HistoryNet.com RSS
ArmchairGeneral.com RSS

HistoryNet.com Articles
America's Civil War
American History
Aviation History
Civil War Times
MHQ
Military History
Vietnam
Wild West
World War II

ACG Online
ACG Magazine
Stuff We Like
War College
History News
Tactics 101
Carlo D'Este
Books

ACG Gaming
Boardgames
PC Game Reviews

ACG Network
Contact Us
Our Newsletter
Meet Our Staff
Advertise With Us

Sites We Support
HistoryNet.com
StreamHistory.com
Once A Marine
The Art of Battle
Game Squad
Mil. History Podcast
Russian Army - WW2
Achtung Panzer!
Mil History Online

Go Back   Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History > Historical Events & Eras > Warfare Through the Ages > The Ancient Era

Notices and Announcements

The Ancient Era Discuss Ancient Warfare! Romans, Carthaginians, Greeks, etc.

View Poll Results: Who will win?
Roman Empire 130 60.19%
Han Dynasty 86 39.81%
Voters: 216. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #196  
Old 08 Nov 08, 22:02
nameless dude's Avatar
nameless dude nameless dude is offline
Sergeant
Australia
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: sydney
Posts: 83
nameless dude is on the path to success [1-99] nameless dude is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
To choose between the Han and the Romans, the closest similar opponents to Rome that actually fought I suspect would be the Macedonians. If the Chinese general was of the calibre of Hannibal, whose army was reasonably close to that of a Macedonian, the Chinese would likely emerge victorious. If that of Perseus in the battle of Pedna in 168BC
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...attle-of-Pydna
I would expect the Romans to win.
Macedonian formation and tactics is completely different to that of the Han Chinese. It is in fact, I would suspect, quite the reverse, as China from Wudi onwards focused its military on more of a typical eastern style of warfare; fast moving, hard hitting mobility tactics, such as hit and run and the Parthian shot, utilising extensive amounts of firepower to restrain and pin enemy movements while killing or disabling them while heavier infantry was used primarily for more "passive" roles such as defending crossbowmen and other ranged units and holding ground. The Macedonians with their phalanx focused on more of a typical western style of warfare; one giant unbroken line of infantry with a much greater emphasis on melee combat than range and with mobility playing a much lesser role, while cavalry served as the main flanking force (a typical western style army had much fewer cavalry than a typical eastern style army of the same size) while archers and other ranged units had a much smaller role, as they were mainly used to soften up the enemy before the two armies clashed, or as a little support for the main tactic.

The army closest to the Han Chinese army that Rome ever fought would likely have been the Parthians, whose mobility, firepower and tactics on the battlefield has been proven to be extremely effective against the slower legions (refer to my earlier posts). Only the Chinese army had an arguably much greater potential for an even greater amount of firepower, superior weapons (crossbow, the bolts, field artillery, halberd, etc) and technology, a much greater diversity of troops, the detateably better generals (again, refer to previous posts) and the ability to raise and maintain a much larger army as I have explained before, to name a few.

ps. You cannot compare the Chinese ji to the Macedonian sarissa, as they were used in completely different ways. The hoplite holding a sarissa could only have held it horizontally outwards and could only, at most, do a little stab, thanks to its extreme length and the fact that it was used in the tight phalanx formation. The Chinese halberd, on the other hand, was much more flexible. Being shorter than the sarissa (ji was around 3 metres) and having blades on both sides, not only can a soldier use it to stab, it can slash, hack and be swung as well, a little like a longer sword. So, in essense, the Chinese ji armed soldier can have all the advantages of attacking a Roman legionnaire at a distance the legionnaire wouldn't even be able to return a stab with his short gladius.

Last edited by nameless dude; 08 Nov 08 at 23:31..
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 08 Nov 08, 22:22
nameless dude's Avatar
nameless dude nameless dude is offline
Sergeant
Australia
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: sydney
Posts: 83
nameless dude is on the path to success [1-99] nameless dude is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooner View Post
No. A crossbow bolt weighs what 50 grams? A Pila maybe 2 kilograms. What multiplication of muscle force by mechanical force would you need to have greater impact?



Keep an unbroken line of shields and yes and that clash will likely end indecisively.
I've mentioned this before. The full metal Chinese bolt weighed at around 1-1.5 kilograms. Now, if I assume the bolt was a kilo and the pila as you said as 2, in theory, the bolt only has to move twice as fast as the slow, muscle launced pila to have the same impact. The average Chinese crossbow as I've mentioned before had a draw weight of around 90kgs, which would have launched a bolt at a much higher velocity than sheer muscle power. And this is not to mention the quality of the bolts and the highly effective and advanced armour-piercing point I've mentioned before. Also, don't forget that the strongest of the Chinese crossbows had around 210kgs of draw weight and required different loading procedures due to the massive tension as I've mentioned before in my previous posts.

