Rome vs Han China

I haven't seen any notes about that Parthian had fought with Han Dynasty.
Who can tell me whether the history books of Europe had mentioned it? All the notes in chinese history show that the two countries were on the good terms.

BJ, so what does your book prove? Why don't you actually read the book you are taunting.

You claim the Ancient Egyptian pictured fairly sized horses in their murals. I showed you an actual picture which they are quite small.

The fact that you of all things, suggest that artwork which universally tend to be poor references of proportion, wanted to contradict historical and bone evidence about the horse size.

I'm not talking about horses being small, what I meant as horses not big enough for fully armed riders.



Horses in Ancient Egypt

Horses were introduced into Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period (about 1700-1550 BC). The earliest remains of horses are a few bones from Avaris and the skeleton of a horse found at Buhen. The Buhen remains date to the early Second Intermediate Period, but this date is disputed. In the wars between the Theban 17th Dynasty and the Hyksos both sides used horses. In later times, the kingdom of Kush in the Sudan was famous for its horses, perhaps from good grazing grounds in areas of Upper Nubia: in the Victory Stela of king Piy, special mention is made of the royal attention to horses.

In the New Kingdom horses were animals of the military elite and the ruling class. In general Egyptians did not ride on horses but used them for chariots. Two horses are the rule. Horseshoes were not used. Egyptian horses, which were probably almost identical to those in the Near East, are rather small by comparison with modern horses, and attested in different colours (brown, reddish etc.).

Did not use chariots against Alexander?




"In those times there was no social unrest in any part of the Persian Kingdom which might affect the defence of the country against an attacking enemy. However, there certainly were some ambitious satraps. On the other hand, Persia lacked of the modern evolutions in the field of warfare whereas a lot of remarkable progress had been made on the Greek part. The conscription of Greek mercenaries on the part of the Persians was not enough to cover the weaknesses and fill the voids of the Persian army, which had also no officers capable of planning an improvised or counter attack. Their abilities were limited to facing the enemy on the basis of numerical superiority, personal bravery in the battlefield and their chariots with equipped with scythes"

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

Click to expand...

The Egyptians never used recurved bows in large numbers, numbers that denote general military use. Maybe a pharoah or some rich noble got them as gifts or captured from the battlefield. But certainly not in regular formations.

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.

Click to expand...

Why don't you go ahead and tell me how chariots can be better than cavalry.

What's really annoying is that you never gave valid technical reasons for it.

* I am pretty sure everyone knows that mounted riders are simply far more capable of dealing with various terrain types than chariots.

* Horses and riders can handle fast turns much better. Any engineer or rider can see that horses can cope with lateral forces much better than chariots in a turn.

* Horses have a natural suspension movement with the joints and motions of their legs that chariots with unsuspended solid axles cannot. In speed they give a much better and stable ride than a chariot.

You tacitly ignored the reason why ancients use the chariots have been because of a variety of technologically ideas were not yet in place then.

The increased size and power of the horse itself that originated with Scythian breeds.

The advent of the saddle, the trousers and later the stirrup that enabled the rider to have a solid platform to use his weapons or shoot with bow and arrow.

The introduction of the recurved bows that allow for greater draw strength on shorter portable bows that can easily be carried by a rider.

I told you it was the Persians who met the Scythians. You have classic ancient army with chariots first time encountering the saddled cavalrymen with bow and arrow. The end result is an empire getting rid of their chariots.

In another part of the world away, northern kingdoms like the Zhao, using chariots, encountered the Xiong Nu for the first time. End result, the kingdoms learned their lessons and developed their first cavalry armies complete with trousers and saddles.

For highly advanced cultures taking lessons from 'barbarians' is not an easy matter for the pride and prejudice of such peoples of that time against barbarians. The superiority of that idea and concept must have been so evident for them to swallow that pride and adopt the barbarian concepts.

Now why don't you explain how bronze age armies with chariots like the Assyrians can battle an iron age mounted armored knight army complete with crossbows and steel swords, and expect to win?




Zraver,

To what extent do you mean far from their borders.

Take a look at the map.



