Rome vs Han China
- Thread starter IDonT
- Start date
- Status
not sling shots, slings and not pellets bullets and stones. at 200m a 1lb rock will crumple Han style armor that lacked a rigid backing and transmit its force to the wearer via hydrostatic shock waves. Roman slingers had to be able to hit man sized targets at 200M at clsoer ranges they could literalyy make you eat their bullets with face shots.
they always have been at leas tin comaprison to sling bullets and stones that have all thier mass in a small compact package vs a long drag inducing form.
in comparison a golf ball can easily travel 300m, pictures of Palestinian slingers show similar full body motion to convey maximum force with similar and larger sized projectiles.
they always have been at leas tin comaprison to sling bullets and stones that have all thier mass in a small compact package vs a long drag inducing form.
in comparison a golf ball can easily travel 300m, pictures of Palestinian slingers show similar full body motion to convey maximum force with similar and larger sized projectiles.
I kind of doubt you can throw a 1lb rock accurately for 200m. And please note the Qin shield, it is sloped being a metal shield. I just wonder how it can crumple. The wooden Han shields are combination of wood, bamboo, rhino hide and leather. That's pretty strong backing if you ask me.
When are metal arrowheads and bolts light? That's heavier, and definitely sharper than bullets. And slingers are not armored, so at 800m they will get killed or injured by bowmen long before they get into range. And even against armor, they can still be penetrating at half that distance, which at 400m, is still double the length of the slinger throw.
A bow and arrow, and a crossbow is a weapon you can point. A slingshot is not. The projectiles of the bow and crossbow are aerodynamically shaped, and manufactured with precise standards. The slingshots are getting rocks from the river. In the end everyone will figure out which is consistently more accurate.
Plus slingers with a lot of heavy rocks are not going to travel fast or light. You'er not going to find river pebbles or rocks conveniently around, would you?
That's with a golf club and a golf ball is much lighter than 1lb. Plus the pimples aid in the aerodynamics.
metal or metal faced shields are small, the expcetion beign of course the greek sheilds but the were part of a miltiary system never developed by China and severly limited the Phalanx's ability to manuver. In the midst of a rock storm a small shield my not be enough as I was talking aobut the armor worn next to the body, not the sheild. A Rhino hide shield would probalby stop the rocks.
if you waste all your arrows at long range you wont have any lef tto use agians the legions.
At the rates the legions could close the slingers didnt need much ammo. However msot ancient battlefeilds in the west and mid east are littered with sling bulletsimplying ammo was never an issue.
I know i can't thow a rock 200m, but I am not a life long slinger either. Hellenic slingers were life long practiconer sof the trade much like the English longbowmen or Hunnish horsemen.
In tribal societies were animals count as wealth 7 is a pittance. Horses were used as gifts, dowry's, to seal bargains anhd allainces,mounts, as a food sourse, beasts of burden ect. large remudas were required. Important persons probalby had personal herds of several hundred to several thousand horses.
if you waste all your arrows at long range you wont have any lef tto use agians the legions.
At the rates the legions could close the slingers didnt need much ammo. However msot ancient battlefeilds in the west and mid east are littered with sling bulletsimplying ammo was never an issue.
I know i can't thow a rock 200m, but I am not a life long slinger either. Hellenic slingers were life long practiconer sof the trade much like the English longbowmen or Hunnish horsemen.
In tribal societies were animals count as wealth 7 is a pittance. Horses were used as gifts, dowry's, to seal bargains anhd allainces,mounts, as a food sourse, beasts of burden ect. large remudas were required. Important persons probalby had personal herds of several hundred to several thousand horses.
I think we're on the way to set a forum record for post-length in this thread.
1) You assume all great battles between 1700-700 BC were only fought on flat ground.
2) You feel that a chariot pulled by two or more horses cannot go where those horses alone could effctively go (unitwise, not individually of course)
3) You feel that cavalry units can just go and ride wherever they want (though historically they were stopped by something as simple as a fence).
4) You propose that all the historical examples, stories written in those days and experiments with replica's are all imagination and cannot be considered proof.
5) You have some engineering insights that run counter to 4, but which you have so far not explained.
I'd rather stick to my own common sense then, because that's the same as all those people involved in 4.