Can you explain what you wanted to say in the last sentence?
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 08 Nov 08, 22:33
nameless dude's Avatar
nameless dude nameless dude is offline
Sergeant
Australia
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: sydney
Posts: 83
nameless dude is on the path to success [1-99] nameless dude is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooner View Post
"…. the Macedonian formation is at times of little use and at times of no use at all, because the phalanx soldier can be of service neither in detachments nor singly, while the Roman formation is efficient. For every Roman soldier, once he is armed and sets about his business, can adapt himself equally well to every place and time and can meet attack from every quarter . He is likewise equally prepared and equally in condition whether he has to fight together with the whole army or with a part of it or in maniples or singly."

Polybius

http://warandgame.wordpress.com/2008...-pike-phalanx/
A perfect example of a totally biased source. Think about it. If they were really that efficient, then they wouldn't have had much trouble defeating the Parthians and other eastern armies and the traditional Roman army wouldn't have to have itself adapted to an eastern style Byzantine army.

So as you can see, the link proved my point. The Roman legions were no match for the phalanx in a front-on clash relying on sheer force. The legions had to exploit the phalanx formation's weakness of immobility the fact that the phalanx formation was greatly affected by terrain to gain the advantage. Again, as I've explained before, the phalanx cannot be compared to Han infantry, as they are different.
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 08 Nov 08, 22:49
Salinator's Avatar
Salinator Salinator is offline
ACG Forums - Field Marshall
United_States
Distinguished Service Award ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon March Offensive 
Summer Campaign 100 Greatest Generals, 2008 Most Decisive Battle Campaign, 2008 Greatest Westerns Campaign 
Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Greatest Blunders Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign 
Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C Tournament 1 of the ACG 2017-2018 Model Forum Group Build 
SPQR Campaign 
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: no man's land
Posts: 18,032
Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless dude View Post
I've mentioned this before. The full metal Chinese bolt weighed at around 1-1.5 kilograms. Now, if I assume the bolt was a kilo and the pila as you said as 2, in theory, the bolt only has to move twice as fast as the slow, muscle launced pila to have the same impact. The average Chinese crossbow as I've mentioned before had a draw weight of around 90kgs, which would have launched a bolt at a much higher velocity than sheer muscle power. And this is not to mention the quality of the bolts and the highly effective and advanced armour-piercing point I've mentioned before. Also, don't forget that the strongest of the Chinese crossbows had around 210kgs of draw weight and required different loading procedures due to the massive tension as I've mentioned before in my previous posts.

Can you explain what you wanted to say in the last sentence?
The 10 dan crossbow had a range of 460 meters. The bolt was made from carbonated steel and the energy behind in would be the ancient version of a sabot round, and would have been devastating against wrought iron armor and wooden shields.

Lets not forget that the Han also employed poisoned tips.
__________________
Prayers.


BoRG


http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8757/snap1ws8.jpg

Last edited by Salinator; 08 Nov 08 at 22:53..
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 09 Nov 08, 02:35
German-Knight's Avatar
German-Knight German-Knight is offline
Sergeant
United_States
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Real Name: Gerald
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sugar Land
Posts: 85
German-Knight is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless dude View Post
A perfect example of a totally biased source. Think about it. If they were really that efficient, then they wouldn't have had much trouble defeating the Parthians and other eastern armies and the traditional Roman army wouldn't have to have itself adapted to an eastern style Byzantine army.
What are you talking about? The Romans did defeat the Parthians and other eastern armies before… The Romans captured the Parthian/Sassanid cities many times…

Also the Roman Empire was already stretched to its limits… Just to get to Parthia the Roman troops had to defend them selves against “barbarians” all the way to Egypt!! That is a hell of a march if you ask me…


Quote:
Originally Posted by salinator View Post
The 10 dan crossbow had a range of 460 meters. The bolt was made from carbonated steel and the energy behind in would be the ancient version of a sabot round, and would have been devastating against wrought iron armor and wooden shields.

Lets not forget that the Han also employed poisoned tips.
The 10 dan crossbow had a range of 460 meters????? What was the drawstrength? (Because that ne hell of an drawstrength) That sounds to much? Unless that was the max rang. What was the efeteve killing rang?

Also how common was the carbonated steel bolts? Cannot be too common? Even so he can not carry to much…

Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless dude View Post
So as you can see, the link proved my point. The Roman legions were no match for the phalanx in a front-on clash relying on sheer force. The legions had to exploit the phalanx formation's weakness of immobility the fact that the phalanx formation was greatly affected by terrain to gain the advantage. Again, as I've explained before, the phalanx cannot be compared to Han infantry, as they are different.
I agree the phalanx is different Han infantry, but the Roman legions did fight different Spearman head on before, nothing new to them… And yes the Roman legions did also fight the phalanx head on… One of the things the Romans did to fight them head on was of the legionaries will take the impact of the Spear or pikes to the shields. Then when a shield blocks the Spear they will push on it to make a gap and then he or another man will move in to the kill…

(Also they can use their bolts or pilum to make gaps or kill troops…)
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

  #201  
Old 09 Nov 08, 02:36
German-Knight's Avatar
German-Knight German-Knight is offline
Sergeant
United_States
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Real Name: Gerald
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sugar Land
Posts: 85
German-Knight is on the path to success [1-99]
Some Formations:

The Skirmishing Formation
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/skirmishing.html
You: Oh my, the Romans do not have to be in tight lines? Me: yep!

