sharp edges would create cutting powers that would allow the arrowhead to cut through armor and into the flesh.

  带翼箭头有凶狠的倒刺,但翼面容易受风的影响,使箭头偏离目标。
A winged arrowhead has dreadful reverse hooks, but the wing faces is easily affected by wind and would deviate the arrow from its designated target.

  秦军的这种三棱箭头取消了翼面,应该使射击更加精准。专家对这些箭头进行了仔细地分析。当检测数据最终摆到桌面上的时候,研究人员确实感到难以置信。
The trigonal pyramidal arrowhead of the Qin thus takes away the winged faces and makes the shooting more acurate. Experts carried out careful analysis on these arrowheads. When the numbers and results were brought to the table, the researchers also found it hard to believe.

  检测结果发现:箭头的三个弧面几乎完全相同,这是一种接近完美的流线型箭头。
The testing results discovered that the 3 faces of the arrowheads are almost perfect matches. This is an arrowhe that with a near perfect streamlined shape.

  这种箭头的轮廓线跟子弹的外形几乎一样。子弹的外形是为了减低飞行过程中的空气阻力。我们有理由推测,秦人设计这种三棱形箭头也是出于同样的目的。
The curved faces of the arrowhead resembles the shape of a bullet.. The bullet is thus shaped to reduce drag in flight. We thus have enough reasons to conclude that the Qin designed these trigonal pyramidal arrowhead for the same purpose.

  秦人凭经验接近了现代空气动力学的规律。这种古老的箭头是早期飞行器当中的范本,它和今天的子弹一脉相承。秦弩,连同它配备的弩箭,在那个时代很可能是技术含量最高的武器,它使秦军的攻击力大为加强。
The Qin, through experience, thus approaches aerodynamic studies of the modern age. This ancient arrowhead is a model, and it has the same goal as the modern bullet head. The Qin crossbow, along with its bolts, are thus at its time a piece of high technology weapons that allowed the Qin armies to have increaed offensive power.

  公元前214年,秦军发动了针对匈奴骑兵的全面战争。仅仅一年的时间,30万匈奴骑兵就被彻底击溃,黄河以南的大片土地重新回归秦国。
In 214 BC, the Qin army started an all out war against the Xiong Nu cavalry. In just about year, the 300000 strong Xiong Nu cavalry army was completely crushed and the huge tracts of land to the south of the Yellow River was recovered by the Qin.

  秦军之所以能够取胜,弩的作用至关重要。可以设想,在匈奴骑兵还没冲到眼前时,强劲的秦弩就密集准确地击中战马和骑手。持弩的秦骑兵射击的准确程度是匈奴人的弓无法相比的,匈奴人的皮甲也抵挡不住弩箭强大的穿透力。
The crossbow was crutical in the Qin army's victories. We can thus imagine that even before the Xiong Nu cavalry was within sight, the powerful Qin crossbows were already loosing concentrated showers accurately on the horses and riders of Xiong Nu. The mounted crossbowmen of Qin has far more accuracy than the Xiong Nu horse archers, and the leather armor of the Xiong Nu could not defeat the penetrative powers of the crossbow bolt.

  对马背上的匈奴骑手而言,弩是最致命的武器。中国兵书经典《武经讲义》中说:弩是对付古代游牧部落袭击最为有效的武器。青铜弩机的设计是一个惊人的成就,对于匈奴人而言,这种机械装置太复杂了,他们很难装配或仿制。
To the Xiong Nu mounted archer, the crossbow is the most lethal weapon. The Chinese Weapon classic, Wu Jing Jiang Yi, recorded: the crossbow is the most effective weapon against the ancient nomadic tribes. The bronze crossbow design is thus a great accomplishment. To the Xiong Nu, the mechanism is too complex making it difficult for them to equip or copy.

  当专家们对秦军兵器的研究逐步深入时,他们又有了新的发现。
When the experts carried out further investigation, they made new discoveries.

  铍是一种起源于短剑的长柄兵器,它的形式曾经五花八门。但是,在俑坑中发现的铍,尽管生产日期相隔十几年, 造型和尺寸却完全一致。
The Po is a polearm derived from the short sword. Its designs are greatly varied, but the Po unearthed at the pits, though some being over a decade apart in the time of manfuacture, has the same design and dimensions.

