Rome vs Han China
- Thread starter IDonT
- Start date
- Status
The Romans had much greater economic and strategic depth than the Parthians who lacked the infantry and numbers to exploit their cavalry. It does not mean that the Romans were technologically superior in that aspect just as the Allies winning World War II is not proof that the Allied piston engined fighter is superior to German jet engined fighters.
You are not in the position to say Plutarch is fantasizing or not. The whole text reads like it is trying to tell the story as it is. Your post sums up as simply said, if the historical evidence does not match your idealized expectations, then the evidence cannot be true.
As for wounding vs. piercing arrows, your ideas of arrow balllistics is really weird. The arrows are indeed shaped for flight, the wounding part is only at teh back of the arrow, so it tears flesh when pulled. On the three sided bolt, it is the three pointed corners tha provide the area of contact, not the three faces. Try working with some nails once.
You keep forgeting that the Han also has wooden shields and these weapons were meant to penetrate them. Let's add that leg drawn crossbows can manage draw strengths much higher (over 300-350lbs) than the Han/Hun composite recurved bows (160 to over 200lbs), which by design is already longer and has extended ear lengths that increase the draw strength from Scythian/Parthian bows.
Plutarch's account on Carrhae
But the Parthians now stood at long intervals from one another and began to shoot their arrows from all sides at once, not with any accurate aim (for the dense formation of the Romans would not suffer an archer to miss even if he wished it), but making vigorous and powerful shots from bows which were large and mighty and curved so as to discharge their missiles with great force. 6At once, then, the plight of the Romans was a grievous one; for if they kept their ranks, they were wounded in great numbers, and if they tried to come to close quarters with the enemy, they were just as far from effecting anything and suffered just as much. For the Parthians shot as they fled, and next to the Scythians, they do this most effectively; and it is a very clever thing to seek safety while still fighting, and to take away the shame of flight.
Thus many died, and the survivors also were incapacitated for fighting. And when Publius urged them to charge the enemy's mail-clad horsemen, they showed him that their hands were riveted to their shields and their feet nailed through and through to the ground, so that they were helpless either for flight or for self-defence.
Then, as the enemy got to work, their light cavalry rode round on the flanks of the Romans and shot them with arrows, while the mail-clad horsemen in front, plying their long spears, kept driving them together into a narrow space, except those who, to escape death from the arrows, made bold to rush desperately upon their foes. 2These did little damage, but met with a speedy death from great and fatal wounds, since the spear which the Parthians thrust into the horses was heavy with steel, and often had impetus enough to pierce through two men at once.
But the Parthians now stood at long intervals from one another and began to shoot their arrows from all sides at once, not with any accurate aim (for the dense formation of the Romans would not suffer an archer to miss even if he wished it), but making vigorous and powerful shots from bows which were large and mighty and curved so as to discharge their missiles with great force. 6At once, then, the plight of the Romans was a grievous one; for if they kept their ranks, they were wounded in great numbers, and if they tried to come to close quarters with the enemy, they were just as far from effecting anything and suffered just as much. For the Parthians shot as they fled, and next to the Scythians, they do this most effectively; and it is a very clever thing to seek safety while still fighting, and to take away the shame of flight.
Thus many died, and the survivors also were incapacitated for fighting. And when Publius urged them to charge the enemy's mail-clad horsemen, they showed him that their hands were riveted to their shields and their feet nailed through and through to the ground, so that they were helpless either for flight or for self-defence.
Then, as the enemy got to work, their light cavalry rode round on the flanks of the Romans and shot them with arrows, while the mail-clad horsemen in front, plying their long spears, kept driving them together into a narrow space, except those who, to escape death from the arrows, made bold to rush desperately upon their foes. 2These did little damage, but met with a speedy death from great and fatal wounds, since the spear which the Parthians thrust into the horses was heavy with steel, and often had impetus enough to pierce through two men at once.
We have to remember that Plutarch was not actually there and wrote about it 150 years later. There would not be many (if any) Roman survivors that could have told anyone the tale. To me it reads like most three paragraph texts about the British at Waterloo: popularizing, generalizing and without (military) historical value, but still a good read, fit to be turned into a Hollywood (or XBox) action scene.