The Wedge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSXVDog-ZOc

The Orb
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/orb.html

The Tortoise
http://www.science.mod.uk/Engagement...ndsheet_01.jpg
or
http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch...diers/tort.jpg

what looks like Repel Cavalry/Tortoise?
And Roman Archers will be in the back shooting.
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_qKZYQjDUhU8/Rs...I/IMG_2356.JPG
They can also have spears in front…

Repel Cavalry
And Roman Archers will be in the back shooting and some troops throwing their javelins overhead!
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/repel-cavalry.html
or
http://rome.recitus.qc.ca/images/formation_arche.jpg

If the Romans can beat off Cataphract and other Cavalry. What make you people think your average Han Cavalry going to have a chance… Repel Cavalry comes when you do not see it coming! (Keep in mined the Romans fought many different Cavalry before!)

What I can fine on Han Cavalry!
http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o...ancavalry4.jpg
http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o...ancavalry5.jpg
http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o...ancavalry6.jpg

Quote:
Originally Posted by salinator View Post
I don't have much time, but just want to say that many just want to ignore a few simple facts:

1) The Han also had composite bows, so comparison between composite and crossbows are moot at best.
2) The blast furnace enabled the Han to mass produce, arm, and train mass archery when it was not possible at the time in Rome.
3) The blast furnace allow better metallurgy, producing superior arrowheads and bolts with remarkable consistency.
4) The Han archers were usually mounted and thus more mobile. They can hen-peck the Roman Infantry almost at will.
5) The Han used poision on their tips. Armor and shield penetration in not required to be lethal.
6) The Han had cart-mounted giant crossbows that fired 10 feet long bolts. That is a formation or testudo breaker.
7) The Han outranged the Romans.
8) The sheer volume, intensity, and duration of fire is something Rome has never seen. If the weight of Parthian fire suprised the troops of Crassus and Anthony, Han has a much bigger surprise.
9) The entire Han Army was more mobile. Even infantry that fought on foot was often horse-mounted.

1. Oh ok a composite curves and recurve bow like this?
http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch...rs/auxarch.jpg

http://www.caerleon.net/empire/img21.jpg

http://www.cavazzi.com/roman-empire/.../archer-01.jpg

Ohhh what a tick; are they Roman archer with a composite recurve bow? YES THEY ARE!

2. “The blast furnace enabled the Han to mass produce, arm, and train mass archery when it was not possible at the time in Rome.” Is that so? Tell me then how come the Romans army had about the same size of the Han army?

3. “The blast furnace allow better metallurgy, producing superior arrowheads and bolts with remarkable consistency.” superior arrowheads? How so? Both Rome and Han had bodkin tips. But sorry I do not think better metallurgy; do not see it in their armors they made. Perhaps cheaper “mass-production”…

4. Mounted and mobile like this archer http://www.legiiavg.org.uk/images/cavalry2.jpg Huh looks like a Roman dude as well!!! Oh my how can it be that the Romans have other things then just very cool infantry!

5. Han used poision? How often?

6. “The Han had cart-mounted giant crossbows that fired 10 feet long bolts. That is a formation or testudo breaker.” Well the Romans have the similar stuff! I think the Romans will know what to do if facing that…


7. The Han outranged the Romans? I already proved you wrong…

8) “The sheer volume, intensity, and duration of fire is something Rome has never seen. If the weight of Parthian fire suprised the troops of Crassus and Anthony, Han has a much bigger surprise.”
Huh are you shore about that? Rome has fought sooo many verities of enemies and for the most part won!

9.) The entire Han Army was more mobile. Even infantry that fought on foot was often horse-mounted? Is that so?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Torien View Post
There is nothing wrong with having an understandably Western Bias in your thinking, as per your location.

Western Bias? What Western Bias? What the hell do you mean by that? It seems that you are being Bias.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torien View Post
And there are admittedly very few large-scale battles that we can point to in the West where the crossbow won the battle. But in the East, the crossbow was a major player in most battles in China from at least 100BC all the way up to the 19th century.
Plate armor did well against crossbows and reasonably well against early firearms…

Yes, because of the advancements of armor in the west, and as well as the Terrain of Western Europe… But yet there are still plenty of battles were the Crossbows were needed in the western armies, but perhaps manly for siege and agents mobile armies…
Crossbows were still in value in the west up till the 1600s…

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torien View Post
If you would, just step back a second and realize in the context of the argument that we are having how this skirmish about crossbows proves the greater point about Roman or Han superiority. We are comparing Western Medieval crossbow usage with Han crossbow use in the Ancient Era. IMHO this clearly demonstrates the Han advantage.
Yes and it is a bias comparison with the two crossbows. Medieval Western crossbow are much more powerful then that of the Han! There is no true comparison… Maybe can have a comparison to the weak Medieval Western crossbows…

Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless dude View Post
If you think that I have overrated the Chinese crossbow, do some research for yourself. The videos I have posted on page 11 will be good for a start.