  这两件戈也不是同年生产的,但它们也是一模一样。
So are the 2 Ge that was made indifferent years. They are also copies of each other.
 

IDonT

Senior Member
VIP Professional
湖北鄂洲是楚国的旧地,考古人员在这里发现了一把秦剑。细长的秦剑和当年楚国的青铜剑完全不同。但是,它的造型跟陕西兵马俑坑中的秦剑却完全相同。
E Zhou at Hubei used to be under Chu dominion. The archaeologists discovered a Qin swod there. It is different from the Chu swords at that time, but it is another exact copy with the sword uncovered from the pits at Shaanxi.

  在兵马俑坑中发现的三棱箭头有4万多支,但它们都制作得极其规整,箭头底边宽度的平均误差只有正负0.83毫米。
There are over 10000 trigonal pyramidal arrowheads at the pits, but they are manufactured to a great degree of precision. The width of the underside of the arrowheads has only a range of + - 0.83 mm.

  北京理工大学的冶金专家对秦军箭头做了金相分析,结果发现它们的金属配比基本相同,数以万计的箭头竟然是按照相同的技术标准铸造出来的。这就是说,不论是在北方草原,还是在南方丛林的各个战场,秦军射向对手的所有箭头,都具有同样的作战质量。难道,地处秦国各地的兵器作坊都在有意识地,甚至是强制性地按照某个固定的技术标准生产兵器吗?如果真是这样的话,秦人就远远地超越了自己的时代。
Metallurgy experts of Beijing Li Gong Da Xue (university of technology of Beijing) did analysis on the arrowheads. The results showed that the tens of thousands of arrows produced has similar alloy composition. Thus, whether it is on the plains of the north or the jungles in the south, the arrowheads that Qin crossbowmen sends against his opponents on the battlefield are of a unified standard. Can it be that the manufacturies and arsenals across the Qin empire is self-consciously or enforced to follow an established protocol and technique in weapons manufacture? If that is true, the Qin has far exceeded their age.

  标准化,是现代工业的基础。标准化生产使不同的供应商生产的零部件可以组装在一起,也使大规模的生产成为可能。在两千年前农业文明刚刚开始成熟的时代,假如秦人真的有过标准化的兵器生产,他们的目的又是什么呢?
Standardization is the basis of modern industry. The standard mode of production allows the widespread use of standard parts manufactured in various industries, and makes large scale production a possibility. But when the agricultural civilizations were just maturing 2000 years ago, even if the Qin has standardized weapon manufacture, what is their goal?

  秦军使用的弩机,由于制作的十分标准,它的部件应该是可以互换的。在战场上,秦军士兵可以把损坏的弩机中仍旧完好的部件重新拼装使用。秦军的其他兵器虽然也可以互换,但对于大多数古代兵器来说,互换性要求的精确度并不很高。专家推测:秦人的标准化应该还有更重要的目的。
The Qin crossbow are manufactured uniformly. They have interchangeable parts. In warfare, Qin soldiers can take apart and reassemble broken crossbows. Other weapons are also interchangeable. But to most ancient weapons, the accuracy that is demanded of them is not high enough. Experts thus predict that the standardization of weapons has greater objective.

  兵马俑坑中发现的各种兵器,在战场上应该有优异的表现。很可能是秦军从几百年的战争实践中优选出来的。专家推测,秦人很可能将优选兵器的技术标准固定,国家再通过法令将这些技术标准发放到所有的兵工厂。
The various weapons at the pits performed admirably well on the fields of battle. It is possible that the Qin army, from their centuries of warfare experience, chose these designs. Experts predict that the Qin set a standard for these manufacturing techniques for these tried and tested weapons and the empire would thus issue Fa Ling (legal commandments) to enforce these procedures and dimensions to all the manufacturies.

  尽管按今天的工业标准看,这些兵器的标准化仍旧是比较粗糙和初步的,但是,在两千多年前,秦人执著于统一标准,肯定是为了保证所有秦军战士使用的都是当时最优秀的兵器。
Despite the immaturity and crudeness of the degree of standardization according to modern standards, the Qin adherance to a set standard over 2000 years ago thus has the objective of ensuring that every soldier in the Qin army would be using the best weapons of their time.