The same (styled) Roman army defeated the Parhtians in later battles, which seems far fetched if the Parthians could so easily rivet the Roman’s arms to shields and nail their feet to the ground.
Thanks for the Han-soldier picture. Is this a normal infantry man (armor and weapon like)? And is his the normal crossbow? This crossbow lacks a shoulder butt ... doesn't this greatly reduce its accuracy?
I can’t understand Crobato’s argument that Han crossbows were designed to pierce Han shields. I mean, likewise, the shields would have been designed to stop the crossbow bolts. What does this (and Han armor, being designed likewise) tell us about their crossbows?
BeeJay
Spin, spin, spin.
It still remains that Plutarch is much closer to the time era, and if you want to disregard his statements, you might as well disregard the statements of all historians from that era. One can also say that what happened in Carrhae was so horrific, people can tell stories of it 150 years after. Or Plutarch may be transplanting current events happening at his time to that in Carrhae, and in either case, does not disprove the vulnerability of Roman shields and armor to high powered arrows.
Let us also remind you that winning a war or some battles does not disprove technological superiority of a weapon one way or another. The Germans have superior antitank cannons in both tank and stationary use over the Allies, and yet they lost World War II. The US is naturally technologically superior to the Vietnamese, but who won that one too. The Allied forces were technologically superior over the NK/PVA armies in Korea but that ended up as a stalemate.
Crossbows come in a variety, some have shoulder butts and gunsights. Some artist depictions of the crossbows may not be accurate because the wood would have rotten away in many ancient crossbows leaving them looking like without a butt. As the fact that unlike the gun, the crossbow does not recoil, you can still hold it in one hand and shoot accurately.
Let me put it this way. I doubt that any wooden shields would have stopped a metal crossbow bolt with the draw strength of 3 to 6 dan, which is range of draw strength of Chinese crossbows. Each dan is about 60lbs of draw strength, which is considered the minimum draw strength for a military bow, and a recurved bow is generally about 2 to 3 dan though some stories suggest up to 4 dan. Its common to see 50 to 75lbs of draw strength for military bow users, and 100lbs is considered quite high. The long bows in Agincourt has a draw strength of 80 to 120lbs.
Last edited:
The problem is not my expectations, but Plutarch
It still remains that Plutarch is much closer to the time era, and if you want to disregard his statements, you might as well disregard the statements of all historians from that era.
You dont throw the baby out jsut the bath water. he was undoutably accurate in that Rome suffered it worst defeat ever. But when his fiction doe snot match the other evidence you sid ewith the evidence not the fiction
1- If the Romans were nailed to the floor so to speak how did Giaus rally 10,000 of them and manage a sucessful retreat?
2- you don't shoot arrows 6 at a time
3- Giaus later defeated the very same Parthian troops (minus thier general) in Syria
As for wounding vs. piercing arrows, your ideas of arrow balllistics is really weird. The arrows are indeed shaped for flight, the wounding part is only at teh back of the arrow, so it tears flesh when pulled. On the three sided bolt, it is the three pointed corners tha provide the area of contact, not the three faces. Try working with some nails once.
Your grasp of the situation on arrows vs sheilds, leaves alot to be desired
1- the tri-wedge shape presents a greater surface area on impact allowin gmor eof it's energy to be spread across a wider area. This is why the bodkin was a basically a nail on a shaft, to concentrate it's energy.
2- All three edges were sharpened via the sources the Han enthusiast presented. Straight edges tend to bind from friction when forced through wood. This is why saws have offset and varying sized teeth.
3- if Han bolts rendered sheidls useless sheilds would ahve fallen out of favor, they didn't so they obviously fullfilled some military use.
Let me put it this way. I doubt that any wooden shields would have stopped a metal crossbow bolt with the draw strength of 3 to 6 dan, which is range of draw strength of Chinese crossbows. Each dan is about 60lbs of draw strength, which is considered the minimum draw strength for a Chinese recurved composite bow, and a recurved bow is generally about 2 to 3 dan though some stories suggest up to 4 dan.