A recurve bow has tips that curve away from the archer.
http://www.classic-bow.com/catalog/i...ecurve_bow.jpg

The English longbow was straight limbed.
http://larp.co.uk/images/Standard_Long_Bow.jpg

The typical english longbow had around 100ibs of draw strength which can vary to quality, but i won't go into this since it's not relevant to our topic.
It was not 100 lbs it was about 150 lbs! Some can go up to 190 lbs draw strength!!

Also in my book “Weapon” DK “Using a replica of a long bow from the Mary Rose, a modern archer shot an arrow a distance of 328 meters…”

So what is this then? English longbow that was curve…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDogg...eature=related


Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless dude View Post
Alright, we have the supply factor covered now. How about sustainability? The Chinese was able to maintain such huge armies through its highly advanced agricultural technology. Equipment such as iron ploughs and farming techniques such as row seeding and rotational harvesting was highly efficient and would have led to the european agricultural revolution. These techniques and technology allowed the Chinese to field and maintain much larger than Rome's.
SO the Romans were unable to feed their big standing army?

Huh I guess the Romans were primitive cavemen after all. This will explain of why so much stone caves that look like building…
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 09 Nov 08, 02:38
German-Knight's Avatar
German-Knight German-Knight is offline
Sergeant
United_States
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Real Name: Gerald
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sugar Land
Posts: 85
German-Knight is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless dude View Post
http://www.atarn.org/chinese/bjng_xbow/bjng_xbow.htm

Well when did I say it as powerful as a windlass crossbow? However, it was still a very powerful weapon. Again, due to its operational nature, the strongest of the Han Chinese crossbows had around 500ibs-5 times more than that of a medieval longbow. The most common crossbow draw strength was around 200ibs-2 times the longbow. This is already more than enough power to penetrate a legion's protections, considering the fact that the Parthian bows did. The highly advanced bolts would further gaurantee this.

Also, a Chinese crossbow when compared to a european crossbow of a similar draw strength was arguably more effective, thanks to the composite materials used in a Chinese crossbow, such as bamboo and a more advanced trigger mechanism.
Heyyyyy Wat is this? http://www.cavazzi.com/roman-empire/...allista-01.jpg

Look I still think you are overrating the Chinese Crossbows a bit that were from Han and Roman times…
Also Han Chinese crossbows had at best around 500 lbs? (Dude that’s in a weak side of Medieval Crossbows!)

I agree it can penetrate a legion's shield. But how far? Parthian bows did have to come up very, VERY close to the Romans to have a chance to penetrate the Roman weaker shields from the BCs!! 50 to 40 YARDS with perhaps full draw strength!! Still it was not a 100% every shot! The ill-equipped Romans still with stand arrow fire for a very, VERY LONG TIME! It was the Cataphract that took two or three tries to break the Romans not the bow or hit and run…

My argument is this: If wooden shields were that helpless as you put them too be; why is it that Medieval Crossbow men hide behind it? In Medieval times there were Crossbow men hiding behind wooden shields similar to that of the Roman shields (similar but not the same), and medieval crossbows are much more powerful too… Ever herd of Pavise shields or Pavise Crossbow men? There were also Pavise Crossbow men that have a shield very similar to the Romans on there back, and they tern their backs so the shield will protect them wile reloading… This not including other wooden shields in Medieval times…

Just look at the Pavise shields!
http://www.bractea.freha.pl/imgs/shields/sh_mp01.jpg
http://www.bractea.freha.pl/imgs/shields/sh_spv04.jpg

Look at some of the Crossbow men…
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/35/10...e695c0.jpg?v=0
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/pre...0/25138047.JPG
http://content.answers.com/main/cont...lestriere1.jpg
Tell me then why if shields were that helpless as you put them too be; why use them at all?

Also what about other wars like the US Civil war? Were there is no armor to protect from the plenty deadly projectiles, and also march in tight formation but yet troops were able to get close and have hand-to-hand combat!! Think of what I said!

Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless dude View Post
The repeating ballista was field artillery. It is not like a chu-ko-nu. The Chinese equivalent of the repeating ballista would be a shenbi-nu.

Chinese artillery was much more effective than its Roman counterparts. Some instances are the Chuangzi-nu, which had 3 times the power of a regular ballista, the lian-nu which shot up to 10 large bolts at once and the traction trebuchet, which shot much heavier stones much further distances when compared to the Roman onager. Refer to Salinator's post near the middle of page 10.
"The range of this early weapon is not given, but later versions used during the Tang dynasty are said to have attained a maximum range of 1,160 yards. This amazing range is actually supported by a Persian source describing the use of similar machines fired from a position on the top of a mountain during the Mongol attack on one of the castles of the Assassins in 1256. The normal operating range of a single-bow siege crossbow would be between 270 and 500 yards. Up to a certain distance, the bolts were armour piercing; these weapons were much feared because of their penetrating power."

Hummm A weapon that you named that a 1000 AD???? If so way after are time we are talking about my friend, and only fired between 270 and 500 yards!


“…single-bow siege crossbow would be between 270 and 500 yards. Up to a certain distance, the bolts were armour piercing”

And most of the Roman big ballista shot over 500 yards or over 460 meters!! Or others say way over 300 to over 400 meters! I think it was Veracious that says the same what I said up there about the big Roman Ballistas!

