Rome vs Han China

interesting comparison,

Han

Cavalry apparently gained in importance during the Han, but the uses to which it was put perhaps did not change very much. In the army of figurines found in YangjiawanP the infantry still greatly outnumbers the cavalry--by approximately 2,000 to 600--but whether this ratio of three to one was typical of Han armies is not clear.48 Some of the cavalrymen are said to be depicted as wearing armor, but there is no information as to their numbers."" Some of the cavalrymen carry quivers on their backs.

If this ratio is right (1-3) and ther eis no reason for it not to be based on logisitcs and cost then just over 1/3 was mounted, assuming another 1/3 devoted to crossbows/engineers etc the total force is 2/3rds foot and 1/3 rd infantry of all types. This makes the legions with thier marching in step decidely faster.



Augustus' military policies proved sound and cost effective, and were generally followed by his successors. These emperors would carefully add new legions, as circumstances required or permitted, until the strength of the standing army stood at around 30 legions. With each legion having 4,000–6000 legionaries usually supported by an equal number of auxiliary troops,



Only half the Roman military was heavy infantry, the remaining half was archers, skirmishers, cavalry, and engineers. Suprisngly-The Romans used about the same amount of cavalrry as the Han with up to three ala quingenaria (literally, "wing of five hundred") per legion thats 1500 mounted troopers for ever 4-6,000 hvy infantry.

Both armies are obviously infantry heavy and using a combined arms aproach.

The Romans give up raned firepower in archery, steel, and some tactical mobility, but gain it in shock power (Roman cavalry had lancers), close infantry combat, training, motivation, engineering, and durability.



According the above link the Han infantry only seved for 2 years and was conscripted and unpaid, did not use swords, or sheilds and whose protection wa slimite dot the torso and a boiled felt cap. Man for man they cannot compete with a veteran volunteer based proffesional with an average service life of 10 years, who has heavy armor, finely tuned tactics, et al.

("A civilization is better because it has mass production?" ... Where did that come from? Etc).

Click to expand...

It actually does matter because you won't be able to execute your technology into the numbers that matter.

Steel can easily be discovered accidentally, and anyone would eventually find out about it, but without the blast furnaces in order to produce sufficient amounts of them in high quantity at the affordable costs and at the quality that matters, it all becomes nothing more than an observation.

The Romans understood the principle of the crossbow, but without the ability to mass produce the precise metal trigger mechanisms that is the heart of the crossbow, you won't go far either. Again, the key to this is the same thing above, the blast furnace.

Towards the end of the Han dynasty, and still 200 years before Atilla, the mass production of the metal stirrup was also made possible by the blast furnace.

(Roman cavalry had lancers),

Click to expand...

The Han have cavalry that uses the spear, the dagger-axe or ge and the halberd. But most importantly was the invention of the dao, or the single edged curved broadsword.

What if another Sun Tzu is leading the Han army?

Click to expand...

One of the most notable things about the Qin army is how commoners could rise and become generals in the army, unlike some other cultures where these positions are taken up by politicians (consuls) and nobles. Military positions have become non hereditary, and makes the miltiary less prone to a screwup by an incompentent noble. Starting with the Han, the rise of Chinese civil system where government officials have to pass through rigid civil exams also have an influence in the military.

crobato said:

(Earlier Quote: "A civilization is better because it has mass production?" ... Where did that come from? Etc").
It actually does matter because you won't be able to execute your technology into the numbers that matter.

Click to expand...

What I meant is that a civilization is not automatically 'better' because it has mass production. Anyway, if your technology depends on manufacturing hundreds of thousands of items that have to be 99+% the same, then yes, it would probably be more efficient to have mass production.
But why does this matter regarding our view of the Roman / Han army? Does not having mass production make a medieval knight less deadly? Does having mass production make a thousand arrows designed to defeat horsemen more deadly against armored infantry?

Besides, humans have always been excellent in finding the best ways to match their available resources, technologies and demands. Nowadays we find it hard to believe how you can run a civilization without electricity, hydraulics or cog wheels ... yet the Romans (and Han) managed pretty well without them, even though all three inventions were known (and used) 2000 years ago in the Mediterean. So simply overlaying modern day assumptions and knowledge to qualify another era will not tell you anything about the effectiveness and efficiency of that era in those days.