The higher the draw weight the more effort it takes to load, the more effort it takes to load the longer between volleys and the less mobile the formation.
Crossbows come in a variety, some have shoulder butts and gunsights. Some artist depictions of the crossbows may not be accurate because the wood would have rotten away in many ancient crossbows. As the fact that unlike the gun, the crossbow does not recoil, you can still hold it in one hand and shoot accurately.
Yes it does, and the bigger the draw the more the recoil, or would it be forcoil? Either way when the tension is released and the bows snaps forward there will be the transferance of energy requiring bracing for accurate fire. I am I am sure many others here have actually fired crossbows.
Technology
first you say the Han are superior becuase they have steel,now you say a technologically inferior army can defeat technology, which is it?
Beejay,
Thanks for the Han-soldier picture. Is this a normal infantry man (armor and weapon like)? And is his the normal crossbow? This crossbow lacks a shoulder butt ... doesn't this greatly reduce its accuracy?
No it is not accurate, the armor might be but only elite formations had metal, the rest had lamillar leather. The weapons are not possibly accurate the crossbow might be a hand crossbow but these only had a range of 80 yards and an effective rang eof much less. it wa sprobably missdrawn with artistic licence. Who ever drew that sword needs to be shown a real weapon of war. it lacks a cross guar dto protect the warriors hand sfrom enemy blows and his own momentum driving his hand forward onto the blade. You don't shod a trooper in metal and then have him cut his own fingers off.
However if the leangth is right,and based on Crobato's statements it is, then that man would ahve been slaughtere dvs the romans in close combat when tightly packed bodies prevented slashing attacks and the weapons leangth and non stabbing tip would have placed it at a disadvantage vs a legion.
It still remains that Plutarch is much closer to the time era, and if you want to disregard his statements, you might as well disregard the statements of all historians from that era.
You dont throw the baby out jsut the bath water. he was undoutably accurate in that Rome suffered it worst defeat ever. But when his fiction doe snot match the other evidence you sid ewith the evidence not the fiction
1- If the Romans were nailed to the floor so to speak how did Giaus rally 10,000 of them and manage a sucessful retreat?
2- you don't shoot arrows 6 at a time
3- Giaus later defeated the very same Parthian troops (minus thier general) in Syria
As for wounding vs. piercing arrows, your ideas of arrow balllistics is really weird. The arrows are indeed shaped for flight, the wounding part is only at teh back of the arrow, so it tears flesh when pulled. On the three sided bolt, it is the three pointed corners tha provide the area of contact, not the three faces. Try working with some nails once.
Your grasp of the situation on arrows vs sheilds, leaves alot to be desired
1- the tri-wedge shape presents a greater surface area on impact allowin gmor eof it's energy to be spread across a wider area. This is why the bodkin was a basically a nail on a shaft, to concentrate it's energy.
2- All three edges were sharpened via the sources the Han enthusiast presented. Straight edges tend to bind from friction when forced through wood. This is why saws have offset and varying sized teeth.
3- if Han bolts rendered sheidls useless sheilds would ahve fallen out of favor, they didn't so they obviously fullfilled some military use.
Let me put it this way. I doubt that any wooden shields would have stopped a metal crossbow bolt with the draw strength of 3 to 6 dan, which is range of draw strength of Chinese crossbows. Each dan is about 60lbs of draw strength, which is considered the minimum draw strength for a Chinese recurved composite bow, and a recurved bow is generally about 2 to 3 dan though some stories suggest up to 4 dan.
The higher the draw weight the more effort it takes to load, the more effort it takes to load the longer between volleys and the less mobile the formation.
Crossbows come in a variety, some have shoulder butts and gunsights. Some artist depictions of the crossbows may not be accurate because the wood would have rotten away in many ancient crossbows. As the fact that unlike the gun, the crossbow does not recoil, you can still hold it in one hand and shoot accurately.
Yes it does, and the bigger the draw the more the recoil, or would it be forcoil? Either way when the tension is released and the bows snaps forward there will be the transferance of energy requiring bracing for accurate fire. I am I am sure many others here have actually fired crossbows.
