|
On February 26 2011 00:00 FindMeInKenya wrote:
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.
This is exactly why such comparisons are futile! Who invades whom, on which territory is the battle fought, what are the supply lines? There are no answers because there never was a realistic chance for such a battle to occur.
That and given prolonged contact between the two empires, the fighting styles of both would change.
@Storkhwaiting
I never compared mounted archers and non-mounted crossbow men, it is not like non-mounted crossbowmen are very maneuverable. Yes Crassus has lost to the Parthians in the first battle ever between the two, but roman troops adapted quickly and never lost like that again.
btw I very much doubt that Han crossbows were on the same level as late medieval crossbows, but who knows (You said yourself there was no widespread use of armour, so why should penetrating power be one of the requirements in their production? A major advantage of crossbows is that less training is required compared to using a bow, which pretty much takes years to perfect. Good for a conscripted army I guess.)
|
There was widespread use of armor in the Han, just not heavy plated cavalry like knights. Chinese had a ton of different armors, many of extremely good construction. Several times in their history, they developed heavy cataphracts as well, but later adapted to horse archers and lighter cavalry for more mobility.
I don't understand why it would require late medieval crossbows to penetrate Roman legion armor though. Persian and Parthian compounds already penetrated Roman shields and armor and they were nowhere near the power of Chinese crossbows at the time.
And people do know. It's well documented that Chinese crossbows on average had at least 200 lb draw strength, same as an English longbow. There were of course other models that went up to 500 lb draw strength. But most were armed with 200 lb and the bolts were of very advanced construction, with heads like bodkin or better. Even pre-Han dynasty projectile weaponry were as advanced if not more so than medieval ages. Like I said before, Han dynasty military technology was leaps and bounds better than that of the West. Same thing with naval ship construction. Chinese had much larger displacement ships than anything the West had for pretty much all of its history. Even the European ships of the Colonial period were much smaller than the likes of Zheng He's treasure ships. (Of course, that's a much later period).
I think the most important thing though is for everyone to acknowledge that I have cited some very solid sources for Chinese troop numbers, which show they regularly did manage armies much larger than their Roman contemporaries. I don't really care who would win in a pitched fight between the two, as like you said, it is a very difficult analysis to make. I'm just having a bit of fun fantasizing about the clash.
I am an avowed anti-fan of the Roman empire though. Like, I thoroughly detest them. Why? Because I'm a huge Carthage/Hannibal fanboy  . I think the Byzantines were fking awesome though. I just hate the boring ass legionnaires.
|
How is it such comparison futile? Of course due to the fictional nature of this discussion there is no non-fictional answer. However, through thorough comparative analysis of the 2 nations, we can draw fair conclusions to the advantages and disadvantages of various areas between the two. Through these comparative analysis, we can estimate who would have the upper-hand if the 2 were going head to head. Furthermore, we can only judge such outcome through known data, not something that woulda, coulda happened. Thus the argument of where the battle would occur is really pointless, because it is such an micro-oriented event.
Take it this way, in a theoretical match between Nada and MKP, we can't judge who would've win with a micro oreinted argument since we would never know who would miss click or something. But we can judge from playstyle differences (macro-oriented) and draw a closer conclusion to the confrontation.
This is also why when we discuss such things we bring up army compositions, economics, logistics, and equipments instead of which generals are leading the army or where it would've happened.
|
On February 26 2011 00:43 FindMeInKenya wrote:
How is it such comparison futile? Of course due to the fictional nature of this discussion there is no non-fictional answer. However, through thorough comparative analysis of the 2 nations, we can draw fair conclusions to the advantages and disadvantages of various areas between the two. Through these comparative analysis, we can estimate who would have the upper-hand if the 2 were going head to head. Furthermore, we can only judge such outcome through known data, not something that woulda, coulda happened. Thus the argument of where the battle would occur is really pointless, because it is such an micro-oriented event.
Take it this way, in a theoretical match between Nada and MKP, we can't judge who would've win with a micro oreinted argument since we would never know who would miss click or something. But we can judge from playstyle differences (macro-oriented) and draw a closer conclusion to the confrontation.