BJ

redarmy2004 said:

This topic is certainly interesting. [...] The bow/crossbow advantage has been well illustrated by previous posts. [...] How long will it take for the Romans to change their tactics is another matter altogether. [...] I thinks some discussion on respective economies to sustain the war will be an interesting angle.

Click to expand...

I suggest that the economic part and the war should be subject of a separate thread. Let's focus on the battle itself.

Any (cross)bow advantages illustrated, mostly show how effective they were against cavalry armies, so the verdict on their effectiveness against professional armored infantry is still out (although Swiss pikeman - no shields, only front ranks armored - managed pretty well against combined onslaughts of firearms, crossbows, longbows, organ guns, field artilley and charging knights).

You could of course say that with their centuries of warfare-experience, the fact that the Romans kept to their tactics (especially the way they incorporated the use of reserves as standard in their formations) means those tactics were proven and efficient. Do not mistake this for the army being inflexible during battle ... they were very flexible.
The Romans were not that ineffective against cavalry armies either ... even deep inside Parthia they fought off Parthian cavalry, merely by positioning themselves well (on a hill ... this tactic would also be successfull against missile-heavy armies, as it is notoriously difficult to get massed, co-ordinated shooters on target against up- or down hill troops). They just had difficulties finishing off a cavalry army, as it could outrun the Romans when defeated.
Btw, Roman infantry were not lacking in ranged weaponry, they merely focussed on short range. Why? Because then the duration between missile impact and melee start was shortest, thereby increasing the effect of the missile's fire (enemy has no time to recuperate or to dress ranks etc).

My idea: Romans on a hill, flanks protected by caltrops and other obstacles, possibly one flank resting on a wooded area. Refuse battle on any other field, but keep pushing onward from water source to water source (always building up march camps of course).
During battle, use the light troops to screen against the crossbows and have some fast auxilia as a 'Rapid Reaction' force to dislodge any crossbow units coming too close where they're not supposed to come. At the same time lure other units forward (many ways to do that) and finish them off in mini-encirclements.
Heavy infantry should be deployed as open as possible, to minimize ranged casualties (it's a matter of seconds to close up for melee) ... maybe even use some shield-wall decoys. On the flanks, leave open some routes for the enemy cavalry to join the infantry fun, but in such a way that they get boxed in by their own and the (now charging) Roman inf.
I would leave the Roman cav as a last reserve, commit them only for pursuit in the aftermath as they will be hard to regroup and extricate from the battle itself.

How about those Han?

BeeJay

The legions would often form into a hollow sqaure vs cavalry armies placing missiels, ballista and cav in the center. given the limited rang eof the cross bow vs infanty in the direct fire role, the cavalry could be used to sortie sout of the sqaures to bust up concentrations of crossbow men adn ride them down, this might force the han cavalry to try and close to save them, bringing them under the guns of Roman misisle troops.

Crobato, the dao is effective for riding down fleeing troops, but it suffers the same draw backs the spatha does in that regard (not curved) so it's only real advantage would be force on force if they went melee with the roman cavalry. Lances are the ultimate shock weapon of the ancient world

Dao is effective even in headlong rushes, and the broadswords keep getting bigger and bigger until they can slice another rider in half. Han use the Ge as both lance and an axe. In other words they can use it to thrust like a lance, then turn it around like an axe. Later this evolved into the halberd.

You could of course say that with their centuries of warfare-experience, the fact that the Romans kept to their tactics (especially the way they incorporated the use of reserves as standard in their formations) means those tactics were proven and efficient.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the Egyptians also kept their own tactics for several centuries too. And so did the Greeks. You can attest to your Swiss pikemen for that. In the end, it does not mean that such tactics are superior above others, just as the Romans did to the Greek tactics.

The Han-Hun cavalry itself was a form of warfare that evolved from the Scythians, and both the Han and the Huns took it to the next level. And in the centuries, this itself became the prototype for Asian cavalry armies to come, reaching its ultimate expression under the Mongols. They mowed down any armored army that came across the path.

What I meant is that a civilization is not automatically 'better' because it has mass production. Anyway, if your technology depends on manufacturing hundreds of thousands of items that have to be 99+% the same, then yes, it would probably be more efficient to have mass production.
But why does this matter regarding our view of the Roman / Han army? Does not having mass production make a medieval knight less deadly? Does having mass production make a thousand arrows designed to defeat horsemen more deadly against armored infantry?

Click to expand...

You are taking an awfully naive view. Mass production literally won World War II.