  秦军的兵器制作得相当精致。在青铜剑上有三条90多厘米长的棱线,将细长的剑身分成八个面,手工要完成这样的表面加工有很大的难度。
The Qin weapon manufacture is very intricate. The bronze sword has 3 ridge lines over 90 cm long (3 feet). A slender sword is thus divided into 8 facings. This is thus a difficult process.

  戈的圆弧部分加工得十分规整,箭头上三个流线型的表面也完全对称。
The curve of the Ge is also highly standardized, and the 3 faces of the arrowheads are at perfect alignment.

  让专家迷惑的是,某些天才的工匠制造出几件这样的兵器是可能的,但实际情况是,兵马俑坑中几万件兵器几乎都是同样的质量。
To the confused experts, these ingenius craftsmen might be able to craft several pieces of weapons of such perfection. But what is being unearthed shows that almost the entire batch of tens of thousands of weapons were of the same high quality.

  根据司马迁的记载,秦军的数量超过了100万。不仅如此,这支军队高度专业化,装备极其复杂的武器系统。在差不多同一时期的欧洲,亚历山大的军队是5万人左右,最为强盛时的罗马军团也不过几十万人。
According to Sima Qian, the Qin army had over 1 million men. Not only that, this army was extremely professionalized, with complex weapon equipments and organization. At the same time in Europe, Alexander's army is only about 50000 men. The Roman Empire at its height has only several hundred thousand men.

  为一支100万的军队提供兵器,是一个可怕的任务,在十年统一战争的岁月里,秦国的兵器作坊肯定是全世界最繁忙的地方,他们必须开足马力,日以继夜。问题在于,怎样才能既保证标准,又大批量生产呢?
To equip an army of 1 million is a monstrous tasks. In the 10 years of wars of unification, Qin weapon manufacturies would thus be the busiest places in the world. They must work to full capacity all day and night. But how can they maintain the standards of manufacture as well as the output?

  仔细观察这只戈的圆弧处,打磨的痕迹还清晰可见,手工打磨,会有交错的磨痕,那是锉刀往返摩擦造成的。奇怪的是,这些磨痕没有交错的痕迹。专家推测,秦军青铜兵器的表面加工很可能是用砂轮实现的。两千多年前是否有砂轮还有待考古证据,即便是用砂轮,靠手的感觉来完成这些弧形表面的加工,要让成千上万件兵器达到同一个标准也是不可能的。
In careful observation of the curve of the Ge, there are signs of polish. Polishing by hands would give criss-crossed markings due to the repeated to and fro action with the sharpening tool. However, the markings on the Ge are not criss crossed. Experts predict that the Qin bronze weapons are finished with the sharpening wheel. It is still debatable whether there are such tools 2000 years ago. And even if there are, it is impossible to manufacture tens of thousands of weapons to such a set standard on a curve.

  在兵马俑坑中的兵器上面,刻着一些文字。这些文字和今天的汉字很相像。研究人员发现,它们大多是人名,其中出现次数最多的一个人是“相邦吕不韦”。
On the weapons uncovered at the pits, there are some words engraved on it which is close to modern chinese characters. Archaeologists discovered that they are mostly names of people. The name "Premier Lu Bu Wei" is most common.

  吕氏春秋是秦国最重要的一本历史文献,它的编撰者就是吕不韦。吕不韦是当时秦国的丞相,相当于今天的国家总理。吕氏春秋上说:物勒工名,意思是,器物的制造者要把自己的名字刻在上面。
Lu Shi Chun Qiu is the most important historical literature of Qin. Its chief editor is Lu Bu Wei who was the premier of Qin at that time, similar to the prime minister of modern times. Lu Shi Chun Qiu records: Wu Le Gong Ming, which means that the manufacturer must engrave their names on their products.

  对于历史学家来说,这些看似普通的文字透露的是秦国军事工业的管理机密。吕不韦作为内阁总理,是兵器生产的最高监管人。他的下面是工师,就是各兵工厂的厂长,监制这只戈的厂长叫“蕺”。
To the historian, these seemingly common names show the management secrets of the Qin arms industry. Being the chief of internal affairs, Lu Bu Wei is thus also the highest executive of weapon manufacture. Beneath him are the Gong Shi, or the factory heads that oversees each industry. The Gong Shi of this Ge is (I don't know what character that is)...