OK, well if we want to do it that way, I can try.
Roman legionnaire:
Formation: Tight
Weapons:
Gladius (blade length 50-55cm of iron)
Pilum (36cm to 76 cm long tip, with shaft about 150 to 210 cm in total)
Shield: Scutum (5 to 6mm of plywood bound in skin with iron rim)
Armor: Lorica Segmentata (0.7mm to 1mm of iron plate armor)
I don't have as detailed information for the Han though.
I've been searching for ages for the exact specifications of Han dynasty Iron Lamellar armor. Anyone else with better research skills want to give it a crack?
|
Check on the CHF Forum Stork, page 89 and 95 might interest you.
|
On February 26 2011 02:18 FindMeInKenya wrote:Check on the CHF Forum Stork, page 89 and 95 might interest you.
Nice link. I read some similar things on the internet in my research as well, but I couldn't find specific measurements for Chinese armor like how many mm's thick the lamellar armor scales were and things like that. I'm trying to find the hard numbers  .
|
I don't see why this comparison between field army sizes is even going on? After the Marian Reforms, Rome began to have a standing, professional army, which will no doubt be smaller than one that is conscription based. This holds even more for single deployments seeing as the Roman army was fighting and stationed on many different fronts and thus was not even close to being consolidated.
So, the only apples-to-apples comparison that can be made is with pre-Marius Rome. And, this is just silly to argue against the Han Empire seeing as the Roman Republic before 100 BC had no where near the numbers (not even 30 million).
As for Parthian arrows piercing the scutum AND armor, that also is just silly. If the Romans were in regular formation, Parthian arrows would cause non vital injuries to exposed areas. In testudo, almost no harm would be caused.
|
The reforms of C. Marius were necessary because unskilled consuls threw away armies. There just weren't enough people that qualified for the army to defend/expand rome. The Marian reforms weren't the downfall of the Empire either. That honor goes to the undisputed greatest general of all time, Quinctilius Varus.
|
On February 26 2011 03:37 allecto wrote:
I don't see why this comparison between field army sizes is even going on? After the Marian Reforms, Rome began to have a standing, professional army, which will no doubt be smaller than one that is conscription based. This holds even more for single deployments seeing as the Roman army was fighting and stationed on many different fronts and thus was not even close to being consolidated.
So, the only apples-to-apples comparison that can be made is with pre-Marius Rome. And, this is just silly to argue against the Han Empire seeing as the Roman Republic before 100 BC had no where near the numbers (not even 30 million).
As for Parthian arrows piercing the scutum AND armor, that also is just silly. If the Romans were in regular formation, Parthian arrows would cause non vital injuries to exposed areas. In testudo, almost no harm would be caused.
Oh yeah, going to reinforce this. The Romans were basically impervious to parthian arrows when in testudo formation....it was the Parthian heavy cavalry that really screwed them up. The close formations that protected the Romans from arrows allowed cavalry charges to be brutally effective, and the infantry could never catch the horse archers anyways. So the Romans were just pinned down the entire time, and could never come to grips with the enemy. I don't know how many of you have shot bows and such, but heavy(80-100lb) recurve bows are quite difficult to handle, especially short ones. So much so that its doubted that the bows could have been much more than 70lb in draw weight. And while 70lbs is quite substantial, it won't exactly be able to punch through shields and armor, especially at range. What made them deadly was their ability to get effortless flanks, and the fact they could almost engage with impunity.
|
On February 26 2011 04:37 Sm3agol wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 03:37 allecto wrote:
I don't see why this comparison between field army sizes is even going on? After the Marian Reforms, Rome began to have a standing, professional army, which will no doubt be smaller than one that is conscription based. This holds even more for single deployments seeing as the Roman army was fighting and stationed on many different fronts and thus was not even close to being consolidated.
So, the only apples-to-apples comparison that can be made is with pre-Marius Rome. And, this is just silly to argue against the Han Empire seeing as the Roman Republic before 100 BC had no where near the numbers (not even 30 million).
