Rome vs Han China

BeeJay · Dec 16, 2006

crobato said:
Its usually a sign of army-cannot-afford-that-much-archers symdrome. Basically the reason why people throw rocks is because they cannot throw anything else, and you are stuck with most basic of implements.

Yeah, another nice theory. Several armies used a combo of bows and slings because of each specific characteristics, not because they were poor cavemen. Even in medieval times they used staff slings, because of their hard hitting ability.

crobato said:
No they still had chariots, like chariots where archers shoot from. Even when chariots were already in decline in the Persian empire,

Chariots or carts? Very big difference, like tanks and trucks. Persians did not use battle chariots vs Alexander, period.

crobato said:
Chariots also sucked the moment the saddled rider with the big horse and recurved bow appeared.

Strange then that the Egyptians kept using all three of them in their army ...

crobato said:
If they had recurved laminar bows, it was imported.

So now they did use them? Even then, does it matter where they were from?

crobato said:
You never actually showed me the experiments you talked about. Every one who is familar with cars and vehicles---and you don't have to be an engineer---understand that unsuspended solid axles are not going to handle well in rougher ground, compared to a four legged animal, whose legs had the biological construction to be both a motivator and suspension at the same time.

Like you did not show me any of the battles where the chariots got their asses kicked etc. Do a Google search ... unlike the other pics or pages you come up with: I just browse an ordinary, well researched book about the subject or walk into a museum and then I pass that on to this forum. I do not make stuff up: it's all basic, available knowledge.

Again, I do not dispute your axle argument, but that argument is invalid when talking about chariot UNITS vs cavalry UNITS in BATTLE. Besides, you seem to forget that the four legged animal has something on his back ... you try carrying a kid on your back and then run across a field. Then do the same thing with a light (probably lighter than the kid) 'chariot' with decent tall wheels ... what do you think makes you run faster? The wheeled thing of course.
It seems like you see a chariot as a kind of car with all the problems that an off road car will encounter. It's better to compare it to a tank on tracks pulling along a thingy on wheels. Big difference.

crobato said:
Not even chariot formations are going to win against mounted knight armies.

They never fought each other, that is all you can say. Still, if an Assyrian heavy chariot army would meet a medieval European knight army, I would bet my money on the Assyrians ... MBT vs 'armored motorcycles'. Any ground those knights can effectively move over is good for those chariots too.

crobato said:
The concept is the same. A chariot is still a wheeled cart.

They're both wheeled, that's true. Just like a tank and a truck, or a Humvee and a handcart ... and likewise you cannot laugh off the merits of an MBT or Humvee by looking at the battlefield performance of that handcart.
And of course, a 4-wheeled cart is even more different from a 2-wheeled battle chariot

crobato said:
You are the one getting personal there.

Not really crobato, I believe in exchanging views, maybe show each other a new thing or two. If I lack some knowledge I ask. If someone else does, they ask. You just attack people if they diagree with you. For me that cuts off the exchange: no use anymore. You keep introducing arguments like "Nonsense" and "Why! DID you ever read a XX-book!?" arguments ... that's pretty personal in my book.

crobato said:
After another, you keep trying to prove the general trend of history being wrong, trying to disprove proven and recorded history.
No historian in his right mind would argue that chariots would have any advantage over a mounted rider army.

I'm not ... (I actually write / read that recorded history myself). Quote some of those military epxert historians for me then?

crobato said:
I have to outright say, that your attempt to use Egyptian art as proof of geneological size, is downright preposterous. You just failed to consider the most basic fact that ancient art often do not reflect proportion.

Oh please, if you really want to read about just HOW far off you actually are, take a book - yes I will you give a source: Heinrich Schaefer's "Principles of Egyptian Art" is a good start. Please don't make grand statements about things you obviously know nothing about ... just ask where to read up on it and people wil tell you.

About those horse you keep talking about: I'm not saying later Iranian breeds were larger, just that the earlier ones were not the 'small ponies' that you want us to believe they were.

crobato said:
And you have tacitly ignored how the Persians got their asses kicked by the Scythians in the first place, who introduced saddles, bigger horses and horse mounted recurved bows. Which is why the Persians were in the phase of outmoding their chariots when Alexander came.

Again ... what? Why should I not ignore something you make up? Persians replaced Medes, both relying heavily on cavalry. Before them came some chariot empires, maybe you're confused with those?

crobato said:
In addition, Alexander also saw what the Scythians and Bactrians did with their horses, and this was the inspiration for his cavalry.