Also in “Warfare in the Classical World” it says: “Agesistratus records that the best of them now had a range in excess of 880 yard!”

And accounting to “Ancient Rome History of a Civilization that ruled the world” says that small Ballistas can fire a bolt 550 yard far! And that a Roman Onager can hurl a 110-pound projectile way over 400 yards with devastating effects!




And also look http://www.answers.com/topic/ballista
http://www.historialago.com/leg_artilleria_d_01.jpg\


Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless dude View Post
provide evidence or proof that they were the primary armour.
Ok Trajan’s Column, Antonine Column, and more that I seen in Rome. If I remember rite, I even seen carvings of Roman troops having that armor in the victory arches. I think I even have pictures to prove it. (I took a lot of pictures of things over there). Not including all or most of my books say the Lorica Segmentata was wide spread use in the height of the Roman empire…

How about these?
http://axis101a.com/armor.html

http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefme...4/T304697A.jpg

http://www.imperiumancientarmory.com...e%20Lorica.htm

http://www.romanarmy.net/Military.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless dude View Post
haha. How can we replicate it if we know little about this weapon? It is the hand held ballista and was the forerunner of the later cheiroballista. It was a ballista reduced in size rather than a crossbow. This torsion weapon could not have fulfilled a normal Chinese crossbow's role, with the advanced trigger and bolts, composite materials, laminate construction, compound, precision manufacture and interchangeable parts made it a highly effective weapon.

German knight, you're just showing people that your statments are incorrect and unreliable. Make sure that theyr'e true, correct and supported with evidence or theories before posting them
Oh ok a composite curves and recurve bow like this?
http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch...rs/auxarch.jpg

http://www.cavazzi.com/roman-empire/.../archer-01.jpg

And http://www.caerleon.net/empire/img21.jpg
Ohhh wait a tick; was that Roman archers with composite recurve bows? YES THEY ARE!

Look the Romans did have other bows like self-bows as well, but for good reason!

Composite bows can lose strength in humid conditions & can be ruined by submersion. Also self-bows are much easier to maintain and are more resistance to wither, as well as cheaper and easier to make and still be a good bow.

The composite bows main advantage over self-bows is the combination of smaller size with high power… That also makes it much bettor for use on horseback…

Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless dude View Post
HAHA, thats a good laugh. You judge armour by its looks. Well how's this for looks?
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/9325/10hk7.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4muB...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC8Zg...eature=related (does the armour at 0:31 look tough enough?)
Where's your proof and evidence as to your statement that Roman armour was better than Han armour?

Again as I said, considering the fact that Han China was able to produce metal of a much higher quality and toughness, I can daresay that Chinese armour of the same style was arguably tougher than Roman armour.
What are you talking about? The Romans in fact had a very excellent industry by its own right… They produce pig iron in very big mass… Pig iron is not higher quality but lower. They may not use it for war though… (LOL I hope not)

And the truth is that; the Romans also had excellent quality control for their production as well. Why is it that all of the Roman Gladius and other stuff are generally the same design and just about the same quality...

How ells do you think the Romans were able to outfit hundreds of thousands of soldiers in their standing professional army?

Roman medical tools
http://www.legiiavg.org.uk/images/medical2.jpg

Roman helmet
http://www.lundyisleofavalon.co.uk/h...omanhelm3b.jpg

Some Armor
http://www.legionxxiv.org/newsteadenlrg/newstead.jpg
http://www.legionxxiv.org/corbridgbenlrg/corbridgeB.jpg
http://www.legionxxiv.org/corbridgaenlrg/corbridgeA.jpg

Roman tools
http://www.eriding.net/media/photos/...is_ww2_065.jpg

http://www.eriding.net/media/photos/...is_ww2_033.jpg

The advantage of Roman Empire is that if they were defeated; they could just as easily get right back up again with better armed & more highly disciplined soldiers with luring of past mistakes… Look what happened to the war elephants...

ARMOR
Han Chinese armor made of iron and steel not all that much higher quality and toughness to Roman armor my friend, and also steel was known to the Roman… Ever herd of Noric Steel?

Face it; Roman armor is bettor in design and more protective then that of the Han…

Some Roman Helmets
http://www.eriding.net/media/photos/...romans_004.jpg
http://www.dragonheart.nl/romeins/im...t%20AH2030.jpg

Lorica Segmentata
http://www.romanarmy.net/images/Page...es/manica1.jpg
http://www.larp.com/legioxx/JRash1.jpg
http://img469.imageshack.us/my.php?image=07fg8.jpg

Lorica Squamata
http://www.redrampant.com/images/eScale.jpg
Bronze or iron scale armor

lorica plumata
The lorica plumata is prettymuch a steel or iron Chain-mail shirt (hamata) with small steel or iron scales attached to the rings.
It may have look like this.
http://www.soga-miniatures.com/items/images/artS23.jpg

Lorica Hamata
http://www.by-the-sword.com/acatalog/images/ah-6803.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...r_3.jpg/522px-
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/pic...bernalis-1.jpg