In the ancient world, the most important person is the blacksmith, and if you don't have enough blacksmiths, you cannot make enough armor, spears and swords for your army. Even when entire cities are being systematically decimated, you always capture the blacksmiths and their families to take them home.

If you don't have enough mass production or blacksmiths or skilled labor, you wno't have enough medieval knights to begin with.

Any (cross)bow advantages illustrated, mostly show how effective they were against cavalry armies, so the verdict on their effectiveness against professional armored infantry is still out (although Swiss pikeman - no shields, only front ranks armored - managed pretty well against combined onslaughts of firearms, crossbows, longbows, organ guns, field artilley and charging knights).

Click to expand...

That's not exactly true. Pikemen formations did suffer defeats under archers and crossbowmen followed by assaults of mounted knights.

During battle, use the light troops to screen against the crossbows and have some fast auxilia as a 'Rapid Reaction' force to dislodge any crossbow units coming too close where they're not supposed to come. At the same time lure other units forward (many ways to do that) and finish them off in mini-encirclements.

Click to expand...

That won't be a good tactic as the Hans were master skimishers. Any light troops will be matched by their own, and they're every bit as good and better in individual hand to hand combat. Furthermore any opposing light troops will be decimated by the archer cavalry.

As often Han skimishers can be expected to use the repeating crossbow, and against light troops, that can be pretty devastating.

Crobato, the early Dao does not have enough of a curve to be a truly effective cavalry weapon, steel or not. Curved blades allow the blade to use the lever effect to free itself from the body of a foe as the horseman rides past. This is a handicap almost all ancient armies faced and cannot be made to magically dissapear for the Han.

Also a horse mounted polearm unlike an infantry weapon cannot be both a spear and an axe. To much weight at the tip unbalances the weapon, Look at this link the weapons suitable for use as a lance lack a blad eusable as an axe. As niehter side has stirrupos yet (322 CE fir China, 500 CE for europe) balance is critical.

The Han-Hun cavalry itself was a form of warfare that evolved from the Scythians, and both the Han and the Huns took it to the next level.

And Roman anti-cavalry tactics also evolved

reaching its ultimate expression under the Mongols. They mowed down any armored army that came across the path.

To be fair to both the Roman and Han, the Mongols never faced an opponeant as organised or dedicated as these two empires.


You are taking an awfully naive view. Mass production literally won World War II.

And was useless in WW1, Vietnam, etc. Even when Rome lost army after army to Hannibal it neve ran out of weapons.

That won't be a good tactic as the Hans were master skimishers. Any light troops will be matched by their own, and they're every bit as good and better in individual hand to hand combat. Furthermore any opposing light troops will be decimated by the archer cavalry.

That is rathe racist don't you think? 2 year enlistment unpaid conscripts vs 20 enlistment volunteers who are recruited for thier specialties.

As often Han skimishers can be expected to use the repeating crossbow, and against light troops, that can be pretty devastating.


So can slings (superior range) and javalins (supoerior leathaility) and neither sides light troops are really armored all that well

I think it still boils down to the commander, who has the commander that can get the other fight on its terms wins.

The Han enjoy some signifigant advantages- mounted tactical mobility, silk under garments, trousers, more bows, crossbows, numbers (2-1 or so), steel

The Romans enjoy some signifigant advantages- foot tactical mobility, heavier armor, more refined tactics equipment, and doctrine, better training, superior engineers and seige warfare capabilites, superior motivation/morale, heavy cavalry

The Han suffer some serious disadvantages- arrowheads designed to counter leather not metal armors, the crossbows slow rate of fire, lack of real melee combat doctrine

The Romans suffer some serious disadvantages- shortage of horse archers, vulnerability to cavalry strikes, overemphasis on close combat

Crobato, the early Dao does not have enough of a curve to be a truly effective cavalry weapon, steel or not. Curved blades allow the blade to use the lever effect to free itself from the body of a foe as the horseman rides past. This is a handicap almost all ancient armies faced and cannot be made to magically dissapear for the Han.

Click to expand...

Compared to what you have then, the early Dao remains far better, being the only single edged sworth then. You're pretty much comparing it with double edged swords, whose use is literally double edged to the cavalry user.

For what its worth, the dao even began to replace the jian as the primary infantry weapon, and in its various forms, are sometimes nearly straight, because they're used to stabbing as much as slashing. So the early dao---whose forms you can still see expressed in various nihon-to---is a multirole weapon.

