On February 26 2011 07:23 Kennigit wrote: Manner please. Neither of you nerds have been in combat.
I'm not sure that's fair to say. Combat takes many forms, such as when I am on the toilet and have eaten nothing but McDonald's for the last five days. While it is not quite the same as charging a column of Carthaginian war elephants, for that brief span of time, I am engaging in a struggle of heroic difficulty that requires courage no less than any soldier of antiquity.
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.
I never mentioned the strength of Chinese/Medieval crossbows against Roman armor. Must be confusing me with someone else. My comment on Parthian composite bows was an offhand remark made when the majority of my post was concerned with the problems comparing army sizes between Rome and the Han Dynasty.
I read that post on the power of the 6 dan crossbow and it was a pretty convincing job the guy did. I didn't examine the mathematics of it all, but like I said before, I was just trying to point out the overstatement of Parthian ability to dominate Roman shields, armor.
EDIT: Seriously (though I was already pretty serious) there is no answer to this question. There are good generals, there are exceptional generals. There are under- and overrated generals. There are national heroes and international villains. I'd say that any general that knows his stuff and has a good heart would qualify as "the greatest".
They should hold competitions for the greatest current general. Get them all together, decide on a couple of rules, and let an objective jury vote.
On February 26 2011 00:39 StorkHwaiting wrote: 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.
Han crossbow's true strength is with how fast its rate of fire is, not its draw strength, which is relatively weak compare to other crossbows. From that time period standard, Han's ranged weapons would look like a machine gun to Roman eyes.
Roman legion would not stand a chance if they actually fought Han army. Legions are more advanced version of Greek Phalanx and were great against fighting this type of army or unorganized forces such as Gauls and Germans. However, Legions are simply not built to fight lightly armored missile heavy troops and this shows in Roman campaigns against Parthians. Han had better technology, logistics and more people than Parthia. No way legion will be able to even engage the Han army.
This is also supported by the fact that as you get to Byzantine era, Romans began to transition their army into more mobile and missile focused army.
On February 26 2011 00:39 StorkHwaiting wrote: 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.
Han crossbow's true strength is with how fast its rate of fire is, not its draw strength, which is relatively weak compare to other crossbows. From that time period standard, Han's ranged weapons would look like a machine gun to Roman eyes.
Roman legion would not stand a chance if they actually fought Han army. Legions are more advanced version of Greek Phalanx and were great against fighting this type of army or unorganized forces such as Gauls and Germans. However, Legions are simply not built to fight lightly armored missile heavy troops and this shows in Roman campaigns against Parthians. Han had better technology, logistics and more people than Parthia. No way legion will be able to even engage the Han army.
This is also supported by the fact that as you get to Byzantine era, Romans began to transition their army into more mobile and missile focused army.
Perhaps in the open field. Sure CHina has a lot of open field. Not so much in forested Gaul. Try putting 200,000 crossbowmen vs Roman legions in a forest, or really hilly rocky terrain and you'll see the true meaning of "shit on". Not saying that means Roman armies were "better", but that they were built for a completely different purpose. They were designed for less than optimum terrain and were basically designed as a hard counter to slow moving, heavily armored, phalanx types armies. So saying that in an open field, they would get crapped on by Chinese crossbowmen is like saying the Chinese crossbowmen would have sucked balls in a jungle in the pouring rain vs the Nav'ii.
I think if the hypothetical comparison is really to be made, it has to be done so taking a look over a longer period of time. Sure the Parthians (literally) ran circles around the Romans at Carrhae, but look at what happened to them years later when the Romans learned what they had to do to win (i.e. Trajan conquering all the way through Mesopotamia). When it comes down to it, neither side could successfully invade and conquer the other due to logistical issues and the sheer ability of either side to engage in total war.
On February 26 2011 00:39 StorkHwaiting wrote: 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.
Han crossbow's true strength is with how fast its rate of fire is, not its draw strength, which is relatively weak compare to other crossbows. From that time period standard, Han's ranged weapons would look like a machine gun to Roman eyes.
Roman legion would not stand a chance if they actually fought Han army. Legions are more advanced version of Greek Phalanx and were great against fighting this type of army or unorganized forces such as Gauls and Germans. However, Legions are simply not built to fight lightly armored missile heavy troops and this shows in Roman campaigns against Parthians. Han had better technology, logistics and more people than Parthia. No way legion will be able to even engage the Han army.
This is also supported by the fact that as you get to Byzantine era, Romans began to transition their army into more mobile and missile focused army.