Chariots did not use formations as close as cavalry, of course. I assumed you knew that.
Etc.
Let's rename the thread: "Chariot warfare - pros and cons"
BJ
Yes, the scythed ones I mentioned before. Like I said, those that are incomparible to chariots used in chariot armies, with stress on the word incomparible.
Thanks for the friendly words. So let's see:
1) You assume all great battles between 1700-700 BC were only fought on flat ground.
2) You feel that a chariot pulled by two or more horses cannot go where those horses alone could effctively go (unitwise, not individually of course)
3) You feel that cavalry units can just go and ride wherever they want (though historically they were stopped by something as simple as a fence).
4) You propose that all the historical examples, stories written in those days and experiments with replica's are all imagination and cannot be considered proof.
5) You have some engineering insights that run counter to 4, but which you have so far not explained.
I'd rather stick to my own common sense then, because that's the same as all those people involved in 4.
Both not true.
Maybe that's why the ancients used slings: stopping power against armored targets. At least, that power is what they mention themselves.
Lol? That's sweet: don't swallow your lollypop then.
Chariots did not use formations as close as cavalry, of course. I assumed you knew that.Some people yes: at least the equivalent of a single chariot. That was my point. A rider that gets up is as a charioteer that gets up: without his mobility and out of his formation / unit, thus useless.
Small ponies? Interesting theory, but also not true. Unless of course - looking at their art - the soldiers from the Assyrian and Egyptian armies (to name but a few) also were small ... must have been a funny sight then: dwarf-battles.
Way off: by the time Alexander fought the Persians they were known for their high quality heavy cavalry. Especially nobility from todays Iran were what could be considered as elite knights. Maybe you mistook the use of scythed chariots as the last phase of a long period of chariot use? I assumed you knew that they were a failed experiment: no ties, tradition or whatsoever to possible earlier use of chariots in that area or army.
Etc.
Let's rename the thread: "Chariot warfare - pros and cons"
BJ
Last edited:
To Zraver,
The metal shields were big enough to cover the user when he is kneeled down.
Sorry but I found using rocks generally to be:
-Inaccurate
-Too short a range
-Unable to deal against armored troops
-Too heavy to carry around marches (for the equivalent weight you can carry far more arrows)
-Highly dependent on getting the right rocks, preferably river stone which may not be conveniently available.
I find your claims about the ratio of man to horse super high. In average for example, there is one horse per Mongol family.
To BJ,
As far as chariots vs. cavalry goes, the historical record goes to the cavalry, period, once the various innovations were aseembled together---large horse, saddle, stirrup, various weapons, iron age technology. The Persians with their chariots were bloodied by the Scythians, and that led them to adopt cavalry, but chariots were still in service when they fought Alexander. I have never heard of a single book or historian that disputes the dominance of cavalry starting in the Iron Age period.
Sorry, but the Egyptians DO NOT HAVE RECURVED BOWS like the Huns were using. If they ever had them, they were imported from somewhere else. Being laminar isn't enough, the geometry of the bow is also very important, especially the length and curvature of the ears at both ends.
You're saying that chariots dropped out of favor because societies became less rich to afford them is totally false. The Chinese empire under the Han may have achieved the highest GDP of any nation on Earth at that time and before, thanks to the iron and steel tools they were able to apply in their mass agriculture, and yet despite their wealth, chariots were simply out of favor with their army. Ironically they are the ones with the best technology to create iron axles and spindles that would have made the chariot even more durable.
During the Warring States period, the Chinese kingdoms that were using chariots were given a bloody nose by the Huns as the Huns started to rise across the north. That led to the introduction of the first cavalry units in Chinese history, and chariots began a decline until they ended up mainly for ceremonial and display use.
And once again, both the historical record, the engineering perspective, and the direct rider experience tells you that there is no way wheeled chariots will hold up to a mounted rider (once the horse has evolved to its modern proportions) at speed.
Solid axle---once it gets a bump, it immedietely transfers the movement to the other wheel. The problem of solid axles is that it cannot maintain contact on the ground once it gets bumpy. You can fix that with a suspension but chariots don't have suspensions. Handling is always a problem because thin wooden wheels do not have the ability to grip the road well, and if want to increase the wheelbase to improve handling, the more space the chariot consumes. The stresses against wooden wheels and axles means they are constantly broken.