Also a horse mounted polearm unlike an infantry weapon cannot be both a spear and an axe. To much weight at the tip unbalances the weapon, Look at this link

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

the weapons suitable for use as a lance lack a blad eusable as an axe. As niehter side has stirrupos yet (322 CE fir China, 500 CE for europe) balance is critical.

Click to expand...

When I meant spear, the Chinese themselves use the spear not just as a throwing weapon but one for hand to hand combat.

And you keep forgeting that the Han keep both a professional army (introduced by the Qin) and a conscript army.

And Roman anti-cavalry tactics also evolved

Click to expand...

If you actually do, you would have evolved pike formations. The thing with the Romans, only the Parthians was the exception as a cavalry army, and even that was only a short period---Parthia itself was a keypoint for silk to Rome, and they did more trading with each other than fighting. Everyone else they had to fight against were mainly infantry armies, and you have to model your army to whom you fight the most against.

The Parthians lacked a strong infantry army to back up their cavalry. Hence their failing lies in they're not a complete army. The Han isn't the same.

To be fair to both the Roman and Han, the Mongols never faced an opponeant as organised or dedicated as these two empires.

Click to expand...

To be fair with the Mongols, a stronger opponent inevitably only means defeating them will take just a bit longer, but remains inevitable. The Mongols were the closest equivalent of the medieval world to a Panzer division. They're also the equivalent of the Borg, since they would also assimilate every useful technology, soldier, engineer and blacksmith they would come across, creating a joint army who takes the best of everything they meet.

Don't underestimate the medieval Crusaders and their Moslem equivalents too. Both of whom fight as complete armies, well rounded with archery and artillery, infantry on all levels, with the armored and stirruped cavalry as the main centerpiece that can handle bow and arrow, lance, and sword. To add icing to the cake, both are extremely motivated to a fault by religion, and dying for your failth isn't a strong thing for both the Romans and the Han. I would wager both against any Roman or Han army. What the Mongols beat happened to be complete and well rounded armies manned by near fanatics.

In terms of leadership and command organization, for what it's worth, the Romans, and that goes all the way to the medieval world, is often let down by incompetent leaders who obtained their position by birthright and family blood, and are more often politicians with an agenda. The Romans, while they may have more professional soldiers, may also have more opportunities for incompetent leadership to rise to the top. The Hans on the other hand, have a much better system to screen out incompetents with their civil examinations and a meritocratic approach to the military and government that does not favor birthright.

One of the strengths of the Mongols is that they would take anyone, even among the ranks of their enemies, the best leaders and the best soldiers, to join their armies. If I remember, one of Genghiz Khan's best generals, perhaps his right wing man, was a former enemy who nearly killed him.

crobato said:

I'm pretty sure the Egyptians also kept their own tactics for several centuries too. [...] You can attest to your Swiss pikemen for that.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Both their tactics were used and copied by most armies after them. Even the Han pretty much did what the Egyptians had been doing before them. And the Swiss tactics were still being used in WW1 (and yes, by that time they needed to be adapted once again).

crobato said:

... Asian cavalry armies to come, reaching its ultimate expression under the Mongols. They mowed down any armored army that came across the path.

Click to expand...

That's a new one ... the military history books I read about them, say that they won their battles by planning and being disciplined. European knight armies were not wiped out by their bows, but by being outmaneuvred, after which their routers were allowed to escape to a killing field.
I.e. discipline, planning and tactics, NOT weapon systems.

crobato said:

You are taking an awfully naive view. Mass production literally won World War II.

Click to expand...

I am? I had the impression we are talking about 2000 years earlier, aren't we? That's what I meant with not overlaying modern day assumptions on an earlier civilization ...

crobato said:

If you don't have enough mass production or blacksmiths or skilled labor, you wno't have enough medieval knights to begin with.

Click to expand...

Probably we're using different definitions here. To me mass poduction is: one single and identical item being produced in the many thousands, usually in one or only a few places. Cast iron from molds is a good example. Having 1000 blacksmiths across the country make 10 000 swords is not the same.
I had the impression that you were talking about te first, because the second was present in the Roman empire as well (as in many others). Anyway, neither is relevant to our battlefield discussion.

crobato said:

That's not exactly true. Pikemen formations did suffer defeats under archers and crossbowmen followed by assaults of mounted knights.

Click to expand...