As for Parthian arrows piercing the scutum AND armor, that also is just silly. If the Romans were in regular formation, Parthian arrows would cause non vital injuries to exposed areas. In testudo, almost no harm would be caused. Oh yeah, going to reinforce this. The Romans were basically impervious to parthian arrows when in testudo formation....it was the Parthian heavy cavalry that really screwed them up. The close formations that protected the Romans from arrows allowed cavalry charges to be brutally effective, and the infantry could never catch the horse archers anyways. So the Romans were just pinned down the entire time, and could never come to grips with the enemy. I don't know how many of you have shot bows and such, but heavy(80-100lb) recurve bows are quite difficult to handle, especially short ones. So much so that its doubted that the bows could have been much more than 70lb in draw weight. And while 70lbs is quite substantial, it won't exactly be able to punch through shields and armor, especially at range. What made them deadly was their ability to get effortless flanks, and the fact they could almost engage with impunity.
Oh yeah, I'll reinforce it too with this quote from some Roman historians:
The missiles falling thick upon them from all sides at once struck down many by a mortal blow, rendered many useless for battle, and caused distress to all. They flew into their eyes and pierced their hands and all the other parts of their body and, penetrating their armour, deprived them of their protection and compelled them to expose themselves to each new missile. Thus, while a man was guarding against arrows or pulling out one that had stuck fast he received more wounds, one after another. Consequently it was impracticable for them to move, and impracticable to remain at rest.
- Cassius Dio, Roman History, XL
And when Publius urged them to charge the enemy's mail-clad horsemen, they showed him that their hands were riveted to their shields and their feet nailed through to the ground, so that they were helpless either for flight or for self-defence."
- Plutarch, Life of Crassus, XXV
And if you think 70 lbs draw weight is quite substantial, I wonder what you will think of Chinese crossbow's 200 lbs draw weight.
|
There's really comprehensive analysis on whether or not the Han Chinese arrow could penetrate the Roman's heavy plating armor in here (post 1323).
If you are too lazy to read the long post, short summary: yes, the Chinese arrows can easily penetrate it.
Also, it is generally observed that the number and quality of Calvary troops is the major factor in pre-industrialization wars. This is why later medieval armies shifted into more Calvary centric forces, and also why the Han WuDi went all Calvary forces to against the Xiongnu.
|
On February 26 2011 06:08 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 04:37 Sm3agol wrote:On February 26 2011 03:37 allecto wrote:
I don't see why this comparison between field army sizes is even going on? After the Marian Reforms, Rome began to have a standing, professional army, which will no doubt be smaller than one that is conscription based. This holds even more for single deployments seeing as the Roman army was fighting and stationed on many different fronts and thus was not even close to being consolidated.
So, the only apples-to-apples comparison that can be made is with pre-Marius Rome. And, this is just silly to argue against the Han Empire seeing as the Roman Republic before 100 BC had no where near the numbers (not even 30 million).
As for Parthian arrows piercing the scutum AND armor, that also is just silly. If the Romans were in regular formation, Parthian arrows would cause non vital injuries to exposed areas. In testudo, almost no harm would be caused. Oh yeah, going to reinforce this. The Romans were basically impervious to parthian arrows when in testudo formation....it was the Parthian heavy cavalry that really screwed them up. The close formations that protected the Romans from arrows allowed cavalry charges to be brutally effective, and the infantry could never catch the horse archers anyways. So the Romans were just pinned down the entire time, and could never come to grips with the enemy. I don't know how many of you have shot bows and such, but heavy(80-100lb) recurve bows are quite difficult to handle, especially short ones. So much so that its doubted that the bows could have been much more than 70lb in draw weight. And while 70lbs is quite substantial, it won't exactly be able to punch through shields and armor, especially at range. What made them deadly was their ability to get effortless flanks, and the fact they could almost engage with impunity. Oh yeah, I'll reinforce it too with this quote from some Roman historians: The missiles falling thick upon them from all sides at once struck down many by a mortal blow, rendered many useless for battle, and caused distress to all. They flew into their eyes and pierced their hands and all the other parts of their body and, penetrating their armour, deprived them of their protection and compelled them to expose themselves to each new missile. Thus, while a man was guarding against arrows or pulling out one that had stuck fast he received more wounds, one after another. Consequently it was impracticable for them to move, and impracticable to remain at rest. - Cassius Dio, Roman History, XL And when Publius urged them to charge the enemy's mail-clad horsemen, they showed him that their hands were riveted to their shields and their feet nailed through to the ground, so that they were helpless either for flight or for self-defence." - Plutarch, Life of Crassus, XXV And if you think 70 lbs draw weight is quite substantial, I wonder what you will think of Chinese crossbow's 200 lbs draw weight.