A light two wheeled chariot may be more flexible and faster than the four wheeled ones and may give more allowance for rougher ground. But even then, two wheeled chariots simply do not have the speed and agility of a mounted rider.
Really, you know much about ancient art? Maybe the first thing you should know is that they're often never drawn to the right perspective and height. Theory? The coming of the Persian or Parthian horse isn't a theory, why don't you challenge the actual historical and scientific records for this, since you are already out to challenge so many other established things like the dominance of cavalry over chariots.
Why don't you take a look at this.
Do you see the archer use a recurved bow? Eh?
Look at the chariot, do you see a big horse or does it look quite small to you?
The metal shields were big enough to cover the user when he is kneeled down.
Sorry but I found using rocks generally to be:
-Inaccurate
-Too short a range
-Unable to deal against armored troops
-Too heavy to carry around marches (for the equivalent weight you can carry far more arrows)
-Highly dependent on getting the right rocks, preferably river stone which may not be conveniently available.
I find your claims about the ratio of man to horse super high. In average for example, there is one horse per Mongol family.
To BJ,
As far as chariots vs. cavalry goes, the historical record goes to the cavalry, period, once the various innovations were aseembled together---large horse, saddle, stirrup, various weapons, iron age technology. The Persians with their chariots were bloodied by the Scythians, and that led them to adopt cavalry, but chariots were still in service when they fought Alexander. I have never heard of a single book or historian that disputes the dominance of cavalry starting in the Iron Age period.
Sorry, but the Egyptians DO NOT HAVE RECURVED BOWS like the Huns were using. If they ever had them, they were imported from somewhere else. Being laminar isn't enough, the geometry of the bow is also very important, especially the length and curvature of the ears at both ends.
You're saying that chariots dropped out of favor because societies became less rich to afford them is totally false. The Chinese empire under the Han may have achieved the highest GDP of any nation on Earth at that time and before, thanks to the iron and steel tools they were able to apply in their mass agriculture, and yet despite their wealth, chariots were simply out of favor with their army. Ironically they are the ones with the best technology to create iron axles and spindles that would have made the chariot even more durable.
During the Warring States period, the Chinese kingdoms that were using chariots were given a bloody nose by the Huns as the Huns started to rise across the north. That led to the introduction of the first cavalry units in Chinese history, and chariots began a decline until they ended up mainly for ceremonial and display use.
And once again, both the historical record, the engineering perspective, and the direct rider experience tells you that there is no way wheeled chariots will hold up to a mounted rider (once the horse has evolved to its modern proportions) at speed.
Solid axle---once it gets a bump, it immedietely transfers the movement to the other wheel. The problem of solid axles is that it cannot maintain contact on the ground once it gets bumpy. You can fix that with a suspension but chariots don't have suspensions. Handling is always a problem because thin wooden wheels do not have the ability to grip the road well, and if want to increase the wheelbase to improve handling, the more space the chariot consumes. The stresses against wooden wheels and axles means they are constantly broken.
A light two wheeled chariot may be more flexible and faster than the four wheeled ones and may give more allowance for rougher ground. But even then, two wheeled chariots simply do not have the speed and agility of a mounted rider.
Really, you know much about ancient art? Maybe the first thing you should know is that they're often never drawn to the right perspective and height. Theory? The coming of the Persian or Parthian horse isn't a theory, why don't you challenge the actual historical and scientific records for this, since you are already out to challenge so many other established things like the dominance of cavalry over chariots.
Why don't you take a look at this.
Do you see the archer use a recurved bow? Eh?
Look at the chariot, do you see a big horse or does it look quite small to you?
Last edited:
Crobato,
1- What you think doesn't matter what matters is the historical record and this is clear. hellenic slingers could lob a 1lb rock out to 200M and hit face sized targets with bullets with enough force to penetrate bronze helmets at 50m
2- the targets willb e fellow missile troops
3- troops crouching down are not moving letting thr legion ge tthat much closer
4- puttign melee troops ahead of your archers and crossbow men limits your direct fire
5- Ancient battle feilds ar elittered with sling rocks and bullets and they are some of the most common artifacts recovered
Your pittign your gut instinct agaisnt a weapon so sucessful it is still used today* (in Palestine), the battlefeild evidence, Vegetius, Xenophon, and a host of other other ancient sources
here are some of them,
Most of these particulars are admirably illustrated by the representations of slingers upon the Egyptian monuments (as engraved in Wilkinson's Egypt, vol.i.316) and by those upon the columns of Trajan and Antonine. (See Montfaucon and Bartoli.)