Again, you keep messing up time lines. Alex cavalry was already a battle winning weapon before he met any Bactrians.

crobato said:
I had also mention, which you continually ignored, the experience of chariot driven Chinese kingdoms in the Warring States period facing the Huns/Xiong Nu for the first time. You can bet they got their asses kicked, because soon, the Chinese kingdoms were also deploying cavalry for the first time, and charioteering was in decline.

I did not ignore this as I do not know so much about that. I keep asking you to give me examples of where they got their asses kicked, but no answer yet.
As said earlier I do not feel that the chariots disappeared because of their failure as a weapon system, but because of a combination of a break down of central government and increasing battle frequency, which I feel meant that it became to expensive to keep using them and it was no longer possible to have an A-grade army. So the armies then lacked financial means and order/discipline to effectively employ chariots. It certainly fits the other places where they disapeared around that time. And similar things happened to other weapon systems thru-out history.

crobato said:
"Maybe we should just agree to disagree?" Not when I'm winning.

Without a smily, I suppose you mean this seriously. So after all I am right: it's just about the winning to you ... anonymous on a forum, using personal attacks. I forgot where, but I read somehwere that typical teenage behavior is having a feeling of winning because shouting the loudest and longest ... :coffee:

I do agree to disagree and call it quits, but am fine continuing this discussion with other posters.

BJ

zraver · Dec 17, 2006

crobato said:
Like I said, you got no idea of the logistics capability of the Han. They are extremely meticulous and had all the resources. 1

Second, read again, the grassy environment was perfect to feed horses, mules and oxen. That is why there was considerably large populations in the grasslands, though not as much as sedentary cultures, but population and sustenance was clearly not a problem. The nomads were raiding the sedentary culture for items, not food. 2

And thirdly, where did you get the idea that the Han can only move 12 miles a day. From what I read in the CHF, it was 20 miles at least a day. 3

Let's go back to the slingers.

Problem with slingers.

You need strong men to throw that far. Why spare such men as stone throwers when they can actually be soldiers or archers. 4

Slingers are cheap; that's why they are there. Its usually a sign of army-cannot-afford-that-much-archers symdrome. Basically the reason why people throw rocks is because they cannot throw anything else, and you are stuck with most basic of implements. 5

Rocks are easy to gather, but then they're not aerodynamically shaped. Accounts of accuracy can be said like you know, you can hit the target once in a while, but a lot of the times, you don't. Slinging is not consistently accurate, you cannot compare that to a bow, or a crossbow which can be as precise as a modern gun. 6

Note how do you sling? You have to stand up, swing your arms around. The crossbow man can crouch to present a low profile. Or he could take advantage of cover. The slinger cannot. Who do you think is more likely to get hit? 7

Range and hitting power wise, it goes like this.

Sling < Bows < Crossbows 8

Read the account of the Egyptian pharoah who was testing the bows as he shopped. With a non recurved one, he was still able to puncture copper plate. Wonder which sling can do that. 9

1- they had all they neede dinside thier own borders, mobing an army across forgien soil with no roads, graneries, stables smithies, etc is a completely different matter

2- Han cavalry depsite what ever ancenstry did not have the numbe rof horse on the campaign trail. The hirse they wer eriding would not be able to eat that day beucas eof the bit in its mouth. This means it is only eating every other day at best. Water filled undryed steppe grass does not have enough calories for its weight to keep a horse being by an armored man 7 of every 14 days in fighting trim. To do that you need high quality feeds from inside China ie grains and hay 9which being dried means the horse can eat mor eof it. I posted a link on the feeding and care of horses. Carrying the anount of feed a huge cavalry army (vs a nomadic hoard with remounts only being ridden one time every 5 days) requires a massive supply train.

3- 12 miles a day is the universal standard for horse drawn wagons and the Han are not going to leave their baggsge trains behind, beucase of the feed requirement for their horses. Even the Romans and WW2 German army is bound by this. What the Romans have is an ability to seperate ehtmeselves form their baggage train for upto 14 days.

4- Thats why the romans hired speicalist as exampled again and again in the sources I provided. Thier are culktures in the hellenic world who speicalise din the military sling from child hood.

5- That is pure imagination, based like most of your claims on the world acordin to Crobato and not the historical record. Slingers wer ehighly prized for thier skill and usefulness by a multitude of cultures spanning thousands of years. One reason the sling was so use as a shepards wepaon is becuase it could bring down wolves and lions.

6- Rocks were the least common of the sling missiles. Bullets of lead or baked clay were far more common and very aerodynamic.

7- excpet the ancient sources are in agreement slings were superior bows when it came to range.

8- slings were powerful enough to penetrate bronze helmets and the heavier projectiles could concuss through armor. This is not even a debate among a multitude of ancient writers, who besides sing the praise sof the slings leathaility also universally agree that slings out ranged bows.