You pick Dio who wrote centuries after the fact, and Plutarch, a biographer and not a Roman. But, my main contention with looking just at the Battle of Carrhae is a fact that has already been mentioned. Namely the Romans were shitting themselves, not knowing what they could possibly do. As a result, arrows were being shot at them from distances that were ridiculously close.
Edit: The contention is not whether an arrow or bolt can pierce armor. I'm sure that it could at point blank range. The question is how close one has to be to see any damage.
Edit2: I just read the Dio quote in the Greek, and he is really highlighting the fact that the Romans were stuck between a rock and a hard place, namely that they either had to stay in the testudo to avoid arrows or they had to defend against the advancing pikemen soldiers of Parthia. It seems he thinks that the testudo would suitably defend the arrows.
The piercing the armor part is giving me trouble, he uses a weird verb for "pierce." But, even still, it's armor not shield here.
|
On February 26 2011 06:43 allecto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 06:08 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 26 2011 04:37 Sm3agol wrote:On February 26 2011 03:37 allecto wrote:
I don't see why this comparison between field army sizes is even going on? After the Marian Reforms, Rome began to have a standing, professional army, which will no doubt be smaller than one that is conscription based. This holds even more for single deployments seeing as the Roman army was fighting and stationed on many different fronts and thus was not even close to being consolidated.
So, the only apples-to-apples comparison that can be made is with pre-Marius Rome. And, this is just silly to argue against the Han Empire seeing as the Roman Republic before 100 BC had no where near the numbers (not even 30 million).
As for Parthian arrows piercing the scutum AND armor, that also is just silly. If the Romans were in regular formation, Parthian arrows would cause non vital injuries to exposed areas. In testudo, almost no harm would be caused. Oh yeah, going to reinforce this. The Romans were basically impervious to parthian arrows when in testudo formation....it was the Parthian heavy cavalry that really screwed them up. The close formations that protected the Romans from arrows allowed cavalry charges to be brutally effective, and the infantry could never catch the horse archers anyways. So the Romans were just pinned down the entire time, and could never come to grips with the enemy. I don't know how many of you have shot bows and such, but heavy(80-100lb) recurve bows are quite difficult to handle, especially short ones. So much so that its doubted that the bows could have been much more than 70lb in draw weight. And while 70lbs is quite substantial, it won't exactly be able to punch through shields and armor, especially at range. What made them deadly was their ability to get effortless flanks, and the fact they could almost engage with impunity. Oh yeah, I'll reinforce it too with this quote from some Roman historians: The missiles falling thick upon them from all sides at once struck down many by a mortal blow, rendered many useless for battle, and caused distress to all. They flew into their eyes and pierced their hands and all the other parts of their body and, penetrating their armour, deprived them of their protection and compelled them to expose themselves to each new missile. Thus, while a man was guarding against arrows or pulling out one that had stuck fast he received more wounds, one after another. Consequently it was impracticable for them to move, and impracticable to remain at rest. - Cassius Dio, Roman History, XL And when Publius urged them to charge the enemy's mail-clad horsemen, they showed him that their hands were riveted to their shields and their feet nailed through to the ground, so that they were helpless either for flight or for self-defence." - Plutarch, Life of Crassus, XXV And if you think 70 lbs draw weight is quite substantial, I wonder what you will think of Chinese crossbow's 200 lbs draw weight. You pick Dio who wrote centuries after the fact, and Plutarch, a biographer and not a Roman. But, my main contention with looking just at the Battle of Carrhae is a fact that has already been mentioned. Namely the Romans were shitting themselves, not knowing what they could possibly do. As a result, arrows were being shot at them from distances that were ridiculously close. Edit: The contention is not whether an arrow or bolt can pierce armor. I'm sure that it could at point blank range. The question is how close one has to be to see any damage.