Many of the nations of antiquity are said to have attained most wonderful skill in the use of this weapon. Thus, the Benjamites, mentioned in the Book of Judges, could "sling stones at a an hair-breadth and not miss." But amongst the most celebrated were the inhabitants of the Balearic isles (now Majorca and Minorca), whose name is derived by Polybius from (in Greek), "to cast." Of this people Diodorus Siculus says that "they can hurl far larger stones than any others, and with so great force that the missile might be supposed to be projected from a catapult; and yet so accurate is their aim that they rarely miss their mark. This extraordinary skill is acquired by constant practice in their boyhood; for a custom obtains among this people of fastening pieces of bread upon poles, and compelling their children to win their meal by striking it from a distance with a sling-stone." They usually carried with them three (in Greek) of different lengths, to serve either as bands or as slings; one of these was bound round the head, the second round the loins, and the third was carried in the hand. Livy informs us that at the time of the second Punic war (which was terminated B. C. 201) the Baleares bore no other arms but the sling; while in his own time, though it was still their chief weapon, it was not used exclusively. We learn from classical sources that the sling was in use amongst the Egyptians, Indians, Persians, Carduchi, Ilerdes and Spaniards, Cirtaei and Numidians, Belgae, Gauls, Greeks, and Romans. Of all the Greeks the most noted slingers were the Archaeans, Acarnanians, AEtolians, and Rhodians. The fame of the Achaeans was perpetuated in the proverbial expression (in Greek), "an Achaean hit." Livy relates that the Achaean boys were wont to practise slinging with smooth pebbles on the sea shore; "their sling," he says, "was made, not like the balearic, of a single thong, but of three strengthened with stitching, and thus they effectually provided against the slipping of the bullet; they ply their slings with a longer range, and with surer aim, and greater force than the Baleares; they can hurl their missiles through small rings placed at a considerable distance, and hit not only the heads of the enemy, but any part of the face at which they choose to aim."
On the other hand Thucydides, four hundred years earlier, says, the Acarnanians had the reputation of being the most expert of all nations in this species of warfare. According to an ancient legend mentioned by Strabo, the AEtolians won their land from the original inhabitants through the issue in their favour of a single combat. Their own champion was armed with a sling (the use of which had been recently discovered among them), his adversary with a bow, and the longer range of the former weapon secured the victory to the AEtolian. The Athenians were at most periods very deficient in this branch of the military art, and suffered in the consequence several severe checks and defeats. The chief application of the sling among the Greeks was of course as a military engine; it was however also used for the sake of exercise; and Plato in his Laws advocates its adoption not by men only but by women, as a means of invigorating the body. The sling was assigned as an attribute to Nemesis, by which was signified that Divine justice reaches the guilty even from afar.
The earliest historical notice of the sling is about the date B. C. 1406; it is found in the Book of Judges, ch. xx. 16, where it is related that in the army of the Benjamites were "seven hundred chosen men, left-handed, every one of whom could sling stones at an hair-breadth."
Source please, and you cannot extrapolate modern horse use to that of a pure nomdic pre-mongolian society here the horse was the currency of the land.
A typical, minimally-adequate herd equivalent to 100 sheep might thus be composed of 28 sheep, 11 goats, 4 cattle, 5 horses, and 2 camels.
note this minimum is for a nomadic family not a horse warrior who will need far more horses vs goats sheep ect when out on campaign.