Technology
first you say the Han are superior becuase they have steel,now you say a technologically inferior army can defeat technology, which is it?
Beejay,
Thanks for the Han-soldier picture. Is this a normal infantry man (armor and weapon like)? And is his the normal crossbow? This crossbow lacks a shoulder butt ... doesn't this greatly reduce its accuracy?
No it is not accurate, the armor might be but only elite formations had metal, the rest had lamillar leather. The weapons are not possibly accurate the crossbow might be a hand crossbow but these only had a range of 80 yards and an effective rang eof much less. it wa sprobably missdrawn with artistic licence. Who ever drew that sword needs to be shown a real weapon of war. it lacks a cross guar dto protect the warriors hand sfrom enemy blows and his own momentum driving his hand forward onto the blade. You don't shod a trooper in metal and then have him cut his own fingers off.
However if the leangth is right,and based on Crobato's statements it is, then that man would ahve been slaughtere dvs the romans in close combat when tightly packed bodies prevented slashing attacks and the weapons leangth and non stabbing tip would have placed it at a disadvantage vs a legion.
***************************
Excuse me? The impact point is always the front point and what the wedge does is to further split open the fracture. This is not metal on metal, and the impact ballistics are not the same as it is on wood which fractures according to the arrangement of the fibers.
Why don't you ask the fundamental question why would you have to bother recurved bows and crossbows from 160lbs to 360lbs of draw strength when 50-80lbs are often enough for mlitary purposes and unarmored to medium armored troops.
The draw strength of these weapons are overkill by at least a multiplying factor of **2X to 6X** that is NECESSARY in taking down an unarmored to moderately armored targets.
Last edited by a moderator:
OK, let's: range. Out-range the other.
And possibly to make it easier to bring down the horses (who cares about the armored - or not - riders anyway?).
BeeJay
Not really. "Average" bow and arrow can kill horses. Armoring horses never turned out to be a lasting idea because of the expenditure needed, and the fact that horses are going to be slower and less comfortable for it. In the end, a slower but heavier cavalry does not prove as effective as a lightly to more moderately armored one.
If you're trying to outrange an opponent, then that opponent must have some nasty ranged bow and arrow themselves. As a result, you are in some ranged contest like you got weapons of today where X missile/cannon is trying to outrange Y missile/cannon.
A guy with a 300lb draw personal crossbow would have a modern analog of a soldier carrying an antitank cannon for a personal weapon.
Um NO?? While the string snaps forward, it counteracts the recoil which is the bow snapping backward.
Is that the same person writing this? Suddenly you got a major breakdown in spelling and grammar that seems inconsistent to other posts from the same handle.
Close pack formations and tightly pack bodies must be one hell of a way to win a war because I myself don't see the Romans use that as often as some people might portray it to be. It is inflexible. The Greeks were masters of it, and the Romans mastered the Greeks by taking advantage of that formation's own disadvantages.
If you're trying to outrange an opponent, then that opponent must have some nasty ranged bow and arrow themselves. As a result, you are in some ranged contest like you got weapons of today where X missile/cannon is trying to outrange Y missile/cannon.
A guy with a 300lb draw personal crossbow would have a modern analog of a soldier carrying an antitank cannon for a personal weapon.
Um NO?? While the string snaps forward, it counteracts the recoil which is the bow snapping backward.
Is that the same person writing this? Suddenly you got a major breakdown in spelling and grammar that seems inconsistent to other posts from the same handle.
Close pack formations and tightly pack bodies must be one hell of a way to win a war because I myself don't see the Romans use that as often as some people might portray it to be. It is inflexible. The Greeks were masters of it, and the Romans mastered the Greeks by taking advantage of that formation's own disadvantages.
Last edited:
**********
************
1- the han used shields and thus found them miltiarily viable
2- the Scutum was laminated wood and the glue would streangthen it, as would the multiple layers arranged cross grained
3- blades don't work on wood as they tend to bind
4- larger impact surfaces result in a less concentrated energy deleivery
Not really. "Average" bow and arrow can kill horses.
maybe from the side at close range with the arrow set up to slide between the ribs. From the front and top the horse has a tough hide and a mass of muscle and bone. Unless you hit the jugular that hors eis going to need a lot of arrows to go down, or a heavier bow/crossbow with bolts/arrows desinged to rend large amounts of flesh ohh wait just like the Han bolt heads which are not armor piercing, but rending.