  在厂长的下边是丞,类似车间主任,这位主任的名字叫“义”。
Beneath the Gong Shi is the Cheng, synonymous with the mid-level managers. This man is called Yi.

  而亲手制作这只戈的工匠,叫“成”。
The craftsmen that made the weapons with their hands is the Cheng.

  专家由此推断:秦国的军工管理制度分为四级。从相帮、工师、丞到一个个工匠,层层负责,任何一个质量问题都可以通过兵器上刻的名字查到责任人。我们已经无法知道管理的细节,但秦国的法律对失职者的惩罚是非常严酷的,这就是物勒工名的用意。
Experts thus conclude that the Qin weapon manufacture is divided into 4 levels: from premier, Gong shi, Cheng to the craftsmen. Each level is responsible for the other. A quality defect can thus be traced to the top. We may no longer know the details of management, but Qin law dictates cruel punishments to those that failed their duties. This is the meaning of Wu Le Gong Ming.

  透过这些冰冷的青铜铭文,我们或许还能看到那个遥远年代中一些普通人的命运。
From these cold bronze carvings, we can even possibly see the fate of the commoners at that time.

  这个叫Zhe的人做了好多年兵工厂的厂长,ZHE每天都要检查兵器生产,他得向丞相吕不韦负责。如果兵器质量有问题,按照秦国的法律,厂长首先遭受处罚。为了自己和一家老小,他必须尽职尽责。
A Gong Shi named Zhe held the position for many years. Everyday he has to check on the weapons manufacture and report directly to the premier. If there is any defect, the Gong Shi himself would be punished first. For the sake of himself and his whole family, he thus must do his job dutifully.

  处在这个金字塔式的管理体系最底层的,是数量庞大的工匠。专家在铭文中一共发现了16个工匠的名字。
At the bottom of this pyramidal organization are large numbers of craftsmen. There are 16 named craftsmen from the engraved texts.

  在秦国的手工工场,工人一般都是终身制。无论如何,这个叫DIAO的工匠一生都得在工场度过了。16年的劳作,“窵”不知道经历过多少次的坎坷。就是这些像“窵”一样的普通人,制造出了留到今天的这些精良兵器,从一丝不苟的加工痕迹上,我们至今还能感受到他们粗糙的双手和专注的目光。
In the arsenals of Qin, these craftsmen serve for life. A craftsmen named Diao spent his entire life in the arsenal. Another craftsmen Xie has served for 16 years through untold numbers of difficulties. It is the common men like Xie that made these quality weapons. From the seriousness and devotion we see from the finishings of the weapons, we can even feel their roughened hands and focused eyes today.

  秦国众多的兵工厂能够按照统一的标准大批量地制作高质量的兵器,金字塔式的四级管理制度是根本保证。当世界上大部分地方仍然被荒蛮和蒙昧包围的时候,而秦人就以他们独特的思维方式和智慧,创造出了那个时代最强大的兵器制造业。
The pyramidal 4 level organization ensured that the numerous arsenals of Qin could mass produce high quality weapons. Even when most of the world was still uninhabited, the Qin has, with their unique outlook and intelligence, created the most powerful weapon manufacturies of its time.

  现在,我们可以来回答最初的那个问题了:在秦的时代,人们还不能象处理青铜一样熟练地用铁,铁的冶炼和铸造还处在发展阶段。所以,中国历史上第一个大一统的帝国,仍旧是青铜铸就的。
Now, we can answer our first question. At the time of Qin, people are still unable to use iron with the degree of perfection as bronze. The melting and casting of iron is still in developmental stages. Thus, China's first unified empire is forged through bronze.

  2000多年前,秦人将青铜的性能发展到了极致,在波澜壮阔的统一战争中,这些青铜兵器曾经发挥了巨大的威力。然而,秦军战士怎样使用青铜兵器,强大的秦军究竟是如何作战的呢?这支从远古走来的军团,还有更多的未解之谜激发着人们的好奇心
Over 2000 yeras ago, the Qin developed bronze to the extreme. In the vast and epic battles, these bronze weapons displayed their powers. However, how did the Qin warriors use these weapons and how did the mighy Qin army fight their wars? This ancient armies still held more secrets to incite the curiosity amongst humans.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
The key to beating a roman army is to destroy it's unity and get it split up so you can deal with it piece meal. The last thing you want to do is go toe to toe with it.


