|
On February 25 2011 22:50 Maenander wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2011 22:46 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 25 2011 22:41 Maenander wrote:On February 25 2011 21:48 StorkHwaiting wrote:
Also, Chinese of course used conscription, but they also trained conscripts for a full year before deployment. Roman forces on the other hand gave six months of training to their legionnaires before deployment. So, it's not even a case of peasant rabble vs elite legions. Legions had half the training and inferior equipment, especially when you consider the higher quality metallurgy and crossbow technology and armor crafting of the Han dynasty.
It is really futile to compare the quality of the troops. They never met, they never even had a common foe, there aren't even any reports of anyone who has seen both armies fight and could compare them. Russian early-war tanks were superior to german ones, given that and the knowledge of their numerical superiority one could have immediately inferred that the russians would easily win a war, which was not the case. It is impossible to predict the outcome of theoretical scenarios like the encounter of a roman and a chinese army, there are so many factors. Well, in my mind it's pretty obvious who would win, because it was not at the level of tanks vs better tanks. It was more like short swords versus crossbows. The Chinese crossbows would have decimated Roman troops. And the one weakness Chinese armies had, extremely mobile cavalry, was not part of the Roman arsenal until the Byzantine era. You're talking a melee infantry focused army vs ranged infantry focused army, with the ranged army having superior technology and equipment. It's no contest. Then when you add in things like the chukonu, well... Chinese vs Roman is like stim marines vs slowlings. Crossbows are better suited against cavalry than against heavily shielded infantry actually, but I refuse to discuss such nonsense.
No, crossbows are made to puncture shields and armor. They don't work as well against horse archers that release a volley and then ride out of range of crossbows. See how that works? It's why the Romans had to completely change their military system once they moved to Constantinople and had to deal with real warriors in the form of steppe horse archers. Much easier to seem bad ass when you're fighting undisciplined Gauls that smell bad and wear berry juice.
|
On February 25 2011 22:52 FindMeInKenya wrote:It might be futile to decisively just the better of the two powerhouse since they never met, however, this is why it is more fun to compare between the 2. Thus I find the discussion on the CHF forum so fascinating, they go through details and analyze the economic and political , military formations, weapons, horses, allies, battles, and even shoes between Rome and Han. Although it is close to 100 pages long, but if you are interested in this subject, you should definitely check it out.
I just ordered this book 
|
On February 25 2011 22:55 FindMeInKenya wrote:2nd century AD.
Yeah, that's 200 years beyond the time period I was discussing. It's because mcc keeps distorting my position. I was only ever referring to the BC era, specifically the times around Hannibal and Julius Ceasar, because they and their contemporaries are ranked so much higher in the generals ranking. My contention has been the entire time that Asian generals do not get enough recognition despite having to deal with logistical issues several degrees higher than that of their western contemporaries.
|
You will find that book to be an excellent read, great choice, Maenander.
|
On February 25 2011 22:46 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2011 22:41 Maenander wrote:On February 25 2011 21:48 StorkHwaiting wrote:
Also, Chinese of course used conscription, but they also trained conscripts for a full year before deployment. Roman forces on the other hand gave six months of training to their legionnaires before deployment. So, it's not even a case of peasant rabble vs elite legions. Legions had half the training and inferior equipment, especially when you consider the higher quality metallurgy and crossbow technology and armor crafting of the Han dynasty.
It is really futile to compare the quality of the troops. They never met, they never even had a common foe, there aren't even any reports of anyone who has seen both armies fight and could compare them. Russian early-war tanks were superior to german ones, given that and the knowledge of their numerical superiority one could have immediately inferred that the russians would easily win a war, which was not the case. It is impossible to predict the outcome of theoretical scenarios like the encounter of a roman and a chinese army, there are so many factors. Well, in my mind it's pretty obvious who would win, because it was not at the level of tanks vs better tanks. It was more like short swords versus crossbows. The Chinese crossbows would have decimated Roman troops. And the one weakness Chinese armies had, extremely mobile cavalry, was not part of the Roman arsenal until the Byzantine era. You're talking a melee infantry focused army vs ranged infantry focused army, with the ranged army having superior technology and equipment. It's no contest. Then when you add in things like the chukonu, well... Chinese vs Roman is like stim marines vs slowlings.
Obviously we'll never know....but historically that is a horrific matchup for the ranged infantry. Maybe you're forgetting
![[image loading]](http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTzAgvu4aygzjaF5UGRBt9FsKRq4iRjxMMRP7yAFBKH9pVu4nE_Hq09QFOE)
Obviously crossbows will punch through some, but they'd get one, maybe two good volleys off before the Romans closed on them, and then it would be completely game over. You can't load and fire a crossbow while running away.........