Man, how hard is it to understand the difference between a 70 lb draw and a 200 lb draw? And how hard is it for you to look up a simple fact like the lethal range of a Chinese crossbow? Not only that, Kenya directly linked you to a perfect analysis of it.
Nobody cares about the Parthians, their dinky composite bows are like mosquito bites compared to Han crossbows. Point is, Parthian bows, even as shit as they were, were more than enough to constitute a lethal threat to the Romans. You take the Han crossbow which is exponentially more powerful and requires much less training to use, and it becomes ridiculously obvious what would happen in a clash between Han massed crossbowmen and Roman testudo.
And beyond that, it's just ludicrous what you're proposing, which is basically that Roman legions were immune to ranged attacks due to their shields and armor.
|
On February 26 2011 06:59 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 06:43 allecto wrote:On February 26 2011 06:08 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 26 2011 04:37 Sm3agol wrote:On February 26 2011 03:37 allecto wrote:
I don't see why this comparison between field army sizes is even going on? After the Marian Reforms, Rome began to have a standing, professional army, which will no doubt be smaller than one that is conscription based. This holds even more for single deployments seeing as the Roman army was fighting and stationed on many different fronts and thus was not even close to being consolidated.
So, the only apples-to-apples comparison that can be made is with pre-Marius Rome. And, this is just silly to argue against the Han Empire seeing as the Roman Republic before 100 BC had no where near the numbers (not even 30 million).
As for Parthian arrows piercing the scutum AND armor, that also is just silly. If the Romans were in regular formation, Parthian arrows would cause non vital injuries to exposed areas. In testudo, almost no harm would be caused. Oh yeah, going to reinforce this. The Romans were basically impervious to parthian arrows when in testudo formation....it was the Parthian heavy cavalry that really screwed them up. The close formations that protected the Romans from arrows allowed cavalry charges to be brutally effective, and the infantry could never catch the horse archers anyways. So the Romans were just pinned down the entire time, and could never come to grips with the enemy. I don't know how many of you have shot bows and such, but heavy(80-100lb) recurve bows are quite difficult to handle, especially short ones. So much so that its doubted that the bows could have been much more than 70lb in draw weight. And while 70lbs is quite substantial, it won't exactly be able to punch through shields and armor, especially at range. What made them deadly was their ability to get effortless flanks, and the fact they could almost engage with impunity. Oh yeah, I'll reinforce it too with this quote from some Roman historians: The missiles falling thick upon them from all sides at once struck down many by a mortal blow, rendered many useless for battle, and caused distress to all. They flew into their eyes and pierced their hands and all the other parts of their body and, penetrating their armour, deprived them of their protection and compelled them to expose themselves to each new missile. Thus, while a man was guarding against arrows or pulling out one that had stuck fast he received more wounds, one after another. Consequently it was impracticable for them to move, and impracticable to remain at rest. - Cassius Dio, Roman History, XL And when Publius urged them to charge the enemy's mail-clad horsemen, they showed him that their hands were riveted to their shields and their feet nailed through to the ground, so that they were helpless either for flight or for self-defence." - Plutarch, Life of Crassus, XXV And if you think 70 lbs draw weight is quite substantial, I wonder what you will think of Chinese crossbow's 200 lbs draw weight. You pick Dio who wrote centuries after the fact, and Plutarch, a biographer and not a Roman. But, my main contention with looking just at the Battle of Carrhae is a fact that has already been mentioned. Namely the Romans were shitting themselves, not knowing what they could possibly do. As a result, arrows were being shot at them from distances that were ridiculously close. Edit: The contention is not whether an arrow or bolt can pierce armor. I'm sure that it could at point blank range. The question is how close one has to be to see any damage. Man, how hard is it to understand the difference between a 70 lb draw and a 200 lb draw? And how hard is it for you to look up a simple fact like the lethal range of a Chinese crossbow? Not only that, Kenya directly linked you to a perfect analysis of it. Nobody cares about the Parthians, their dinky composite bows are like mosquito bites compared to Han crossbows. Point is, Parthian bows, even as shit as they were, were more than enough to constitute a lethal threat to the Romans. You take the Han crossbow which is exponentially more powerful and requires much less training to use, and it becomes ridiculously obvious what would happen in a clash between Han massed crossbowmen and Roman testudo. And beyond that, it's just ludicrous what you're proposing, which is basically that Roman legions were immune to ranged attacks due to their shields and armor.