Perhaps in the open field. Sure CHina has a lot of open field. Not so much in forested Gaul. Try putting 200,000 crossbowmen vs Roman legions in a forest, or really hilly rocky terrain and you'll see the true meaning of "shit on". Not saying that means Roman armies were "better", but that they were built for a completely different purpose. They were designed for less than optimum terrain and were basically designed as a hard counter to slow moving, heavily armored, phalanx types armies. So saying that in an open field, they would get crapped on by Chinese crossbowmen is like saying the Chinese crossbowmen would have sucked balls in a jungle in the pouring rain vs the Nav'ii.
That is sort of my point. These two forces were built to fulfill different things. However, Roman forces were designed too specifically for fighting against unorganized forces/greek forces, resulting them getting destroyed by any missile heavy force (Parthia) or mounted force (Hannibal)
Han forces were much more flexible in that they had variety of different weapons available instead of focusing on elite troops. But you are right, it probably isn't fair comparing these two forces because Romans never had to face other type of forces until they began expanding out of the Mediterranean, at which point Byzantine army evolved to better suit against its enemies.
On February 26 2011 00:39 StorkHwaiting wrote: 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.
Han crossbow's true strength is with how fast its rate of fire is, not its draw strength, which is relatively weak compare to other crossbows. From that time period standard, Han's ranged weapons would look like a machine gun to Roman eyes.
Roman legion would not stand a chance if they actually fought Han army. Legions are more advanced version of Greek Phalanx and were great against fighting this type of army or unorganized forces such as Gauls and Germans. However, Legions are simply not built to fight lightly armored missile heavy troops and this shows in Roman campaigns against Parthians. Han had better technology, logistics and more people than Parthia. No way legion will be able to even engage the Han army.
This is also supported by the fact that as you get to Byzantine era, Romans began to transition their army into more mobile and missile focused army.
Perhaps in the open field. Sure CHina has a lot of open field. Not so much in forested Gaul. Try putting 200,000 crossbowmen vs Roman legions in a forest, or really hilly rocky terrain and you'll see the true meaning of "shit on". Not saying that means Roman armies were "better", but that they were built for a completely different purpose. They were designed for less than optimum terrain and were basically designed as a hard counter to slow moving, heavily armored, phalanx types armies. So saying that in an open field, they would get crapped on by Chinese crossbowmen is like saying the Chinese crossbowmen would have sucked balls in a jungle in the pouring rain vs the Nav'ii.
Crossbows don't need an arc of fire like bows do. A forest will mitigate a bit of the shock effect of a crossbow volley, but it would not stop the lethality of crossbows at all.
And China also has a lot of mountains and forests and rivers and valleys and hills and deserts and pretty much every other terrain on Earth.
And even with all that said, there is no guarantee Roman legions will do anything in close combat, seeing as they had a lot of trouble versus the dacian falx, and Chinese ge was a comparable yet also much better weapon compared to the falx. Basically a spear halberd with hooking, stabbing, and slashing capability, while being the length of a polearm. I am very skeptical that the Romans would have a good answer to this.
And ranged troops tend to do better than heavy infantry in really rocky, hilly terrain. Seeing as the heavy infantry have to climb said rocky, hilly terrain to get to the crossbowmen, whereas crossbowmen have to squeeze a trigger. Not sure where your logic is in that scenario.
On February 26 2011 00:39 StorkHwaiting wrote: 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.
Han crossbow's true strength is with how fast its rate of fire is, not its draw strength, which is relatively weak compare to other crossbows. From that time period standard, Han's ranged weapons would look like a machine gun to Roman eyes.
Roman legion would not stand a chance if they actually fought Han army. Legions are more advanced version of Greek Phalanx and were great against fighting this type of army or unorganized forces such as Gauls and Germans. However, Legions are simply not built to fight lightly armored missile heavy troops and this shows in Roman campaigns against Parthians. Han had better technology, logistics and more people than Parthia. No way legion will be able to even engage the Han army.
This is also supported by the fact that as you get to Byzantine era, Romans began to transition their army into more mobile and missile focused army.
Perhaps in the open field. Sure CHina has a lot of open field. Not so much in forested Gaul. Try putting 200,000 crossbowmen vs Roman legions in a forest, or really hilly rocky terrain and you'll see the true meaning of "shit on". Not saying that means Roman armies were "better", but that they were built for a completely different purpose. They were designed for less than optimum terrain and were basically designed as a hard counter to slow moving, heavily armored, phalanx types armies. So saying that in an open field, they would get crapped on by Chinese crossbowmen is like saying the Chinese crossbowmen would have sucked balls in a jungle in the pouring rain vs the Nav'ii.
Crossbows don't need an arc of fire like bows do. A forest will mitigate a bit of the shock effect of a crossbow volley, but it would not stop the lethality of crossbows at all.
