Sorry but the Mongols didn't really use heavy cavalry
sorry but...
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.
The lorica Segmentata was overlaping metal bands so that blows were deflected downward. Now why would they segment thier armor so present a weakness to the very tactics they themselves used (the upward thrust), to defeat arrowsand missiles, this is why roman helmets also had a brim to cover the neck and brow.
The Lorica segmentata is superior to mail vs misisles. mail is primarily designed dot resist slashing attacks. Although it would afford superior protection vs han bolts comapred to leather.
12 volleys are more than enough to kill a lot of people. That will be like 12 storms then.
no it will be either a widely dispesed storm or 12 volleys. Archers can keep up a rate of fire that is a true storm. crossbows cannot.
And you didn't think the Han wasn't good in close combat?
Compared ot the Romans they were school children. They used lighter weapons, lighter armor, did not use large sheilds, mixed weapondry, relied on conscripts, and did not march in step vs Volunteers with years of training and service, scientifically desinged armor, weapons, and tactics so that allthree complemented the other into a leathal killing machine, led by men they trusted not just feared. it's not even a contest in hand to hand
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.
You might want to try on a kilt and some lorica segmentata and then put on some trousers and don some studded leather armor. The Roman armor is not heavier and the rang eof movement in a kilt is greater than trousers. You ar eprojjecting your own clothing tastes into the argument. The Roman soldier was every bit as comftrable in a kilt as a Han soldie rin his trousers, And the Legion did not have to break ranks to take a leak either.
and the metallugical advantage is not material. No armor used by the Han could stop Gladius's thrust so it was perfectly capable of doing it's job.
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).
The Han likewise never faced an army so finely tuned and trained as the Romans. besides the best infantry and infantry tactics, they had engieers, the best ability to fortify or lay seige, ballsita, onegars, slingers, recurve horn bow archers, light and heavy cavalry, ohh wait thats a total force damn....
If the two sides met in the middle the numbers would be roughly the same.
You keep thinking beucase of a few Han advantages in variosu feild they were superior. This is mistaken, the Romans were every bit as advanced if in different areas. The Han were inovators, the Roman's were engieers.
Rome took over large parts of 3 continents against mutiple empires who in turn had time to try and develop anti-Roman tactics and all failed to find a solution for the legions. Rome did not lose her edge until she lost her Italian borne legionaires, even Attilla was beaten by the Romans.
For every advantage the han enjoy the Romans have one of thier own and vice versa.
sorry but...
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.
The lorica Segmentata was overlaping metal bands so that blows were deflected downward. Now why would they segment thier armor so present a weakness to the very tactics they themselves used (the upward thrust), to defeat arrowsand missiles, this is why roman helmets also had a brim to cover the neck and brow.
The Lorica segmentata is superior to mail vs misisles. mail is primarily designed dot resist slashing attacks. Although it would afford superior protection vs han bolts comapred to leather.
12 volleys are more than enough to kill a lot of people. That will be like 12 storms then.
no it will be either a widely dispesed storm or 12 volleys. Archers can keep up a rate of fire that is a true storm. crossbows cannot.
And you didn't think the Han wasn't good in close combat?
Compared ot the Romans they were school children. They used lighter weapons, lighter armor, did not use large sheilds, mixed weapondry, relied on conscripts, and did not march in step vs Volunteers with years of training and service, scientifically desinged armor, weapons, and tactics so that allthree complemented the other into a leathal killing machine, led by men they trusted not just feared. it's not even a contest in hand to hand
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.
You might want to try on a kilt and some lorica segmentata and then put on some trousers and don some studded leather armor. The Roman armor is not heavier and the rang eof movement in a kilt is greater than trousers. You ar eprojjecting your own clothing tastes into the argument. The Roman soldier was every bit as comftrable in a kilt as a Han soldie rin his trousers, And the Legion did not have to break ranks to take a leak either.
and the metallugical advantage is not material. No armor used by the Han could stop Gladius's thrust so it was perfectly capable of doing it's job.
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).
The Han likewise never faced an army so finely tuned and trained as the Romans. besides the best infantry and infantry tactics, they had engieers, the best ability to fortify or lay seige, ballsita, onegars, slingers, recurve horn bow archers, light and heavy cavalry, ohh wait thats a total force damn....
If the two sides met in the middle the numbers would be roughly the same.
You keep thinking beucase of a few Han advantages in variosu feild they were superior. This is mistaken, the Romans were every bit as advanced if in different areas. The Han were inovators, the Roman's were engieers.
Rome took over large parts of 3 continents against mutiple empires who in turn had time to try and develop anti-Roman tactics and all failed to find a solution for the legions. Rome did not lose her edge until she lost her Italian borne legionaires, even Attilla was beaten by the Romans.
For every advantage the han enjoy the Romans have one of thier own and vice versa.