Wow, you don't have to overstate my claims. I made no conclusion on Chinese crossbows or anything stating the immunity of Roman legions. All I was doing was talking about the Parthian bows which was the topic at the time. And I was posting before I saw the Kenya post.
|
|
|
On February 25 2011 22:20 FindMeInKenya wrote:Excellent read mcc, the princeton paper is absolutely wonderful and informative. One might wonder perhaps this is the reason why Chinese governments are reluctant to adapt to a more capitalist model for so long. On the part of Rome and Hans logistical capacities, post 1329 has shown that Han has greater degree of mobility and coverage of range. You might find that to be a interesting read.
Well the paper is pretty good, and reasonably recent as far as Western sources go. Unfortunately for more recent sources one would probably have to learn Chinese (which would help me next year in China, but no time to do that , not even mentioning that it is my favourite language at least as far as how it sounds ).
As for logistics, the operational range does not really surprise me. My guess was that Chinese had more cavalry and different strategy. The post has some good points actually about the abundance of pastures and more cavalry in Chinese army and a lot of other info.
|
On February 25 2011 22:26 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2011 22:07 mcc wrote:On February 25 2011 21:48 StorkHwaiting wrote:
OK so basically everyone else so far in this thread has come around to agree that the Han regularly fielded armies much larger than Rome. Then there's mcc, who is still trying to argue his absurd point that the Han did not, quoting Roman battles as proof, despite the fact that they are some of the most epic struggles in the history of Rome that are universally acknowledged as the peaks of Roman military engagement. Whereas vast majority of the engagements for Han forces numbered into the hundreds of thousands.
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.
But that's neither here nor there. The initial point is that Asian generals should not be overlooked because they regularly dealt with logistical and command issues orders of complexity above that of their European contemporaries of the BC era. A very simple point that mcc has somehow butchered, obfuscated, and then attempted to accuse me of backpedaling on, which I never have. He just somehow thinks anytime I don't explicitly state my exact point verbatim every single time it's referenced, then that somehow means I'm backpedaling. Kind of obvious at this point that mcc is not even trying to understand or learn anything, he's merely trying to "win" an argument.
The debate was NEVER about which empire had more soldiers. The point was about FIELD armies and about the difficulty in generalship the generals of each empire faced. I brought up the army size merely as a barometer of logistical difficulty for the general who would have to command and care for that amount of men, because of the simple point that a hundred thousand men is harder to manage than thirty thousand. I never argued (that does not mean I agree or disagree) most of the stuff you wrote, especially nothing about who had better quality of soldiers or equipment. This is just your psychological projection, because you think I am some Rome fanboy and I care about those basically unsolvable problems. No matter if you meant field armies or total armies, point of contention was your claim 4-5 times(even 2-3) the size. If you merely said larger I might have disagreed, but since they were pretty similar I would definitely not try to argue it too much as it would be pointless. So yes you are backpedaling since our debate was about your statement "4-5 times"(which you never conceded btw) not merely "larger", you are just now acting like you never said anything like that. Another point was about population, but since you never responded to the numbers I suppose you conceded. I didn't concede anything. Jesus Christ, what is wrong with your reading comprehension. Here, if it makes you feel better, I will explicitly state that I still think the Han dynasty regularly fielded armies 4-5x bigger, and that they had a bigger population. You have yet to convince me otherwise.
You made positive statement, burden of proof is on you now.
|
On February 26 2011 07:08 allecto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 06:59 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 26 2011 06:43 allecto wrote:On February 26 2011 06:08 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 26 2011 04:37 Sm3agol wrote:On February 26 2011 03:37 allecto wrote:
I don't see why this comparison between field army sizes is even going on? After the Marian Reforms, Rome began to have a standing, professional army, which will no doubt be smaller than one that is conscription based. This holds even more for single deployments seeing as the Roman army was fighting and stationed on many different fronts and thus was not even close to being consolidated.