The cross bow may be more powerful and have longer range, but it also fires far slower.

9- a lead sling bullet was found inside a greek cornithian style bronze helm 2mm thick with the penetration hole surviving. Bronze is far tougher than mere copper. In fact as an alloy, it is harder than steel which is why it is still used for so many application where hardness is crucial.

Crobato, seriously man your arguing agianst estalbished facts backed up by the accumulated military and animal husbandry knowledge of mankind. Like beejay I to am done replying to you unless you can answer some very simple questions. you were not winnign you never had a chance of winning becuase you refuse to debate. You've taken a position and no amount of reason, facts, history, and logic has been able to dissuade you from it. Almsot every single thing you've brought up has refuted time and again.

if you wish to continue this debate answer these questions.

Q1- how can a horse who only gets to eat every other day, and cannot ever eat when it needs calories the most ( when being ridden by an armored man with full kit) eat enough water filled grass in one day to maintain its streangth with out supplmental feed? The simple answer is they can't. This has been shown over and over again for thousands of years. Just look at the horse losses of the German army in 1941 alone, something like half a million horses were worked to death between June and December of 1941. Steppe grass is not a rich enough feed.

Q2- How can the ancient sources be wrong about slings since they were eyewitnesses and they all agree that the sling was a powerful miltiary weapon that outranged the bow.

Q3 (2 part question) How much food via rice meat what ever does 150,000 men need for a 6 month journey of heavy marching and calories usage and how would you transpor this amount? (roughly 2 lbs a day x 150,000 = 300,000lbs food day x 180 days = 54,000,000lbs food "24.494 metric tons of food" or 12,247 wagon loads of food if each wagon can haul two metric ton.

Now add in the weight of a couple million arrows, grain for the horses, hay wagons, horse shoes, tents, cooking utnesils etc.

befire talking tactics you should make a basic study of history and logisitcs, you've done neither, All you done is trumpet a conviction completey unsupported by fact.

PiSigma · Dec 17, 2006

beejay, don't give me crap about taking crobato's side. i take the evidence's side. and all of you try to show some respect to other members, that means no insulting other members on their views. some of you might not know my habits as a mod since i haven't been around for the last 2 months, but i don't take insulting mods very lightly. if you want people to support your position back EVERYTHING with evidence.

zraver, take a basic university level material engineering class and you'll know any properly annealled and quenched steel have higher hardness levels than bronze. and don't steel IS ALSO an alloy made of iron and carbon.

to all three of you, who wins in a debate is not determined by the people arguing, so when crobato and zraver said they both win, it's invalid. until someone else comes along and said one side wins, then they win. and so far.. no one wins.

for zraver, where do you find abundence of rocks in a grassland or moving desert for your slingers?

for crobato, perhaps you should find the logistic manpower per fighting man to show if han can or can not support their troops.

darkfishwang · Dec 17, 2006

Without horse troopers means that you can't ensure your military logistics fluentily. I will be back for discussing after some time since I have some important thing to do now.

BeeJay · Dec 17, 2006

PiSigma said:
i don't take insulting mods very lightly.

Nit-pick: and so you should and that's why I didn't.

PiSigma said:
i take the evidence's side. [...] if you want people to support your position [...] who wins in a debate is not determined by the people arguing [...] so far.. no one wins.

Agreed on all. Let's take a deep breath, count to ten and reconsider:

The main topics of our debate were logistics and chariotry vs cavalry. We tend to get side tracked a bit too easy, even though the two subjects - especially the chariotry - could already be considered off topic to this thread.

To me a forum is about exchanging info and ideas, not debating and winning / losing. So let's stick to the exchange thing. That has many advantages: no one needs to be convinced (as I think never happens anyway in a forum if opinions are strong), nothing needs support (a plus as many will think 'why bother' anyway), nobody needs to win and everybody remains calm and friendly.
Sometimes it will end up being a status quo of "You believe A because of B, but I think A because of C.", then that's OK too: we are not in court and eveybody is entitled to her/his idea. So then the 'agree to disagree' always works, no need to get worked up.

So ... let's continue to exchange ideas and info then?

I still like the chariot challenge ... fascinating to think about. They were continuously improved for a 1000 year period, when horse riding was known and used. So theorizing that cavalry 'of course' is better because they 'replaced' chariots (that's what I thought at first too) is too simplistic I feel. The engineers, army professionals, etc of those days were at least as smart as us, so there must be more to it then what we assume at first.
But if there are no others interested to discuss this, then that's OK too.