1- What you think doesn't matter what matters is the historical record and this is clear. hellenic slingers could lob a 1lb rock out to 200M and hit face sized targets with bullets with enough force to penetrate bronze helmets at 50m
2- the targets willb e fellow missile troops
3- troops crouching down are not moving letting thr legion ge tthat much closer
4- puttign melee troops ahead of your archers and crossbow men limits your direct fire
5- Ancient battle feilds ar elittered with sling rocks and bullets and they are some of the most common artifacts recovered
Your pittign your gut instinct agaisnt a weapon so sucessful it is still used today* (in Palestine), the battlefeild evidence, Vegetius, Xenophon, and a host of other other ancient sources
here are some of them,
Most of these particulars are admirably illustrated by the representations of slingers upon the Egyptian monuments (as engraved in Wilkinson's Egypt, vol.i.316) and by those upon the columns of Trajan and Antonine. (See Montfaucon and Bartoli.)
Many of the nations of antiquity are said to have attained most wonderful skill in the use of this weapon. Thus, the Benjamites, mentioned in the Book of Judges, could "sling stones at a an hair-breadth and not miss." But amongst the most celebrated were the inhabitants of the Balearic isles (now Majorca and Minorca), whose name is derived by Polybius from (in Greek), "to cast." Of this people Diodorus Siculus says that "they can hurl far larger stones than any others, and with so great force that the missile might be supposed to be projected from a catapult; and yet so accurate is their aim that they rarely miss their mark. This extraordinary skill is acquired by constant practice in their boyhood; for a custom obtains among this people of fastening pieces of bread upon poles, and compelling their children to win their meal by striking it from a distance with a sling-stone." They usually carried with them three (in Greek) of different lengths, to serve either as bands or as slings; one of these was bound round the head, the second round the loins, and the third was carried in the hand. Livy informs us that at the time of the second Punic war (which was terminated B. C. 201) the Baleares bore no other arms but the sling; while in his own time, though it was still their chief weapon, it was not used exclusively. We learn from classical sources that the sling was in use amongst the Egyptians, Indians, Persians, Carduchi, Ilerdes and Spaniards, Cirtaei and Numidians, Belgae, Gauls, Greeks, and Romans. Of all the Greeks the most noted slingers were the Archaeans, Acarnanians, AEtolians, and Rhodians. The fame of the Achaeans was perpetuated in the proverbial expression (in Greek), "an Achaean hit." Livy relates that the Achaean boys were wont to practise slinging with smooth pebbles on the sea shore; "their sling," he says, "was made, not like the balearic, of a single thong, but of three strengthened with stitching, and thus they effectually provided against the slipping of the bullet; they ply their slings with a longer range, and with surer aim, and greater force than the Baleares; they can hurl their missiles through small rings placed at a considerable distance, and hit not only the heads of the enemy, but any part of the face at which they choose to aim."
On the other hand Thucydides, four hundred years earlier, says, the Acarnanians had the reputation of being the most expert of all nations in this species of warfare. According to an ancient legend mentioned by Strabo, the AEtolians won their land from the original inhabitants through the issue in their favour of a single combat. Their own champion was armed with a sling (the use of which had been recently discovered among them), his adversary with a bow, and the longer range of the former weapon secured the victory to the AEtolian. The Athenians were at most periods very deficient in this branch of the military art, and suffered in the consequence several severe checks and defeats. The chief application of the sling among the Greeks was of course as a military engine; it was however also used for the sake of exercise; and Plato in his Laws advocates its adoption not by men only but by women, as a means of invigorating the body. The sling was assigned as an attribute to Nemesis, by which was signified that Divine justice reaches the guilty even from afar.
The earliest historical notice of the sling is about the date B. C. 1406; it is found in the Book of Judges, ch. xx. 16, where it is related that in the army of the Benjamites were "seven hundred chosen men, left-handed, every one of whom could sling stones at an hair-breadth."
Source please, and you cannot extrapolate modern horse use to that of a pure nomdic pre-mongolian society here the horse was the currency of the land.
A typical, minimally-adequate herd equivalent to 100 sheep might thus be composed of 28 sheep, 11 goats, 4 cattle, 5 horses, and 2 camels.
note this minimum is for a nomadic family not a horse warrior who will need far more horses vs goats sheep ect when out on campaign.
Your link also says this.