So, the only apples-to-apples comparison that can be made is with pre-Marius Rome. And, this is just silly to argue against the Han Empire seeing as the Roman Republic before 100 BC had no where near the numbers (not even 30 million).
As for Parthian arrows piercing the scutum AND armor, that also is just silly. If the Romans were in regular formation, Parthian arrows would cause non vital injuries to exposed areas. In testudo, almost no harm would be caused. Oh yeah, going to reinforce this. The Romans were basically impervious to parthian arrows when in testudo formation....it was the Parthian heavy cavalry that really screwed them up. The close formations that protected the Romans from arrows allowed cavalry charges to be brutally effective, and the infantry could never catch the horse archers anyways. So the Romans were just pinned down the entire time, and could never come to grips with the enemy. I don't know how many of you have shot bows and such, but heavy(80-100lb) recurve bows are quite difficult to handle, especially short ones. So much so that its doubted that the bows could have been much more than 70lb in draw weight. And while 70lbs is quite substantial, it won't exactly be able to punch through shields and armor, especially at range. What made them deadly was their ability to get effortless flanks, and the fact they could almost engage with impunity. Oh yeah, I'll reinforce it too with this quote from some Roman historians: The missiles falling thick upon them from all sides at once struck down many by a mortal blow, rendered many useless for battle, and caused distress to all. They flew into their eyes and pierced their hands and all the other parts of their body and, penetrating their armour, deprived them of their protection and compelled them to expose themselves to each new missile. Thus, while a man was guarding against arrows or pulling out one that had stuck fast he received more wounds, one after another. Consequently it was impracticable for them to move, and impracticable to remain at rest. - Cassius Dio, Roman History, XL And when Publius urged them to charge the enemy's mail-clad horsemen, they showed him that their hands were riveted to their shields and their feet nailed through to the ground, so that they were helpless either for flight or for self-defence." - Plutarch, Life of Crassus, XXV And if you think 70 lbs draw weight is quite substantial, I wonder what you will think of Chinese crossbow's 200 lbs draw weight. You pick Dio who wrote centuries after the fact, and Plutarch, a biographer and not a Roman. But, my main contention with looking just at the Battle of Carrhae is a fact that has already been mentioned. Namely the Romans were shitting themselves, not knowing what they could possibly do. As a result, arrows were being shot at them from distances that were ridiculously close. Edit: The contention is not whether an arrow or bolt can pierce armor. I'm sure that it could at point blank range. The question is how close one has to be to see any damage. Man, how hard is it to understand the difference between a 70 lb draw and a 200 lb draw? And how hard is it for you to look up a simple fact like the lethal range of a Chinese crossbow? Not only that, Kenya directly linked you to a perfect analysis of it. Nobody cares about the Parthians, their dinky composite bows are like mosquito bites compared to Han crossbows. Point is, Parthian bows, even as shit as they were, were more than enough to constitute a lethal threat to the Romans. You take the Han crossbow which is exponentially more powerful and requires much less training to use, and it becomes ridiculously obvious what would happen in a clash between Han massed crossbowmen and Roman testudo. And beyond that, it's just ludicrous what you're proposing, which is basically that Roman legions were immune to ranged attacks due to their shields and armor. Wow, you don't have to overstate my claims. I made no conclusion on Chinese crossbows or anything stating the immunity of Roman legions. All I was doing was talking about the Parthian bows which was the topic at the time. And I was posting before I saw the Kenya post.
This is the original quote you've been trying to contend: I don't understand why it would require late medieval crossbows to penetrate Roman legion armor though. Persian and Parthian compounds already penetrated Roman shields and armor and they were nowhere near the power of Chinese crossbows at the time.
You somehow with your amazing reading comprehension translated it as:
"Parthian arrows cut through shields AND armor like nothing and just obliterated the legions."
Then you've gone on to try to debate how amazingly shit Parthian arrows are and how they need to be shot at point blank etc etc, while completely ignoring the very basic and obvious point that I was making. Namely, that Han crossbows would have no trouble at all piercing Roman shields and armor.