Situational argument. You cannot take a best case basis and assume this will be true in all cases.


Crobato thats what your doing. You ar easu,ming with out any evidecen to support your argument that a Han arrow storm will stop the legions when other arrow storms failed.

Because this bolt storm is far more accurate and and more energy than any previous one before. Plus the Han and the Hun composite recurved bows are improvements of what has been made before. The arrow storm of the Mongols were unstoppable and the Europeans were much better armored than the Romans ever were.

And in fact, the Romans had great trouble with the Parthians.


Then again, what are the chances of the Roman cavalry and auxilliaries that can survive the bolt and arrow onslaught? Not all of the Roman army are as well equipped as the professional legionarries. The auxilliaries will be even with the Han conscripts, but I find it hard to see how the Roman cavalry will survive against mounted archers wearing trousers, which makes quite a difference in riding a horse rather than skirts. You can have a situation where the cavalry will be wiped out, and then your auxilliaries wiped out as the Han cavalry turns its attention next, leaving legionnaires isolated and facing arrows and bolts from all directions.

Who are you going to fire at? the legionaires or the auxillery, or the cavalry? The Han armies wer enot pure archery/crossbow. There is a finite amount to the number of arrows you can fire.

Archery will still kill more than enough and leave the rest to the melee troops.


In the ancient battlefield, speed and firepower still counts just as much as it is today. While strategically, you can march longer, but tactically the advantage is so much on the side of the horse that cavalry became the dominant force in the post AD period. Cavalry superiority is the equivalent of both tank and air power superiority for these peoples.

Yes, and the Romans pack "firepower" as well. You keep discounting the Roman feat of arms. This was the argubably the best trained, most experianced, motivated, equipped, and led army of the ancient world and you keep expecting them to react like country bumpkins and stand still and get mowed down, or lose cohesion. These guys would close in good order and losses to the arrows would be stepped over. They know that to sit still or panic is to die. you also keep trying to ignore just how fast a legion can manuver on the battlefeild. horse troops can outrun, but foot cannot not even light troops unless they just break formation and run. As big of an advantage as trousers are in riding horses, marching in step is to the infantry.

Lol. Unless you got lances and pikes, infantry men are not going to win against cavalry. History has indeed shown the predominance of the cavalry post AD period.

And you keep on discounting how disciplined and tough Han troops were, plus the fact they are in fact, fighting from a position of technological superiority ranging not just from their missile weapons but the metallurgy of their swords, as they were already using heat treated forged and folded steel. The Han were fresh off from a previous dynasty whose ruler was both genius and a maniac with enough balls to forge and socially reengineer an entire empire under one spoken and written language from many.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!




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.

They did use them in very large numbers, and regardless of how big (scythian hornbow was around 48" and 65-130+lb draw) or how small (Mongol was upto 65" and 70-160lb draw) massed Persian bowmen will sustain a rate of fire to put Han Crossbows to shame.

No they didn't. In fact Darius repeatedly failed to defeat the Scythians. Furthermore, I doubt that Scythian bows would match the drawstrength of Mongol bows given the lack of ear extensions. Some Chinese stories account their bows being as strong as 200lbs of draw though there may be some hyperbole.
 

zraver

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Idon't,

thank you seems the Han arrowheads were desinge dot defeat leather and flesh with cutting surfaces, not laminaed wood, and armor that requires a piercing tip.

Crobato,

Because this bolt storm is far more accurate and and more energy than any previous one before


The earlier volume will more than make up for any loss of accuracy. I also dispute your claim that non Chinese bows are the ancient equivalent of the A-bomb. Also thanks to IDont, it seesm you hav enon of those super bows jsut slow firing crossbows equipped with boltheads desinged to cut, not punch.

The arrow storm of the Mongols were unstoppable and the Europeans were much better armored than the Romans ever were.


1-The Mongols enjoyed a mobility advantage thanks to thier remudas tha tlet them stay out of range. Han cavalry won't. 2-The Mongols also had arrow head types not found in the Roman/Han era. 3- Almost a sleathal as the archers were the Mongol heavy cav who used the lance. 4- The proto-mongol Hunnish cavlary both side swill be using will not be near the level of the Mongols. 5- The Romans figure dout how to beat the Huns.


