Rome vs Han China
- Thread starter IDonT
- Start date
- Status
The Roman generals were fame-driven, aggressive; where the Chinese had better generals for knowing the art of war.(Was it out yet? Or were the generals just as............never mind, the Three Kingdoms haven't come yet, the Chinese generals were just as aggressive.......)
The Chinese had better missile weapons.(Just look at that crossbow, sweeeeeeeeet... Best shape I can think of) But did it penetrated the shields? And can the Chinese swords break the shields? If not, the Chinese are doomed.
And there is still the Pylum(Don't know how to spell it), but I doubt those will do much.
Then there is the numerical superioirty the Chinese had.
As for swords, the Romans had the edge. Long swords gave worse blows, but it didn't have a high RoF. The short sword, however, can be easily moved, manuvered, very good with shields as one said.
The Chinese had better missile weapons.(Just look at that crossbow, sweeeeeeeeet... Best shape I can think of) But did it penetrated the shields? And can the Chinese swords break the shields? If not, the Chinese are doomed.
And there is still the Pylum(Don't know how to spell it), but I doubt those will do much.
Then there is the numerical superioirty the Chinese had.
As for swords, the Romans had the edge. Long swords gave worse blows, but it didn't have a high RoF. The short sword, however, can be easily moved, manuvered, very good with shields as one said.
Art of War is most definally already been written when Han dyansty has began. Three Kingdoms has nothing to do with SunTuz: Art of war. During "Spring & Autumn" and the Warring States, there has been hundreds of different school of thoughts and a lot of them have works on military planing.
When you say "The Roman generals were fame-driven, aggressive" thats true, and chinese generals are just like that. It doesnt matter how good of a strategist they are, and romans had great military strategist as well. But if you read what i posted in the thread about "best dyanstic military". It is not because of strategies that Han will defeat Rome but because of men power and technonlogy. Han has the most advenced Seige and Missle weapon at the time, Rome has no known mobile seige during Han dyansty time. And Han have much superior calvary which is key to break up Roman infantry formations. I used the Huns as an example. Huns were pushed out of western China and beyond by the Han to open and protect "silk road", after that the Huns rampaged through europe. Rome was at the verge of being defeated if Attila had'nt died.
When you say "The Roman generals were fame-driven, aggressive" thats true, and chinese generals are just like that. It doesnt matter how good of a strategist they are, and romans had great military strategist as well. But if you read what i posted in the thread about "best dyanstic military". It is not because of strategies that Han will defeat Rome but because of men power and technonlogy. Han has the most advenced Seige and Missle weapon at the time, Rome has no known mobile seige during Han dyansty time. And Han have much superior calvary which is key to break up Roman infantry formations. I used the Huns as an example. Huns were pushed out of western China and beyond by the Han to open and protect "silk road", after that the Huns rampaged through europe. Rome was at the verge of being defeated if Attila had'nt died.
pathfinder
New Member
IDonT said:
Roman rectangular shields are fairly thin to my suprise when I saw a replicated one in Seattle (around 1cm). However, their curved surface are excellent at deflecting blows from melee weapons. The thing weights about 20 or 25 pounds with brass carrying handle. Roman legionnaries can safely use their stabbing sword while staying behind the safety of their shields.
Back to the question of Han dynasty crossbow. Studies conducted in China have shown that the crossbow can effectively pierce through two layers of steel plate both 5mm thick at the range of 150 meters. That kind of penetration is only achieved with the British yew longbow. So the answer to the question is yes. However the romans fielded another type of round buckler made of iron at the time which the crossbow may not have enough power to penetrate through. The downside of the iron buckler is its relatively small surface area(around 20cm in radius) and it is not widely used by the Roman army.
Isn't this sort of like CSM v SM warfare? =).
Actually, I'm told the Romans have better morale, their troops are "harder". They're very muscular from heavy road work, and their society glorifies the martial virtues(Rome only got to where it was by conquering its neighbors, it was not innately an economic power).
The Chinese general has to be very careful. If he screws up or dies, the entire Chinese army will break and get decimated. As long as this scenario does not occur, the Han can exploit their technological and doctrinal advantages.
By the way, what's the history of siege crossbows? You know, the leg powered artillery crossbow? The first time I've encountered those were when I watched the movie "Hero", they don't seem to pop up a lot in the popular culture.
Actually, I'm told the Romans have better morale, their troops are "harder". They're very muscular from heavy road work, and their society glorifies the martial virtues(Rome only got to where it was by conquering its neighbors, it was not innately an economic power).
The Chinese general has to be very careful. If he screws up or dies, the entire Chinese army will break and get decimated. As long as this scenario does not occur, the Han can exploit their technological and doctrinal advantages.
By the way, what's the history of siege crossbows? You know, the leg powered artillery crossbow? The first time I've encountered those were when I watched the movie "Hero", they don't seem to pop up a lot in the popular culture.
Inst said:
The Qin got to where it was from conquering its neighbors.
The Han under Wudi conquered and destroyed the Xiongnu (huns) and broke their hold on Northwestern China.
The Chinese military expedition under Ban Chao, with 70,000 men, reached all the way to the Caspian sea in 97 AD. The Parthians seek an alliance with them because they were being conquered by the Romans under Trajan. When the Roman's conquered the Parthian capital of Csitephon (sp), they were within 1 day march from Ban Chao's border outpost. After Trajan's death, the Romans withdraw...so did Ban Chao.
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
Wow Sumdud. You are a square. First off- you wrote rate of fire as RoF. Secondly, what kind of douche bag would apply the term rate of fire to a sword!?!?
ordinary dude
New Member
Well, long sword are much more deadly at arms-length, and short swords are very useful if you want to get intimate with your opponent. That way the Japanese samuri carrys 2 katanas most of the time, one long katana to attack and a short katana to defend and attack at short range.
- Status