And China also has a lot of mountains and forests and rivers and valleys and hills and deserts and pretty much every other terrain on Earth.
And even with all that said, there is no guarantee Roman legions will do anything in close combat, seeing as they had a lot of trouble versus the dacian falx, and Chinese ge was a comparable yet also much better weapon compared to the falx. Basically a spear halberd with hooking, stabbing, and slashing capability, while being the length of a polearm. I am very skeptical that the Romans would have a good answer to this.
And ranged troops tend to do better than heavy infantry in really rocky, hilly terrain. Seeing as the heavy infantry have to climb said rocky, hilly terrain to get to the crossbowmen, whereas crossbowmen have to squeeze a trigger. Not sure where your logic is in that scenario.
Finally, something to talk about other than the Chinese obvious ranged superiority...as for closer combat, the ge is a nice comparison to the falx which gave the Romans serious problems due to its cleaving ability. Though enemies who slashed were laughed off by the Romans, cleaving weapons such as these posed a noticeable threat. How many of the Han soldiers would come outfitted with one though?
Perhaps in the open field. Sure CHina has a lot of open field. Not so much in forested Gaul. Try putting 200,000 crossbowmen vs Roman legions in a forest, or really hilly rocky terrain and you'll see the true meaning of "shit on". Not saying that means Roman armies were "better", but that they were built for a completely different purpose. They were designed for less than optimum terrain and were basically designed as a hard counter to slow moving, heavily armored, phalanx types armies. So saying that in an open field, they would get crapped on by Chinese crossbowmen is like saying the Chinese crossbowmen would have sucked balls in a jungle in the pouring rain vs the Nav'ii.
Roman armies ARE built under different trend of thought. However,if the Chinese army knew the opposing army is in the forest, they would simply, from the sources I gather, burn down the forest and or wait for them to come out/starve them to death.. It is pretty clear to me that the Chinese armies rarely engage their opponent in an unfavorable terrain. And why would they, they have the advantages of better mobility, range, and logistical ability, it is really up to them to decide where the battle would lay.
On February 26 2011 00:39 StorkHwaiting wrote: 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.
Han crossbow's true strength is with how fast its rate of fire is, not its draw strength, which is relatively weak compare to other crossbows. From that time period standard, Han's ranged weapons would look like a machine gun to Roman eyes.
Roman legion would not stand a chance if they actually fought Han army. Legions are more advanced version of Greek Phalanx and were great against fighting this type of army or unorganized forces such as Gauls and Germans. However, Legions are simply not built to fight lightly armored missile heavy troops and this shows in Roman campaigns against Parthians. Han had better technology, logistics and more people than Parthia. No way legion will be able to even engage the Han army.
This is also supported by the fact that as you get to Byzantine era, Romans began to transition their army into more mobile and missile focused army.
Perhaps in the open field. Sure CHina has a lot of open field. Not so much in forested Gaul. Try putting 200,000 crossbowmen vs Roman legions in a forest, or really hilly rocky terrain and you'll see the true meaning of "shit on". Not saying that means Roman armies were "better", but that they were built for a completely different purpose. They were designed for less than optimum terrain and were basically designed as a hard counter to slow moving, heavily armored, phalanx types armies. So saying that in an open field, they would get crapped on by Chinese crossbowmen is like saying the Chinese crossbowmen would have sucked balls in a jungle in the pouring rain vs the Nav'ii.
Crossbows don't need an arc of fire like bows do. A forest will mitigate a bit of the shock effect of a crossbow volley, but it would not stop the lethality of crossbows at all.
And China also has a lot of mountains and forests and rivers and valleys and hills and deserts and pretty much every other terrain on Earth.
And even with all that said, there is no guarantee Roman legions will do anything in close combat, seeing as they had a lot of trouble versus the dacian falx, and Chinese ge was a comparable yet also much better weapon compared to the falx. Basically a spear halberd with hooking, stabbing, and slashing capability, while being the length of a polearm. I am very skeptical that the Romans would have a good answer to this.
And ranged troops tend to do better than heavy infantry in really rocky, hilly terrain. Seeing as the heavy infantry have to climb said rocky, hilly terrain to get to the crossbowmen, whereas crossbowmen have to squeeze a trigger. Not sure where your logic is in that scenario.
Finally, something to talk about other than the Chinese obvious ranged superiority...as for closer combat, the ge is a nice comparison to the falx which gave the Romans serious problems due to its cleaving ability. Though enemies who slashed were laughed off by the Romans, cleaving weapons such as these posed a noticeable threat. How many of the Han soldiers would come outfitted with one though?