Roman Cuirass
http://www.movie-armour.com/ekmps/sh...manarmour2.jpg
http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/lor...anbritmusa.jpg


Look at Han armor
http://img407.imageshack.us/my.php?i...yarmourtv4.jpg

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/1094/cutoutbi9.jpg

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/8...nturybctd7.jpg

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o.../hanarmor1.jpg

Maybe like this too
http://www.wayfaring.info/images/qin...cotta_army.jpg
Qin dynasty

Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless dude View Post
Yes, China in many occasions had armies over 1 million. They managed to sustain the army through higly advanced tech that the Romans would never have. As I have mentioned before, the advanced industry utilising equipment such as hydraulics powered blast furnaces enabled the Chinese to produce weapons to a standard Rome could not have matched. Moreover, the techniques used by the Chinese in metallurgy allowed them to mass produce with precision and quality, which explains why there were able to field armies of such a scale while supplying them with highly advanced weapons with no difficulty. Again, take a look at the videos I posted on page 11.
I herd about the “1 million” men armies that China supposedly have had at times. But never read it from a true historical source…

It cost money to have a big army like that… How well trained were they?
The Chinese did not armored their troops very well…

And you can have that big 1000,000 men peasant army! I will keep my Romans and Spartans!

Over 1 million army? The Han had that? Because a wile back ago I read in the Chinese forum that they even agree that the Roman army & the Han army were just about the same size… If they were about the same size; then it must tell you and me that the Romans too must produce very good weapons and standards with efficiency...
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 09 Nov 08, 02:41
German-Knight's Avatar
German-Knight German-Knight is offline
Sergeant
United_States
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Real Name: Gerald
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sugar Land
Posts: 85
German-Knight is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless dude View Post
The Chinese were masters of cavalry from the centuries of experience obtained while fighting the Xiongnu(huns), whose cavalry is probably the best in the world at the time. By Han Wudi, it is arguable that the Chinese cavalry was as effective as their nomadic counterparts. Again, the majority of soldiers fighting the Sino-Xiongnu campaings (which the Han won with a series of decisive victories) were either mounted soldiers or cavalry and from Wudi onwards, China paid increasing attention to cavalry. Chinese cavalry was arguably one of the best cavalries in the world. Also, the Romans used a throat-and-girth harness that went around the horse's neck. This choked the poor horse with the least exertion. In the Third and Fourth Century B.C., the Chinese made two improvements in horse harnesses, which placed the force of the load on the horse's chest bones, rather than its throat. These Chinese harnesses allowed a horse to pull a load six times greater that of a horse in a throat-and-girth harness, while improving the horse's maneouvrability, endurance and its ability to sprint.

From the 1st to the 4th century CE, Rome maintained an army of around 30 legions-180000 men. To memory, the rest were auxillaries.
Well the Roman army at the time had no more then 38 legions active but most of the time was 30… There were more troops, perhaps you might be rite about most of the rest were auxiliaries; but got to look in to that.

This was not the Han’s weakest point in history fighting the Xiongnu…

I cannot stress enough of how important it was to know that the Roman Empire was at their weakest state in history when the Huns came!

The Romans were bankrupt, and they pretty much had no army. They also had trouble assembling an army as well… But yet the Roman Empire still defeated the Xiongnu at Rome’s weakest state (but it was hell)…

Unlike Rome the Han Dynasty had the benefited from the previous dynasties infrastructure, Rome started from huts…

You must see that the Han Dynasty did not kick out the Xiongnu in their weakest point in history like Rome did…

What I can fine on Han Cavalry!
http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o...ancavalry4.jpg
http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o...ancavalry5.jpg
http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o...ancavalry6.jpg
http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o...ancavalry2.jpg
http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o...ancavalry7.jpg

Roman Cavalry & Roman heavy Cavalry (in about 20 or 30 AD and up)

http://www.legiiavg.org.uk/images/cavalry2.jpg

http://www.tracks-n-troops.com/Hat/HAT8067.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1103/...1909fd.jpg?v=0

http://theminiaturespage.com/news/pi...an/244899a.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1379/...82f409.jpg?v=0

Roman Clibanarius
According to “Warfare in the Classical World” (I read it in two other different books as well; got to look again which ones were they). The Romans did have fully armored heavy Cavalry as early as 50 or 69 AD or maybe a bit earlier! But you will see more and more as time goes by…

They look like this! They are Roman Clibanarius
http://www.le.ac.uk/ar/stj/paintingcataphract.jpg
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k1...a_2006/99b.jpg
http://sp1.yt-thm-a01.yimg.com/image/25/f11/171037430
Talk about shock troops!

And you are going to tell me that the Han had better Cavalry?