And in fact, the Romans had great trouble with the Parthians.

And the Parthians had great trouble with Rome. yet Rome took the parthian capitol 5 times and ended up winning the most territory, and survived the final great war. The parthians never took either Roman capitol, lost vast amount sof territory, and were so weakened they fell before the armies of Islam.

Archery will still kill more than enough and leave the rest to the melee
troops.


According to Idont's articel your crossbowmen have a range of 500M. That gives them about 3 minutes or 6-12 volleys and then they are face to face with the legionaires, on the legionaires terms. the more Han infantry you add to protect your crossbowmen, the less the amount of each volley.

Lol. Unless you got lances and pikes, infantry men are not going to win against cavalry. History has indeed shown the predominance of the cavalry post AD period.

And yet Rome beat mounted armies as often as they lost to them. History says your maxim is not an absolute.

And you keep on discounting how disciplined and tough Han troops were, plus the fact they are in fact, fighting from a position of technological superiority ranging not just from their missile weapons but the metallurgy of their swords, as they were already using heat treated forged and folded steel.

I have repeatedly said both sides were equally skilled and dedicated and disciplined. But melee is the Roman style of war. Thier armor, tactics, and weapons wer ethe finest in the ancient world for an upclose bloodletting. The Romans wer enot out teched as you claim. The Gladius did not need a folding and forging. It was a short very heavy stabbing weapon not a fencing sword. it was thick and could as easly be used as an axe as a stabbinf weapon. The Imperial Macedonians were horrified by the wounds the Gladius left in it's victims. It is a historicla fac tthat until the maxim machine gun the gladius killed more people than any other weapon in the history of warfare.

beisdes a sword perfectly desinged for their tactics, they had the strongest shield of the ancient world, that also doubled as a weapon. They also deprived thier enemies front ranks of thier sheilds via the pilum. This nasty javelin rendered sheild useless allowing the legion to impact exposed infantry and create a crush of bodies that unhinged their foes. The push then stab then push then stab system was as scientificaly developed as anything anywhere on earth at the time.

The Han applied their industry to war, war was Romes industry

No they didn't. In fact Darius repeatedly failed to defeat the Scythians. Furthermore, I doubt that Scythian bows would match the drawstrength of Mongol bows given the lack of ear extensions. Some Chinese stories account their bows being as strong as 200lbs of draw though there may be some hyperbole.

The Parthians are of Scythian decent and I use the terms interchangably. And Rome did indeed face them and win. They lost as well but the victories prove that arrow storms nad horsemen were not the end all and be all of combat.
 

IDonT

Senior Member
VIP Professional
Zraver,

The article was from an analysis of the terracota army (Qin Dynasty) around 260 BC.

About the bolts, please look at the bolded sections.

In Warring states period, there are many forms of arrowheads with blood grooves and reverse hooks that give the beholders senses of dread and death. But the arrowheads discovered in the pits are almost entirely trigonal pyramidal. Why did the Qin army choose the trigonal pyramidal for their arrowheads?

The trigonal pyramidal arrowheads has 3 sharp edges. At the moment of impact, the 3 sharp edges would create cutting powers that would allow the arrowhead to cut through armor and into the flesh.

A winged arrowhead has dreadful reverse hooks, but the wing faces is easily affected by wind and would deviate the arrow from its designated target.

The trigonal pyramidal arrowhead of the Qin thus takes away the winged faces and makes the shooting more acurate. Experts carried out careful analysis on these arrowheads. When the numbers and results were brought to the table, the researchers also found it hard to believe.

The testing results discovered that the 3 faces of the arrowheads are almost perfect matches. This is an arrowhe that with a near perfect streamlined shape.

The curved faces of the arrowhead resembles the shape of a bullet. The bullet is thus shaped to reduce drag in flight. We thus have enough reasons to conclude that the Qin designed these trigonal pyramidal arrowhead for the same purpose.

The Qin, through experience, thus approaches aerodynamic studies of the modern age. This ancient arrowhead is a model, and it has the same goal as the modern bullet head. The Qin crossbow, along with its bolts, are thus at its time a piece of high technology weapons that allowed the Qin armies to have increaed offensive power.