And don't even say chukonu, those would have bounced off people half the time.
|
![[image loading]](http://images.contactmusic.com/videoimages/sbmg/rick-astley-never-gonna-give-you-up.jpg)
simple.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Consider the Han population is around 58 mil (census taken at 2CE) and the sources I find shows me that around the same time in Rome is about 45 mil, you might be right, Stork. I shall do more research on this matter.
|
On February 25 2011 22:56 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2011 22:50 Maenander wrote:On February 25 2011 22:46 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 25 2011 22:41 Maenander wrote:On February 25 2011 21:48 StorkHwaiting wrote:
Also, Chinese of course used conscription, but they also trained conscripts for a full year before deployment. Roman forces on the other hand gave six months of training to their legionnaires before deployment. So, it's not even a case of peasant rabble vs elite legions. Legions had half the training and inferior equipment, especially when you consider the higher quality metallurgy and crossbow technology and armor crafting of the Han dynasty.
It is really futile to compare the quality of the troops. They never met, they never even had a common foe, there aren't even any reports of anyone who has seen both armies fight and could compare them. Russian early-war tanks were superior to german ones, given that and the knowledge of their numerical superiority one could have immediately inferred that the russians would easily win a war, which was not the case. It is impossible to predict the outcome of theoretical scenarios like the encounter of a roman and a chinese army, there are so many factors. Well, in my mind it's pretty obvious who would win, because it was not at the level of tanks vs better tanks. It was more like short swords versus crossbows. The Chinese crossbows would have decimated Roman troops. And the one weakness Chinese armies had, extremely mobile cavalry, was not part of the Roman arsenal until the Byzantine era. You're talking a melee infantry focused army vs ranged infantry focused army, with the ranged army having superior technology and equipment. It's no contest. Then when you add in things like the chukonu, well... Chinese vs Roman is like stim marines vs slowlings. Crossbows are better suited against cavalry than against heavily shielded infantry actually, but I refuse to discuss such nonsense. No, crossbows are made to puncture shields and armor. They don't work as well against horse archers that release a volley and then ride out of range of crossbows. See how that works? It's why the Romans had to completely change their military system once they moved to Constantinople and had to deal with real warriors in the form of steppe horse archers. Much easier to seem bad ass when you're fighting undisciplined Gauls that smell bad and wear berry juice.
Parthians used the same tactic as steppe horse archers.
And yes crossbows puncture armour, but not armour and shields, as the legions used it. You should concentrate on the Han cavalry advantage, a much better argument.
|
General Tso is probably my favorite..with Patton, Rommel, and Genghis Khan all being great field generals.
|
Sm3agol, I think if it comes down to it, the amount of calvary troops will makes the difference, and since Rome has inferior ability to breed horses in comparison to Han, the Chinese will have an upperhand in this duel.
In starcraft 2 analogy, it is like a bunch of stimmed marine versus unseiged tanks, just think MKP vs Nada, would be disastrous.
|
On February 25 2011 23:19 FindMeInKenya wrote:
Sm3agol, I think if it comes down to it, the amount of calvary troops will makes the difference, and since Rome has inferior ability to breed horses in comparison to Han, the Chinese will have an upperhand in this duel.
In starcraft 2 analogy, it is like a bunch of stimmed marine versus unseiged tanks, just think MKP vs Nada, would be disastrous.
Unless you're talking pure Chinese army at X time vs Roman army at X time, the late Roman armies had very good cavalry. Not necessarily "Roman" cavalry, but it was a big part of their later armies.
|
I finally got off my ass and decided to cite some sources from the books I've read, so mcc can't say anything.
On the size of field armies from David A Graff's Medieval Chinese Warfare: Link to the Book
"The relatively small size of these forces, with the sources mentioning no more than 113,000 combat troops travelling by both land and sea."
pg 112: "In the summer of 575, he mobilized an army of 170,000 men for another offensive eastward to the vicinity of Luoyang.
Pg 124: In 430, some 100,000 Song troops came north in several columns"
Pg 132: By late autumn of 588, eight Sui armies totalling 518,000 men were in position on the north side of the Yangzi from Sichuan to the sea... Facing the Sui forces were perhaps 100,000 Chen troops to cover the entire distance from the Yangzi gorges to the sea.
This book has tons of resources documented, is published in the US, and written by an American professor. Not sure how much more credible you need things to be.
Also, keep in mind that these force numbers are given by the government. Exaggerations are usually made for the ENEMIES not for government forces. So it's pretty ridiculous of you to claim exaggeration. Why the hell and how the hell could a general or official lie about the number of troops HE had, when the government kept close tabs on the recruitment, supplying, and mobilization of their troops. I find it ludicrous to claim the general would lie and over-exaggerate his own army and also completely impossible given that there was a strict chain of command and specific unit sizes.
|
I'm not saying they don't have a good calvary troops, but the size and sustainability of the two show that the Chinese had an advantage in this area. Still think it is pretty much MKP vs Nada all over, pretty funny, huh.
|
Lelouch vi Britannia
I mean cmon, he started with a tiny rebel army and ended up taking over a super continent. 
|
|
|
From Unorthodox Strategies: 100 Lessons in the Art of War by Ralph D. Sawyer: Link to Book
Pg 40: "He deputed Ssu-ma Yi to supervise Chang Ko's armies and an additional 200,000 stalwart troops from Yung-chou and Liang-chou. Ssu-ma Yi concealed these armies and stealthily marched forward, seeking an opportunity to assault Chien-ko."