If you have to note where the centers of Chinese civilization are, the Han was able to push forward all the way to Xinjiang. Maybe at this point, they don't see any more need to push any further, because afterall, unlike the Romans, the Chinese do not have a high opinion about the value of lands beyond a certain periphery, since they already controlled the best lands. From the point you see in the Xinjiang borders, Parthia is not too far away. Central Asia is just right next to the Han borders, but how far are they from the Romans'? Not saying the Han won't be stretched at all, once they get farther and farther from their supply points, but these supply pionts will still be closer to Central Asia than the Roman points of supply.

We have two routes across the top of the parthian Empire, or poof the parthians out of existance and meet in the middle. Either or both Empires are going to be marching acorss terrain not conductive to massed armies and relying on thier supply trains. The bigger you want the army the nigger your supply train. This is huge impediment to the Han who use far more animals, camp followers*, and expendables than the Romans. Water is also an issue in the region and a horse based army needs many times what a infantry based army needs.

* since the bulk of the Han troops are 2 year enlsitees, they are not dual and triple or more trained like the Roman legionares.

Why would water and feeding of animals be that much of an ssue? Did I mention that these grasslands areas are more than perfectly suited to raise herds and horses? These areas are able to sustain fairly large populations and their herds.

The Han army, by its cavalry, should be capable of raiding and shock tactics that an army that basically relies on attrition battles cannot. In other words, the cavalry units can hit your supply train when you're not looking.

I don't see your argument accusing me of moving Han armiy from infantry to cavalry and back again. I already mentioned to you before that the Han army is a joint force. They can fight as an integral force but the cavalry units are also an autonomous one, capable of fighting its own as an independent army from the infantry army, which is why they can even perform Hunnic style raiding strategies. Fight fire with fire.

A post by mitradates in strategypage clarified such cavalry tactics as being consumerate with the Art of War.

"The key components of this doctrine: 1. Extensive gathering of Tactical intelligence prior to war 2. Using mobility and long range precision weapons to acheive surprise and the illusion of greater numbers. 3. Organized retreats designed to lure enemies out of secure defensive tactical and strategic formations. 4. Evasion of cities and defensive hardpoints and a focus on cutting off the supply line from the surrounding countryside to those centers. 5. The destruction of a rival's force and center of gravity rather than the holding of rival territory. 6. Command and control of separate(beyond visual range) forces in near real-time. All of these key points were detailed in Sun Tzu's art of war."

darkfishwang said:

I haven't seen any notes about that Parthian had fought with Han Dynasty.
Who can tell me whether the history books of Europe had mentioned it? All the notes in chinese history show that the two countries were on the good terms.

Click to expand...

I can only find reference to some kind of 'ambassadorial mission' by Kan Ying into Persia, around 95 AD. At that time Parthia was in turmoil from civil war. Before (75 AD) and after that (150 AD) it was united under a single king.

Possibly the Chinese were indeed just on a friendly mission, or else they did not find anything to their liking because of all the different factions already fighting each other.

Btw, before these Partian civils wars Rome had a rough 15 years of civil wars with emperor-would-be's fighting each other.

Actually if Rome and Han would meet in the middle - like zraver suggested - this would be the best time and place (around 90-100 AD), both were well led and Partia was devided ... so up for grabs with plenty of local lords wanting to be ally or become Partian-overlord-vassal I suppose.

BJ

crobato said:

Why would water and feeding of animals be that much of an ssue? Did I mention that these grasslands areas are more than perfectly suited to raise herds and horses? These areas are able to sustain fairly large populations and their herds.

The Han army, by its cavalry, should be capable of raiding and shock tactics that an army that basically relies on attrition battles cannot. In other words, the cavalry units can hit your supply train when you're not looking.

I don't see your argument accusing me of moving Han armiy from infantry to cavalry and back again. I already mentioned to you before that the Han army is a joint force. They can fight as an integral force but the cavalry units are also an autonomous one, capable of fighting its own as an independent army from the infantry army, which is why they can even perform Hunnic style raiding strategies. Fight fire with fire.

A post by mitradates in strategypage clarified such cavalry tactics as being consumerate with the Art of War.

"The key components of this doctrine: 1. Extensive gathering of Tactical intelligence prior to war 2. Using mobility and long range precision weapons to acheive surprise and the illusion of greater numbers. 3. Organized retreats designed to lure enemies out of secure defensive tactical and strategic formations. 4. Evasion of cities and defensive hardpoints and a focus on cutting off the supply line from the surrounding countryside to those centers. 5. The destruction of a rival's force and center of gravity rather than the holding of rival territory. 6. Command and control of separate(beyond visual range) forces in near real-time. All of these key points were detailed in Sun Tzu's art of war."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

The land cannot support an army on the march. How many times do we have to go over the fact that horses on the march need high calorie feed? water filled steppe grass (ie green grass) wont cut it. Even the nomads who were at best only riding a horse 1 time every five days ended up with smaller horse beucase of the poor quality of steppe grass.