The Qin used "pyramidal shaped" points in their bolts similar to a bodkin point arrows in British Longbows. They used this instead of a "winged" point, the once with the hook at the head that makes it difficult to pull out, due to their aerodynamic and armor penetrating ability. Aerodynamic means less drag for more power at longer range.

I don't have to remind you how the Bodkin point goes through plate armor in the Middle Ages. A crossbow is much more powerful

Bodkin point
arrow16a.jpeg


Terracotta Army Bronze Bolts Circa 210 BC

qin_crossbow2.jpg
 

zraver

Junior Member
VIP Professional
The trigonal pyramidal arrowheads has 3 sharp edges. At the moment of impact, the 3 sharp edges would create cutting powers that would allow the arrowhead to cut through armor and into the flesh.

The bolts were desinged to cut through leather as the article says. That is a completely different type of protection from laminated wood Scutums and lorica segmentata, steel or bronze brestplates or mail. You dont cut through metal you punch through it. vs laminate wood the broad 3 blades would create energy robbing friction and penetration even with a crossbow is doudtful excpet at very close range where the slow rate of fire means you get one shot and thats it.

vs leahter armored foes and exposed flesh and more importantly vs horseflesh.

Compare the bodkin tip with the Han version. You will notic ethe Bodkin doe snot sue cutting edges but instead relies on a needle like point similar to a sabots dart.

From wikipedia

The bodkin point is an uncomplicated design, and its origins are lost in history. Although the bodkin came into its own as a means of penetrating armour, it is equally likely that it was originally designed either for extended range or as a cheaper and simpler alternative to the broadhead, and that its armour-piercing properties were a welcome side-effect.

Whatever the case, it was swiftly determined on the Medieval battlefield that a bodkin point could penetrate armour more effectively than a broadhead point. The broadhead tended to distribute the force of its impact over a greater area of armour, whereas the bodkin concentrated the arrow's kinetic energy on a single point. Furthermore, the cutting edges of the arrowhead acted as a brake whilst passing through the armour, wasting some of the impact force in order to cut a wide rend in the plate. Finally, the broadhead was relatively fragile, and would often break against armour or simply deflect off, as plate was designed as a glancing surface.

The typical bodkin was a square-section arrowhead, generally up to 4 1/2" long and 3/8" thick at its widest point, tapered down behind this initial "punch" shape in order to concentrate mass at the head of the arrow. The ability of the bodkin to penetrate armour was nonetheless limited by the skill and strength of the archer, and it could only defeat high-quality plate armour at short ranges. Such armour was relatively rare, however, and the majority of armoured soldiers fought in chainmail, leather, or even simple reinforced cloth brigandine. The bodkin point was also heavier and slightly more aerodynamic than a broadhead point.

The highlighted points are key, these ar eliabilities the Han points will face vs Roman metal armors.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
Idon't,

thank you seems the Han arrowheads were desinge dot defeat leather and flesh with cutting surfaces, not laminaed wood, and armor that requires a piercing tip.

Crobato,

Because this bolt storm is far more accurate and and more energy than any previous one before


The earlier volume will more than make up for any loss of accuracy. I also dispute your claim that non Chinese bows are the ancient equivalent of the A-bomb. Also thanks to IDont, it seesm you hav enon of those super bows jsut slow firing crossbows equipped with boltheads desinged to cut, not punch.

The arrow storm of the Mongols were unstoppable and the Europeans were much better armored than the Romans ever were.


1-The Mongols enjoyed a mobility advantage thanks to thier remudas tha tlet them stay out of range. Han cavalry won't. 2-The Mongols also had arrow head types not found in the Roman/Han era. 3- Almost a sleathal as the archers were the Mongol heavy cav who used the lance. 4- The proto-mongol Hunnish cavlary both side swill be using will not be near the level of the Mongols. 5- The Romans figure dout how to beat the Huns.

Excuse me but the Huns and the Han did use lances and halberds.

Sorry but the Mongols didn't really use heavy cavalry. They were predominantly light. The Chinese did use heavy cavalry from the 3 Kingdoms period but by the Tang Dynasty, they went back to using light cavalry. Reason? Because heavy cavalry can't keep up with the light cavalry, and when the Chinese stopped fighting among themselves, they had to fight Turkic and Mongolic opponents who were predominantly light cavalry.