A guy with a 300lb draw personal crossbow would have a modern analog of a soldier carrying an antitank cannon for a personal weapon.
he gets one shot that might or might not work agaisnt the ancient worlds version of an MBT
Um NO?? While the string snaps forward, it counteracts the recoil which is the bow snapping backward.
WTF what is pulling the strong forward? The bows snapping forward is what you cannot have the string in motion in a direction opposite of the force pulling on it.
To load a crossbow you winch the bows backward along the string to reach the trigger catch then you se tthe catch and load the bolt. When you pull the trigger releasing the string the bows snap forward pulling the string and bolt with it.
Close pack formations and tightly pack bodies must be one hell of a way to win a war because I myself don't see the Romans use that as often as some people might portray it to be.
well that is how they fought, they would overlap thier sheilds and on command would push with the scutum, turn it creating a gap and stab upward with the gladius. We still ahve Roman manuls at arms for this stuff.
Ohh BTW you jumped me for saying Plutarch was not 100% relaible and then turn around and say his description of massed infantry in not accurate.
It is inflexible. The Greeks were masters of it, and the Romans mastered the Greeks by taking advantage of that formation's own disadvantages.
1- the Romans had sub unit leaders and drill at a much smaller level than the greeks
2- practice, practice, practice you keep forgetting that these guys marched for liivng and had an average elangth of service in excess of 10 years.
vs the Imperial Macedonians the Romans pushed into the Phalanx locking the pike tips into the scutum and then side stepping and letting the next rank do the same, they split the phalanx this way and got inside the reach of the pike and went to work with thier gladius.
************
1- the han used shields and thus found them miltiarily viable
2- the Scutum was laminated wood and the glue would streangthen it, as would the multiple layers arranged cross grained
3- blades don't work on wood as they tend to bind
4- larger impact surfaces result in a less concentrated energy deleivery
Not really. "Average" bow and arrow can kill horses.
maybe from the side at close range with the arrow set up to slide between the ribs. From the front and top the horse has a tough hide and a mass of muscle and bone. Unless you hit the jugular that hors eis going to need a lot of arrows to go down, or a heavier bow/crossbow with bolts/arrows desinged to rend large amounts of flesh ohh wait just like the Han bolt heads which are not armor piercing, but rending.
A guy with a 300lb draw personal crossbow would have a modern analog of a soldier carrying an antitank cannon for a personal weapon.
he gets one shot that might or might not work agaisnt the ancient worlds version of an MBT
Um NO?? While the string snaps forward, it counteracts the recoil which is the bow snapping backward.
WTF what is pulling the strong forward? The bows snapping forward is what you cannot have the string in motion in a direction opposite of the force pulling on it.
To load a crossbow you winch the bows backward along the string to reach the trigger catch then you se tthe catch and load the bolt. When you pull the trigger releasing the string the bows snap forward pulling the string and bolt with it.
Close pack formations and tightly pack bodies must be one hell of a way to win a war because I myself don't see the Romans use that as often as some people might portray it to be.
well that is how they fought, they would overlap thier sheilds and on command would push with the scutum, turn it creating a gap and stab upward with the gladius. We still ahve Roman manuls at arms for this stuff.
Ohh BTW you jumped me for saying Plutarch was not 100% relaible and then turn around and say his description of massed infantry in not accurate.
It is inflexible. The Greeks were masters of it, and the Romans mastered the Greeks by taking advantage of that formation's own disadvantages.
1- the Romans had sub unit leaders and drill at a much smaller level than the greeks
2- practice, practice, practice you keep forgetting that these guys marched for liivng and had an average elangth of service in excess of 10 years.
vs the Imperial Macedonians the Romans pushed into the Phalanx locking the pike tips into the scutum and then side stepping and letting the next rank do the same, they split the phalanx this way and got inside the reach of the pike and went to work with thier gladius.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status