"Another asset of the nomad warriors was cheap and plentiful horsepower. Raising horses in sedentary societies is expensive (and often socially and politically costly, as the men on horseback turn into knights and feudal lords). For nomads, horse-raising requires only a slight additional provision of labor beyond the amount normally needed in herding and milking, and nothing for fodder, shelter, watering, manure- removal, and the like. Consequentlyl, nomads could campaign with a number of mounts for each soldier - the Mongols wanted 5:1 - and keep up a fast pace in combat that the low-horsepower cavalries of conventional societies could not match. (This nomad advantage was usually offset to a considerable extent by the ability of sedentary societies to raise larger horses through better feeding than the nomads could achieve by grazing, by the more elaborate weaponry available from "civilized" technologies, and, at times, by superior military training."
That is 5:1. I don't see the 20 horses per man ratio you are point at earlier.
Let's add to that.
"Inner Asia, and considerable parts of the Middle East, were covered with grass, providing pre- positioned rations for the cavalry mounts of nomad armies (which were all0cavalry armies). "
A sample of the size of the cavalry army the Han could muster.
"At this time the emperor was making a tour of the border. When he reached So-fan, he held an inspection of one hundred and eighty thousand cavalry soldiers in order to make a display of military might, at the same time dispatching a man named Kuo Chi to the Shan-yu to make sure that the Hsiung-nu were fully informed of the event."
While it does appear that raising a cavalry army is expensive indeed for a sedentary civilization, the kind of resources the Han could muster and the size of the cavalry armies the Han are putting up, show they had enormous resources to do so.
"Another asset of the nomad warriors was cheap and plentiful horsepower. Raising horses in sedentary societies is expensive (and often socially and politically costly, as the men on horseback turn into knights and feudal lords). For nomads, horse-raising requires only a slight additional provision of labor beyond the amount normally needed in herding and milking, and nothing for fodder, shelter, watering, manure- removal, and the like. Consequentlyl, nomads could campaign with a number of mounts for each soldier - the Mongols wanted 5:1 - and keep up a fast pace in combat that the low-horsepower cavalries of conventional societies could not match. (This nomad advantage was usually offset to a considerable extent by the ability of sedentary societies to raise larger horses through better feeding than the nomads could achieve by grazing, by the more elaborate weaponry available from "civilized" technologies, and, at times, by superior military training."
That is 5:1. I don't see the 20 horses per man ratio you are point at earlier.
Let's add to that.
"Inner Asia, and considerable parts of the Middle East, were covered with grass, providing pre- positioned rations for the cavalry mounts of nomad armies (which were all0cavalry armies). "
A sample of the size of the cavalry army the Han could muster.
"At this time the emperor was making a tour of the border. When he reached So-fan, he held an inspection of one hundred and eighty thousand cavalry soldiers in order to make a display of military might, at the same time dispatching a man named Kuo Chi to the Shan-yu to make sure that the Hsiung-nu were fully informed of the event."
While it does appear that raising a cavalry army is expensive indeed for a sedentary civilization, the kind of resources the Han could muster and the size of the cavalry armies the Han are putting up, show they had enormous resources to do so.
Admittedly my earlier 20-1 was base doff Norht American plains indians.
However-
contradicts your assertion
most militaries ran 2-1, which mean the horse do not have enough time to recover from each days labor without high quality feed. A horse cannot feed with a bit in its mouth. This means your military horse is only eating every other day and not eating on the days when he is using the most calories.
The rapid break down of horse stock lacking proper fodder is well documented. Most recently during Barabarossa when some of the biggest losses taken by Germany in 41 were among horses.
Becuase of the costs the Han cannot provide a 5-1 ratio of military grade horses for this discussion but have to use feed and that limits speed of advance to 12 mile/day becuase of the wagons. Rome had this same limit to an extent but each legionare did carry 14 days worth of rations for forced march dashes other uses.
However-
contradicts your assertion
most militaries ran 2-1, which mean the horse do not have enough time to recover from each days labor without high quality feed. A horse cannot feed with a bit in its mouth. This means your military horse is only eating every other day and not eating on the days when he is using the most calories.
The rapid break down of horse stock lacking proper fodder is well documented. Most recently during Barabarossa when some of the biggest losses taken by Germany in 41 were among horses.
Becuase of the costs the Han cannot provide a 5-1 ratio of military grade horses for this discussion but have to use feed and that limits speed of advance to 12 mile/day becuase of the wagons. Rome had this same limit to an extent but each legionare did carry 14 days worth of rations for forced march dashes other uses.
- Status