And yes, Parthian arrows did pierce Roman shields and armor. Not at the exact same time, but they had the ability to pierce either one. Maybe it would make you happier if I said, "Parthian arrows could pierce Roman shields, or they could pierce Roman armor, but they couldn't pierce through the shield, then hurtle into the armor, blast through that too, and then kill the Roman soldier all in one shot."
I'm sorry if I did not explain this in enough detail in my original quote, as I thought basic common sense would have dictated the obvious. It should also be obvious that people shoot more than one arrow in a fight, and a shield tends to get fucked up once it's had a few arrows shot into it. Arrows could also hit exposed hands, legs, faces, and neck. They could also pierce through the shield and stab into the hands and arms carrying the shield. But no, a Parthian arrow could not shoot through a shield, go straight through the breastplate, and kill a Roman dead in the most armored part of his body.
A Han crossbow, on the other hand, could.
I'd also like to add, the shields are not that amazing. They're made of plywood. Like seriously, do you think a plywood board is that impressive of a defense? Sure, it's 4 feet tall and looks real big and shiny when painted, but it wasn't some amazing bulwark of safety.
|
On February 26 2011 07:18 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2011 22:26 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 25 2011 22:07 mcc wrote:On February 25 2011 21:48 StorkHwaiting wrote:
OK so basically everyone else so far in this thread has come around to agree that the Han regularly fielded armies much larger than Rome. Then there's mcc, who is still trying to argue his absurd point that the Han did not, quoting Roman battles as proof, despite the fact that they are some of the most epic struggles in the history of Rome that are universally acknowledged as the peaks of Roman military engagement. Whereas vast majority of the engagements for Han forces numbered into the hundreds of thousands.
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.
But that's neither here nor there. The initial point is that Asian generals should not be overlooked because they regularly dealt with logistical and command issues orders of complexity above that of their European contemporaries of the BC era. A very simple point that mcc has somehow butchered, obfuscated, and then attempted to accuse me of backpedaling on, which I never have. He just somehow thinks anytime I don't explicitly state my exact point verbatim every single time it's referenced, then that somehow means I'm backpedaling. Kind of obvious at this point that mcc is not even trying to understand or learn anything, he's merely trying to "win" an argument.
The debate was NEVER about which empire had more soldiers. The point was about FIELD armies and about the difficulty in generalship the generals of each empire faced. I brought up the army size merely as a barometer of logistical difficulty for the general who would have to command and care for that amount of men, because of the simple point that a hundred thousand men is harder to manage than thirty thousand. I never argued (that does not mean I agree or disagree) most of the stuff you wrote, especially nothing about who had better quality of soldiers or equipment. This is just your psychological projection, because you think I am some Rome fanboy and I care about those basically unsolvable problems. No matter if you meant field armies or total armies, point of contention was your claim 4-5 times(even 2-3) the size. If you merely said larger I might have disagreed, but since they were pretty similar I would definitely not try to argue it too much as it would be pointless. So yes you are backpedaling since our debate was about your statement "4-5 times"(which you never conceded btw) not merely "larger", you are just now acting like you never said anything like that. Another point was about population, but since you never responded to the numbers I suppose you conceded. I didn't concede anything. Jesus Christ, what is wrong with your reading comprehension. Here, if it makes you feel better, I will explicitly state that I still think the Han dynasty regularly fielded armies 4-5x bigger, and that they had a bigger population. You have yet to convince me otherwise. You made positive statement, burden of proof is on you now.
I gave you the proof. Guess you're too busy still trying to win arguments to read it, though. And I think you should understand that in a debate, when someone says a positive statement, then you say prove it, and they say, no, you disprove it, then you're still on equal ground. The statement is not refuted until you have proven otherwise.
Much like the debate of the existence of God. Someone says they believe in God. I say prove it. They say disprove it. You are at an impasse. The burden of proof is on whoever wants to win the argument, otherwise neither side can force the other to concede that they are wrong.
In this case though, I have amply proven my point, while all you have done is deny, deny, deny.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
Manner please. Neither of you nerds have been in combat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