Pretty much every single Chinese soldier who wasn't armed with a crossbow or two-handed sword was armed with a ge. It was the primary weapon of Han infantry, but most infantry were also equipped with a two-edged sword for very close combat.
On the Parthians vs Romans though, I think Trajan is a bit overhyped, seeing as how the Parthians were engaged in a civil war when he did his conquests, and were consumed in civil wars pretty much from then on until their fall to the Sassanids. So to me, I find it difficult to really claim Roman victory at arms over the Parthians. Maybe a political victory because they didn't internally combust as fast as the Parthians did, but I have not seen any strong evidence for military superiority by Roman forces or tactics over Parthians.
On February 26 2011 00:39 StorkHwaiting wrote: 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.
Han crossbow's true strength is with how fast its rate of fire is, not its draw strength, which is relatively weak compare to other crossbows. From that time period standard, Han's ranged weapons would look like a machine gun to Roman eyes.
Roman legion would not stand a chance if they actually fought Han army. Legions are more advanced version of Greek Phalanx and were great against fighting this type of army or unorganized forces such as Gauls and Germans. However, Legions are simply not built to fight lightly armored missile heavy troops and this shows in Roman campaigns against Parthians. Han had better technology, logistics and more people than Parthia. No way legion will be able to even engage the Han army.
This is also supported by the fact that as you get to Byzantine era, Romans began to transition their army into more mobile and missile focused army.
Perhaps in the open field. Sure CHina has a lot of open field. Not so much in forested Gaul. Try putting 200,000 crossbowmen vs Roman legions in a forest, or really hilly rocky terrain and you'll see the true meaning of "shit on". Not saying that means Roman armies were "better", but that they were built for a completely different purpose. They were designed for less than optimum terrain and were basically designed as a hard counter to slow moving, heavily armored, phalanx types armies. So saying that in an open field, they would get crapped on by Chinese crossbowmen is like saying the Chinese crossbowmen would have sucked balls in a jungle in the pouring rain vs the Nav'ii.
Crossbows don't need an arc of fire like bows do. A forest will mitigate a bit of the shock effect of a crossbow volley, but it would not stop the lethality of crossbows at all.
And China also has a lot of mountains and forests and rivers and valleys and hills and deserts and pretty much every other terrain on Earth.
And even with all that said, there is no guarantee Roman legions will do anything in close combat, seeing as they had a lot of trouble versus the dacian falx, and Chinese ge was a comparable yet also much better weapon compared to the falx. Basically a spear halberd with hooking, stabbing, and slashing capability, while being the length of a polearm. I am very skeptical that the Romans would have a good answer to this.
And ranged troops tend to do better than heavy infantry in really rocky, hilly terrain. Seeing as the heavy infantry have to climb said rocky, hilly terrain to get to the crossbowmen, whereas crossbowmen have to squeeze a trigger. Not sure where your logic is in that scenario.
Finally, something to talk about other than the Chinese obvious ranged superiority...as for closer combat, the ge is a nice comparison to the falx which gave the Romans serious problems due to its cleaving ability. Though enemies who slashed were laughed off by the Romans, cleaving weapons such as these posed a noticeable threat. How many of the Han soldiers would come outfitted with one though?
Pretty much every single Chinese soldier who wasn't armed with a crossbow or two-handed sword was armed with a ge. It was the primary weapon of Han infantry, but most infantry were also equipped with a two-edged sword for very close combat.
On the Parthians vs Romans though, I think Trajan is a bit overhyped, seeing as how the Parthians were engaged in a civil war when he did his conquests, and were consumed in civil wars pretty much from then on until their fall to the Sassanids. So to me, I find it difficult to really claim Roman victory at arms over the Parthians. Maybe a political victory because they didn't internally combust as fast as the Parthians did, but I have not seen any strong evidence for military superiority by Roman forces or tactics over Parthians.
I completely agree with the Trajan conquests being overhyped (he himself was reluctant to accept the agnomen). At the same time, Carrhae is seen too much as a complete chink in the armor. Somewhere in the middle is probably the most accurate.
As for the weaponry of the Han infantry, I'd have to look into the actual details of how they were used to understand what would work. My first thought would be that any sort of polearm may be too long to be effective versus a legion due to that being the exact reason for legionnaires existence (to combat phalanx and pikes). As for longer two handed swords, they were seen as more or less ineffectual. The Han army would certainly be able to quickly adapt its weaponry however to modify the length of the ge into something that would suit the closest of combats. It would be and interesting case for sure.
On February 26 2011 00:39 StorkHwaiting wrote: 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.