Rome also has cavalry as much as 25% of its force and the han with bigger wagon trains ar emore vulnerable brecuase they have more to guard.

Becuase when ever your confronted with an argument you seem to shift between the fours types side tracking the argument.

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

Click to expand...

And for some reason, bow and arrow and crossbow isn't that successful? The crossbow is so effective that even in modern times, special forces use it. Even the ancients consider slingers secondary to archers, which is why they devote a lot more resources to archery than slinging.

- Guess who is accurate and ranged enough to be a far more reliable hunting weapon? Arrow or sling? Even tribes in Africa and South America prefer to use other means, spear, blowpipe, to hunt other than to use slings.

- Troops crouching down make them a lot harder to hit than standing up and swing a rock.

- Not all crossbows have a long redraw time. Please note that. Those with 30 second load are most likely those that require as much as 300lbs plus of draw strength intended to nail down big targets. Some crossbows are hand drawn so they can be quick. And once again, there are repeating crossbows.

- Just because you use crossbows does not mean you don't have bowmen too.

- Crossbows and bows will outrange slings anytime. Now that slingers are often unarmored, they can be taken out at maximum range.

- Lead or clay balls still do not have the penetration or flight properties of bronze or iron arrowheads. They require you to hit the head of the person, because they will penetrate not shield nor armor. Yet arrows can seriously injure just by hitting all parts.

- You sling a rock. You aim with something that has the precision of a rifle. Guess who will be a lot more accurate.

- Slingers require strong men to be effective. Thus the user base is more selective. You don't have to get the strongest and most muscular men to be crossbowmen.

The land cannot support an army on the march. How many times do we have to go over the fact that horses on the march need high calorie feed? water filled steppe grass (ie green grass) wont cut it. Even the nomads who were at best only riding a horse 1 time every five days ended up with smaller horse beucase of the poor quality of steppe grass.

Click to expand...

And yet how does that explain why steepe breeds grew bigger and bigger?
Why the Scythians selectively breed the largest?

While the land cannot support an army on the march, it can still supplement it. Furthermore, allies may also help provide and that's a fact not lost with the Han, who set up supply points and tributaries all across their borders from Afghanistan to Korea. In a battle for Parthia, who will the Parthians support? Note the Parthians were fighting the Romans and yet somehow, allowed the Hans to set up an outpost.

For all its worth, I believe the Han has a much greater understanding of geopolitical strategies thanks the doctrines outlined in the Art of War.

As for your continued harping on the longer service period of the Roman soldier, when did conscript armies ever lose their effectiveness? The Allies won WWII on the weight of conscription.

Now lets touch a topic few have bothered other than Bluejacket. What about the officer corp and generalship? Here, I would think the Han's meritocratic institutions have an advantage over Rome's plutarchy, which puts the land owning nobility in control of the government institutions and the army. It is easier for a commoner to attain rank, be an officer or official in the Han, due to the introduction of the examination system. It enforced education, not just Confucian books, but also military books and strategy, as well as military arts like archery and horseback riding.

Originally Posted by darkfishwang:
"I haven't seen any notes about that Parthian had fought with Han Dynasty.
Who can tell me whether the history books of Europe had mentioned it?"

Found some links about their war with Ferghana (also cavalry armies I believe?). Seems that the Han met their Carrhae there. From our colleagues on China History Forum, then scroll down to the Han shu quote:


More interesting: we probably all heard of the supposedly Roman soldiers ending up in China (for example and .
I suggest we do not discuss whether or not these were Romans, how many they were, etc. as the scolars themselves are unsure.

HOWEVER ... what is interesting to OUR discussion is the disciplined unit that fought the Han below the city wall in 36 BC when generals Gan Yanshou and Chen Tang led more than 40,000 troops to conquer Zhizhi, supposedly the present Dzhambul in Kazakhstan.

Whether these were Roman or not, if any of us can find a Han text describing the actual fight, we might know a lot more about Han vs Roman-era westerners.

BJ