I might agree that the Han had better Cavalry then the Romans some time in the BCs but not in the ADs…

Got to look in to the harnesses that you are talking about… As far as I know; I do not think there is anything wrong with the Roman harnesses for the horse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless dude View Post
The ji (halberd) reached 10 feet in length and resembled a spear in terms of the general shape and in terms of how they were used. however, what differentiates it from a normal spear is the one or two additional blades on the sides. the result of this is a very versatile polearm weapon which can be used to stab like a normal spear, but with the extra blades, it can also slash and hack like a sword. the ji, given its length and its versatility would most likely have been proven an effective weapon against the legions - yes, they have had experience with spears such as the spears from a Greek phalanx (the legions didn't defeat the phalanx front on, they had to use flanking and terrain as an advantage to overcome them), they have never faced the halberd - a weapon that was able to stab, slash and hack at the legionary at a distance where the legionary wouldn't have even been able to reach the han soldier with his short gladius. also, a chinese soldier would also have had a sword for standby as well and many of these soldiers were multi-skilled, ie, they would have been trained fight as archers, crossbowmen and other roles as well and would have also been armed with weapons such as the highly advanced and sophisticated, yet powerful and devastatingly accurate chinese crossbow.
What are you talking about! There are plenty of ways to kill your beloved Halberd man that has little to no armor. The Roman soldier has a very big shield to block that and move in with there swords! Also the Wedge Formation can perhaps make the Halberd or Ji useless. And your talking about distance in that fight, the Romans can throw the javelins and bolts before the Halberd or Ji comes to them and kill many as well as making big gaps in the formations…

The legions didn't defeat the phalanx front on? Umm yes they did at times…

Also what makes you think the Romans do not have Spears as well?
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/repel-cavalry.html

Also the Auxiliary infantry has Spears… http://www.tracks-n-troops.com/Hat/HAT8065.jpg


I do not know how long the Romans Basic training was. All troops were required to ride, swim and do many other things, also train with other weapons like Dagger, Spear, slings and other stuff…

But I do know after basic training the Roman army never stop training. It was continuous activity throughout the remainder of his service; they will be kept well drilled and ready for war at any time! In training they had normal size wooden weapons and shields but considerably heaver then the real stuff! They also were kept fit and run for long distances even some times with their armor on! They even marched for 20 to 30 miles with full gear at a cretin speed! The Roman army was considered to be invincible in the height of the Roman Empire!

I think I came to show too you and others that I know what I am talking about! I show you SOME of many sources that I have brought and show my knowledge of history! (I am trying too getting a major on this stuff, and one day I hope to get a Doctor)
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 09 Nov 08, 02:56
German-Knight's Avatar
German-Knight German-Knight is offline
Sergeant
United_States
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Real Name: Gerald
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sugar Land
Posts: 85
German-Knight is on the path to success [1-99]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSXVDog-ZOc

You must seen this... The Romans made the enemy’s numbers agents tern to the Romans favor…
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 09 Nov 08, 04:23
Salinator's Avatar
Salinator Salinator is offline
ACG Forums - Field Marshall
United_States
Distinguished Service Award ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon March Offensive 
Summer Campaign 100 Greatest Generals, 2008 Most Decisive Battle Campaign, 2008 Greatest Westerns Campaign 
Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Greatest Blunders Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign 
Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C Tournament 1 of the ACG 2017-2018 Model Forum Group Build 
SPQR Campaign 
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: no man's land
Posts: 18,032
Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Salinator has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by German-Knight View Post
A fantasy.

Quote:
I still think you are overrating the Chinese Crossbows a bit that were from Han and Roman times…
Thinking and proving is not the same is it?

Quote:
Also Han Chinese crossbows had at best around 500 lbs? (Dude that’s in a weak side of Medieval Crossbows!)
Draw weight is not the only factor, and the fact that you have to compare European Medieval crossbows to ancient Han crossbow is again a nod to its superiority in it's time.

Quote:
I agree it can penetrate a legion's shield. But how far? Parthian bows did have to come up very, VERY close to the Romans to have a chance to penetrate the Roman weaker shields from the BCs!! 50 to 40 YARDS with perhaps full draw strength!! Still it was not a 100% every shot! The ill-equipped Romans still with stand arrow fire for a very, VERY LONG TIME! It was the Cataphract that took two or three tries to break the Romans not the bow or hit and run…
Hey don't take it me, but from a couple of Romans:

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


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

Quote:
My argument is this: If wooden shields were that helpless as you put them too be; why is it that Medieval Crossbow men hide behind it?
It is better than nothing.

Quote:
In Medieval times there were Crossbow men hiding behind wooden shields similar to that of the Roman shields (similar but not the same), and medieval crossbows are much more powerful too… Ever herd of Pavise shields or Pavise Crossbow men? There were also Pavise Crossbow men that have a shield very similar to the Romans on there back, and they tern their backs so the shield will protect them wile reloading… This not including other wooden shields in Medieval times…
Again, comparing a Chinese crossbow born 400BC to Medieval qualities is testimony to it's greatness.
__________________
Prayers.


BoRG


http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8757/snap1ws8.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 09 Nov 08, 04:36
nameless dude's Avatar
nameless dude nameless dude is offline
Sergeant
Australia
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: sydney
Posts: 83
nameless dude is on the path to success [1-99] nameless dude is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by German-Knight View Post
What are you talking about? The Romans did defeat the Parthians and other eastern armies before… The Romans captured the Parthian/Sassanid cities many times…

Also the Roman Empire was already stretched to its limits… Just to get to Parthia the Roman troops had to defend them selves against “barbarians” all the way to Egypt!! That is a hell of a march if you ask me…




The 10 dan crossbow had a range of 460 meters????? What was the drawstrength? (Because that ne hell of an drawstrength) That sounds to much? Unless that was the max rang. What was the efeteve killing rang?