I also have enough of your "super armor". The segmented armor used by the Romans were definitely vulnerable to arrow point, while chain and mail armor were more resistant. The Romans started using chain and mail armor among officers like Centurions, but could never afford using them on the rest of the infantry. Ultimately post Roman periodd, the chain and mail armor became predominant.

But even chain and mail armor are unable to stop arrows fired from Mongol bows.

Archery will still kill more than enough and leave the rest to the melee
troops.


According to Idont's articel your crossbowmen have a range of 500M. That gives them about 3 minutes or 6-12 volleys and then they are face to face with the legionaires, on the legionaires terms. the more Han infantry you add to protect your crossbowmen, the less the amount of each volley.

12 volleys are more than enough to kill a lot of people. That will be like 12 storms then.

I have repeatedly said both sides were equally skilled and dedicated and disciplined. But melee is the Roman style of war. Thier armor, tactics, and weapons wer ethe finest in the ancient world for an upclose bloodletting. The Romans wer enot out teched as you claim. The Gladius did not need a folding and forging. It was a short very heavy stabbing weapon not a fencing sword. it was thick and could as easly be used as an axe as a stabbinf weapon. The Imperial Macedonians were horrified by the wounds the Gladius left in it's victims. It is a historicla fac tthat until the maxim machine gun the gladius killed more people than any other weapon in the history of warfare.

beisdes a sword perfectly desinged for their tactics, they had the strongest shield of the ancient world, that also doubled as a weapon. They also deprived thier enemies front ranks of thier sheilds via the pilum. This nasty javelin rendered sheild useless allowing the legion to impact exposed infantry and create a crush of bodies that unhinged their foes. The push then stab then push then stab system was as scientificaly developed as anything anywhere on earth at the time.

The Han applied their industry to war, war was Romes industry

And you didn't think the Han wasn't good in close combat? They were a complete force---they were good both in close combat and ranged combat. And yes, they have the finest weapons of the ancient world, and I would easily put these weapons above the Gladius by the simple fact these were made of steel.

For what it's worth, the Romans only managed to build their swords out of wrought iron.

The Han managed a few metallurgical breakthroughs. First they managed to make cast iron which is tougher than wrought iron. Then they managed to develop carbon steel, and used techniques that were not matched in the West until Bessemer learned about it from the Chinese in 1845. Then they learned to use folded steel and to forge steel. Though the Han started with bronze and iron weapons, by 2 to 3AD, they were using steel weapons. I am willing to bet that against wooden shields.

The Han isn't jsut wearing leather, but scalar armor consisting of metal plates (see above) with leather underneath. So in effect, their armor is two layered. In addition to that, they wore trousers, which kept them warm and yet mobile. When it comes to one on one fighting, the advantages fall to the Han because they carry less weight and are generally more comfortable with what they wear, while having a metallurgical advantage.

No they didn't. In fact Darius repeatedly failed to defeat the Scythians. Furthermore, I doubt that Scythian bows would match the drawstrength of Mongol bows given the lack of ear extensions. Some Chinese stories account their bows being as strong as 200lbs of draw though there may be some hyperbole.

The Parthians are of Scythian decent and I use the terms interchangably. And Rome did indeed face them and win. They lost as well but the victories prove that arrow storms nad horsemen were not the end all and be all of combat.

The Parthians have one technological advantage, but they lacked the economic, tactical and strategic superiority of the Romans to exploit that technological advantage. The Han won't be the same.

The Romans could probably deal with an army that have one of these innovations alone. Maybe the composite recurve bow. Or maybe just a crossbow army alone. Or maybe deal an infantry force with better metallurgy. But not something when alll these elements are put together, into a very single minded and determined force that is every bit as equal of your discipline and professionalism, and are backed by a sophisticated understanding of both tactics and strategy. And to top it all, the Han were also numerically superior (thought not against the Huns though).

For all its worth, the Han fell not because of invasions, but because of internal divisions, and because of generals and warlords like Cao Cao and Liu Bei. And while the Han and their successors lost their share of battles, a major Chinese capital would never fall to the hands of an invader till the Mongols came.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top