Han crossbow's true strength is with how fast its rate of fire is, not its draw strength, which is relatively weak compare to other crossbows. From that time period standard, Han's ranged weapons would look like a machine gun to Roman eyes.
Roman legion would not stand a chance if they actually fought Han army. Legions are more advanced version of Greek Phalanx and were great against fighting this type of army or unorganized forces such as Gauls and Germans. However, Legions are simply not built to fight lightly armored missile heavy troops and this shows in Roman campaigns against Parthians. Han had better technology, logistics and more people than Parthia. No way legion will be able to even engage the Han army.
This is also supported by the fact that as you get to Byzantine era, Romans began to transition their army into more mobile and missile focused army.
Perhaps in the open field. Sure CHina has a lot of open field. Not so much in forested Gaul. Try putting 200,000 crossbowmen vs Roman legions in a forest, or really hilly rocky terrain and you'll see the true meaning of "shit on". Not saying that means Roman armies were "better", but that they were built for a completely different purpose. They were designed for less than optimum terrain and were basically designed as a hard counter to slow moving, heavily armored, phalanx types armies. So saying that in an open field, they would get crapped on by Chinese crossbowmen is like saying the Chinese crossbowmen would have sucked balls in a jungle in the pouring rain vs the Nav'ii.
Crossbows don't need an arc of fire like bows do. A forest will mitigate a bit of the shock effect of a crossbow volley, but it would not stop the lethality of crossbows at all.
And China also has a lot of mountains and forests and rivers and valleys and hills and deserts and pretty much every other terrain on Earth.
And even with all that said, there is no guarantee Roman legions will do anything in close combat, seeing as they had a lot of trouble versus the dacian falx, and Chinese ge was a comparable yet also much better weapon compared to the falx. Basically a spear halberd with hooking, stabbing, and slashing capability, while being the length of a polearm. I am very skeptical that the Romans would have a good answer to this.
And ranged troops tend to do better than heavy infantry in really rocky, hilly terrain. Seeing as the heavy infantry have to climb said rocky, hilly terrain to get to the crossbowmen, whereas crossbowmen have to squeeze a trigger. Not sure where your logic is in that scenario.
Finally, something to talk about other than the Chinese obvious ranged superiority...as for closer combat, the ge is a nice comparison to the falx which gave the Romans serious problems due to its cleaving ability. Though enemies who slashed were laughed off by the Romans, cleaving weapons such as these posed a noticeable threat. How many of the Han soldiers would come outfitted with one though?
Pretty much every single Chinese soldier who wasn't armed with a crossbow or two-handed sword was armed with a ge. It was the primary weapon of Han infantry, but most infantry were also equipped with a two-edged sword for very close combat.
On the Parthians vs Romans though, I think Trajan is a bit overhyped, seeing as how the Parthians were engaged in a civil war when he did his conquests, and were consumed in civil wars pretty much from then on until their fall to the Sassanids. So to me, I find it difficult to really claim Roman victory at arms over the Parthians. Maybe a political victory because they didn't internally combust as fast as the Parthians did, but I have not seen any strong evidence for military superiority by Roman forces or tactics over Parthians.
I completely agree with the Trajan conquests being overhyped (he himself was reluctant to accept the agnomen). At the same time, Carrhae is seen too much as a complete chink in the armor. Somewhere in the middle is probably the most accurate.
As for the weaponry of the Han infantry, I'd have to look into the actual details of how they were used to understand what would work. My first thought would be that any sort of polearm may be too long to be effective versus a legion due to that being the exact reason for legionnaires existence (to combat phalanx and pikes). As for longer two handed swords, they were seen as more or less ineffectual. The Han army would certainly be able to quickly adapt its weaponry however to modify the length of the ge into something that would suit the closest of combats. It would be and interesting case for sure.
This is a pretty cool video of the ge that gives a good idea of how it is used in combat. For me, I think the important aspect to note is how effective it is at attacking the legs and over the head of Roman legionnaires. The ge is quite capable of attacking angles outside of what the scutum can protect.
Edit: Sorry, meant to include Ji in that as well. Ge was outdated by end of Han dynasty, replaced by the better form of the ji.
Cool video. Yeah, it looks like it would be a really bloody battle given the main problem with two handed weapons being the lack of a shield. Very interesting. Anyway, we are way off topic so to bring it back, I'll pose this question before I head out: how do you properly use different culture's primary sources to compare Eastern vs. Western generals, and for that matter, does the way war resonate with each culture make a direct comparison difficult?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/William-Tecumseh-Sherman.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.iccup.com/upload/images/news/editor/puremiss_newspics/jaedong48.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/BZgfI.jpg)