Pg 63: "The king of Chao and Chen Yu, assembled their soldiers at the mouth of Ching-hsing, numbering about 200,000 men."
Pg 101: "After some time, the Ch'iang became extremely distressed. Several hundred thousand soldiers fled out beyond the pass, while their generals and more than ten thousand other men all surrendered."
Pg 125: "Ssu-ma Yi of Wei led 200,000 troops to crush Chu-ko Liang, moving along an alternate route to Yen's forces."
Pg 140: "Chengdu has more than 100,000 troops, so you cannot treat them lightly."
Basic summary, you are wrong, mcc. Chinese armies were regularly over 100k in size.
|
On February 25 2011 23:27 FindMeInKenya wrote:
I'm not saying they don't have a good calvary troops, but the size and sustainability of the two show that the Chinese had an advantage in this area. Still think it is pretty much MKP vs Nada all over, pretty funny, huh.
Well are we fighting on the open plains of Mongolia.....or in rocky, mountainous Italy? Heavy infantry rapes in one.....heavy cavalry rapes in the other.
|
On February 25 2011 23:09 Maenander wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2011 22:56 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 25 2011 22:50 Maenander wrote:On February 25 2011 22:46 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 25 2011 22:41 Maenander wrote:On February 25 2011 21:48 StorkHwaiting wrote:
Also, Chinese of course used conscription, but they also trained conscripts for a full year before deployment. Roman forces on the other hand gave six months of training to their legionnaires before deployment. So, it's not even a case of peasant rabble vs elite legions. Legions had half the training and inferior equipment, especially when you consider the higher quality metallurgy and crossbow technology and armor crafting of the Han dynasty.
It is really futile to compare the quality of the troops. They never met, they never even had a common foe, there aren't even any reports of anyone who has seen both armies fight and could compare them. Russian early-war tanks were superior to german ones, given that and the knowledge of their numerical superiority one could have immediately inferred that the russians would easily win a war, which was not the case. It is impossible to predict the outcome of theoretical scenarios like the encounter of a roman and a chinese army, there are so many factors. Well, in my mind it's pretty obvious who would win, because it was not at the level of tanks vs better tanks. It was more like short swords versus crossbows. The Chinese crossbows would have decimated Roman troops. And the one weakness Chinese armies had, extremely mobile cavalry, was not part of the Roman arsenal until the Byzantine era. You're talking a melee infantry focused army vs ranged infantry focused army, with the ranged army having superior technology and equipment. It's no contest. Then when you add in things like the chukonu, well... Chinese vs Roman is like stim marines vs slowlings. Crossbows are better suited against cavalry than against heavily shielded infantry actually, but I refuse to discuss such nonsense. No, crossbows are made to puncture shields and armor. They don't work as well against horse archers that release a volley and then ride out of range of crossbows. See how that works? It's why the Romans had to completely change their military system once they moved to Constantinople and had to deal with real warriors in the form of steppe horse archers. Much easier to seem bad ass when you're fighting undisciplined Gauls that smell bad and wear berry juice. Parthians used the same tactic as steppe horse archers. And yes crossbows puncture armour, but not armour and shields, as the legions used it. You should concentrate on the Han cavalry advantage, a much better argument.
Parthians did not use the same tactics as Han ranged troops. Parthians had nothing anywhere close to the massed range firepower of Han crossbow formations. This is exactly the reason why heavy plate armor never occurred in China. It would have been foolhardy and wasteful in the extreme.
Also, Parthian bows pierced legionnaire shields and armor without problem. Combine that with the fact the Han could field much more archers (because they weren't mounted and didn't need skill in composite bows) had greater draw strength, and could fire en masse, and I don't see the Roman charge getting very far. It's one thing to get snipered, another to have your entire front ranks gunned down, which is how mass crossbows do it. The morale shock alone would be really bad for the Romans.
|
I'd rather like to think in this way, generally the one with the better maneuverability has the luxury of choosing the battlefield. Infantry based army composition is great defensively, but lack in offensive options, which brings me back in full circle to the MKP and Nada match. In that matchup, had Nada have the luxury of choosing the battlefield, he would've won easily, but it is just not so.
|
On February 15 2011 13:53 Shrinky Dink wrote:![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/giCRx.jpg) Seriously though, if you look past the horrors he did, he was actually an excellent speaker, with his war machine being responsible for some of the greatest advances in technology and science, and recovered his country's extreme deficit in its economy at the time (following the Treaty of Versailles). I know it's obviously that he wasn't the greatest of all time, but IMO he is very underrated as a leader for his country since everyone looks at his cons.
His war strategy was terrible. He didn't do half of what he needed for his intended goal. Perhaps he was good for morale, but so is almost every decent general in the proper time. If he had actually acomplished what he needed to EURO would look much different, but the truth is he pissed off too many people and let himself get attacked from two angles then starved because of it. Perhaps though you are weighing the propoganda, but that wasn't just him. His strategy sucked and the propoganda was proposed, written and produced by others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