BJ

Gollevainen · Dec 17, 2006

Nit-pick: and so you should and that's why I didn't.

A strong advice; In future, You will take it or confront me...:nono: :nono: :nono:

Half a word considering anything else than the topic and you will get offical warning....Understood?:nono:

Gollevainen
Supermoderator

BeeJay · Dec 17, 2006

Gollevainen said:
A strong advice [...] You will take it [...]

I don't understand ... take what? I said "Agreed on all" (even the nit-pick meant that) and then "[...] let's continue to exchange ideas and info [...]". We had stopped to discuss debating I felt, and were back to exchanging ideas / info about Han-Rome (about logisitics and possibly earlier chariots / cavalry).

And I don't know what an official warning is / means / does ... the search in the faq came up empty.

BJ

Gollevainen · Dec 17, 2006

We have a warning system to ban trouplesome members. After two warning, member is banned for one week period and after three warning, a permanent ban. I suggest you to take look about forum rules&regulation thread, found atop every individual forum and most notaby in annouchement forum.

I want this to be my last intervention to this thread.

Gollevainen

zraver · Dec 17, 2006

PiSigma said:
zraver, take a basic university level material engineering class and you'll know any properly annealled and quenched steel have higher hardness levels than bronze. and don't steel IS ALSO an alloy made of iron and carbon.

to all three of you, who wins in a debate is not determined by the people arguing, so when crobato and zraver said they both win, it's invalid. until someone else comes along and said one side wins, then they win. and so far.. no one wins.

for zraver, where do you find abundence of rocks in a grassland or moving desert for your slingers?

for crobato, perhaps you should find the logistic manpower per fighting man to show if han can or can not support their troops.

1- I confused some brass alloys with bronze, regardless Crobato's example was copper.

2- I am not claiming to win, and I've mad emistakes (see above) but at least I have provide source amterial and not just gut instinct.

3- 3A clay is very common and baked clay bullets would be easily formed 3B the supply traisn would also have a supply of suitable stones and bullets or led for casting if traveling into an area deficent in such materials. 3C seasonal and non-seasonal steam beds

I also don't apreciate the red herrings, the man power and supply base inside Han China, or Rome for that matter is not an issue, Never has been with a population of 60 million they can feed and equip 150,000-500,000 no problem. The issue is supporting them out far side the Borders of the Empire.

The question is how muchy can the Han support in a march across Asia to meet the Romans half way. Crobato has a maddening habit of going from an all crossbow force, to an all cavalry force to an all infantry force with a vareity of weapons as the case may be or the mood suits him.

BLUEJACKET · Dec 17, 2006

crobato said:
My understanding is they field 7 to 8 horses per man.

And they can eat with bits in their mouths, I have seen a horse I was riding do it!
Wether the Han decided to stop or forced to stop in Central Asia, they had more resources off all kinds & experience with nomads to push West if they really wanted to- that alone would have spelled Rome's defeat!
The Bysantine empire survived that long in large part thanks to its adoptable military. As the Turks were moving in, it couldn't hold against them and gradually retreated until the empire shrunk to be a city-state of Contantinople.

One of the most interesting points is that the Roman Empire did have trouble expanding its Empire beyond the size of Augustus Principate because the roman army could not apply its full military force in the border areas because of the evironment there. The roman army's core was the heavy infanterie and with this the legions were strong and hard to stop or defeat but they were also slow. Therefore in areas where enemies had something to defend (cities, fields, etc), the power of the roman army (also using their siege capabilities) was very high and therefore it could apply this potential military might either in direct military success or into political power which then helped the romans to create client states around their empire which served as buffer states against any potential enemy attack.
But the forested middle Europe, the desert areas of Arabia and North Africa and the plains of Iran and Ukraine were wide and the people who lived there did not depend on a city structure which they needed to defend. Therefore they could avoid a direct confrontation with the Romans (which was their main strength) and apply their way of fighting to the Romans. The Roman army could still penetrate these areas, but only under above average costs and had trouble keeping this area under their control. Examples of this are the losses of Crassus against the Parthians and the losses of 3 legions against the Cherusci in the Teutoburg Forest. .. The author states cleverly that the Roman soldier was absolutely not interested in fighting but only in making a career and in receiving a pension after his service.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I just found it's a waste of time arguing over the interpretation of ancient history.

Rome vs Han China

BeeJay

New Member

zraver

Junior Member

PiSigma

"the engineer"

darkfishwang

New Member

BeeJay

New Member

Gollevainen

Colonel

BeeJay

New Member

Gollevainen

Colonel

zraver

Junior Member

BLUEJACKET

Banned Idiot