Oh come on ... 'the exception that proves the rule' ... of course pikemen suffered defeats ... against any kind of foe, as did Han cavalry or Roman heavies or who-ever. But in the vast majority of cases, pikes (or similar troops) were not shot from the battlefield, not even the shieldless Swiss.

crobato said:

That won't be a good tactic as the Hans were master skimishers. Any light troops will be matched by their own, and they're every bit as good and better in individual hand to hand combat. Furthermore any opposing light troops will be decimated by the archer cavalry.
As often Han skimishers can be expected to use the repeating crossbow, and against light troops, that can be pretty devastating.

Click to expand...

Ah ... the strong 'master', 'better' and 'devestating' arguments again. Btw, I did not say that Han would not have skirmishers. The more, the better! Because that only thickens the screen in front of the Han crossbows, denying them a clear target opportunity. You can read anywhere how undisciplined Revolutionary French used such tactics to 'devestate' drilled and disciplined shooters, by charging them out of such a thick screen ... so actually the Han master-skirmishers might well prove devestating to their own crossbows.

Crobato, I would like to see you mention something relevant about the Han tactics instead of countering anything that is not pro-Han with arguments like 'you have an awfully naive view' or 'Han were better because ... they were better.' It would be nice if we can keep an interesting discussion going on, where everybody involved can learn a new thing or two.

BeeJay

zraver said:

The legions would often form into a hollow sqaure vs cavalry armies placing missiels, ballista and cav in the center. given the limited rang eof the cross bow vs infanty in the direct fire role, the cavalry could be used to sortie sout of the sqaures to bust up concentrations of crossbow men adn ride them down, this might force the han cavalry to try and close to save them, bringing them under the guns of Roman misisle troops.

Click to expand...

The standard square formation is good against cavalry to guard your flanks and rear. Not a very good tactic against crossbowmen on foot because they can concentrate their fire on only 1/4th of your army.

The Romans used this tactic at Carrhae and lost. Li Guan faced the exact same situation in 121 when he was surrounded by a xiongnu force 10 times its size. Yet, his army was able to kill even more xiongnu than the amount of men he lost. The reason been that the Han army had superior firepower, and Li Guan's cavalry was able to charge right into the xiongnu rank and pull back.(opposed to Crassus's cavalry which were inexperienced enough to be outmaneurvred and ambushed).

The Han never have a fixed composition on their army like the Romans have. The Roman army always consists of a core heavy infantry Legion and an Auxilia levy of supporting troops from allied states or non citizens. The Han never had such constraints. They formed their army to meet the requirements. An example of this is during one of Emperor Wu's expeditions against the Xiongnu saw all cavalry army.

If knowledge about how the Romans fight is known ahead of time, then adjustment will be made to the composition of the Han force.

The Han army typically attacks in two separate columns (Sun Tzu's addage of marching dispersed and fighting concentrated). This is also a check on the Emperor's power so that no one general could be powerful.

The Han attack against the Xiongnu in 119 BC saw two invasion columns under Generals Wei Qing and Hou Qibing each with a main force of about 50,000 cavalry and 100,000 conscripts for support and guard the LOC.

Beejay,

The setting of the battle and the quality of the leadership plays a greater part to who actually wins the battle than arms and armor. Having said that, if I was the Han general I would use my superior cavalry to dictate the pace of the battle and only fight on the ground of my own choosing. Fighting in a small constrained space against Rome is not to my advantage. My cavalry will harrass and distrupt the Roman formation and attempt to route the Auxilia cavalry and missile troops.

I will deploy like so:

First Rank: 3 ranks of Crossbow men
Second Rank: 3 Ranks of Archers
3rd- 4th Rank: Heavy infantry armed with ji, sword and sheild. Contrary to popular belief, Han heavy infantry fight with large tower shield as well. The link shows a Qin era bronze sheild, low level infantry wore laminated wood. Note how it is shaped to deflect blows to the side

Cavalry at the wings

The Roman attack usually begins like this:
Slow march towards the enemy to maintain formation, followed by two volleys of Pilla, and finally a charge.

To counter the first two ranks will fire (direct fire-crossbow) and arched fire (archers) on the front ranks. Once the missile troops run out of ammo they retreat behind the third line and reload their quivers.

The heavy infantry will then engage the Rome line.

The crossbow men will then move to the flanks and a little forward to hot the flanks of the enemy. (similar to how longbowmen were arrange)

Cavalry charges the rear after routing the Auxilia cavalry.