Also how common was the carbonated steel bolts? Cannot be too common? Even so he can not carry to much…



I agree the phalanx is different Han infantry, but the Roman legions did fight different Spearman head on before, nothing new to them… And yes the Roman legions did also fight the phalanx head on… One of the things the Romans did to fight them head on was of the legionaries will take the impact of the Spear or pikes to the shields. Then when a shield blocks the Spear they will push on it to make a gap and then he or another man will move in to the kill…

(Also they can use their bolts or pilum to make gaps or kill troops…)

1stly, you are, in a sense, just repeating issues that we have already addressed previously.

The Romans never conquered Parthia. Their best attempts were made by the emperor Trajan, who intended to fully conquer Parthia with a force they thought was sufficient for this. But they didn't conquer Parthia. They had only captured a few cities temporarily, while Parthia still stood. And this is not to mention that Rome was larger, had a stronger economy at the time and they had in theory, the greater military strength of the two. Also, Don't forget that Parthia at the time was the "doorway" to the eastern and western worlds so as the middlemen they had two completely different fronts to contend with, while Rome, in comparison, had only 1 major front which needed much attention at the time; the eastern front. So why, when Rome was so successful at conquering euro nations, failed to conquer the supposedly weaker Parthia? Because of Parthia's totally different approach to warfare than that of the barbarians and other peoples of the west (firepower, mobility tactics, battle of Carrhae, etc. I've explained this before). To remind you again, if the legions were successful in the east, Rome wouldn't have needed to completely transform its army into an eastern style byzantine army, which is strong evidence of the innefficiency of the slow legions in the east.

So Rome, as you say, was stretched to its limits by the time. But do you even know the concept of "limits"? Yes, no matter how strong the empire, every empire will have a time where its military, political and economic strength and sustainability will reach a maximum and that empire's power projection can only go as far as this maximum before it becomes unsustainable. That is the empire's limit. Each empire had different amounts of power so therefore, different limits. For example, the Mongol empire and the British empire of later times conquered much more than Rome did, right? So in conclusion, there is no certain limit to every empire; the limit is how far each empire's own strength can go. In Rome's case, its power and territorial projection had shown its limits; Rome's power was limited to the area around the mediterranian, it didn't have enough power to spread eastwards. This, in a sense, is proof of what I said earlier; while they were powerful in europe, they didn't have enough power to sprawl its borders to the east. In contrast, the Chinese Han dynasty had conquered almost the entire eastern world and have spread all the way westwards until their borders touched Parthia's, where they created an alliance with Parthia to ensure that the Xiongnu were completely driven from Asia. Well that, in a sense, compares the Han's limits to power and projection to Rome's, doesn't it?

Yes, what salinator had said about the crossbows is without a doubt, quite possible. It, as I have explained before, had around a massive 210kgs - 500ibs of draw weight. The average Chinese crossbow had around 90kgs - 200ibs of draw strength, which had a maximum range of more than 300 metres and an effective armour piercing range of around 150 metres - a very long range. The advanced crossbow when coupled with its advanced bolts will, with no doubt, penetrate a the legionnaire's protections, as I've explained before. Again, did you even bother to take a look at the videos I've posted on page 11?

How common was the carbonated steel bolts? Well that is a question which depends on which army the Han was fighting. Quick adaptation has always been a strength Chinese and Han armies. Unlike Rome, the Han army didn't have a strict set of formations-the Han armies adapted formations or invented new ones to the situation of the battle or the type of army they faced. The same goes for types of soldiers employed-If they figured out they needed more heavy infantry, they'd train more heavy infantry (although armies during and after Han Wudi generally preffered mobility and more firepower-which have been proven to be so effective against Rome as I've explained before in my earlier posts). So the same goes for weapons. If they figured out that they needed stronger crossbow, they'd start manufacturing more 10 dan crossbows with more heavy carbonated steel bolts. An instance is in Wudi's campaign with Wimam Choson and the Choson empire, where infantry was the Choson empire's main fighting force, where stronger crossbows were needed.

Phalanx? Again, read my post at the top of this page in more detail

Last edited by nameless dude; 10 Nov 08 at 02:24..
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 09 Nov 08, 04:53
obsidianstatue's Avatar
obsidianstatue obsidianstatue is offline
Gunnery Sergeant
New_Zealand
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Auckland
Posts: 194
obsidianstatue is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by German-Knight View Post
Look I still think you are overrating the Chinese Crossbows a bit that were from Han and Roman times…
Also Han Chinese crossbows had at best around 500 lbs? (Dude that’s in a weak side of Medieval Crossbows!)


I agree it can penetrate a legion's shield. But how far? Parthian bows did have to come up very, VERY close to the Romans to have a chance to penetrate the Roman weaker shields from the BCs!! 50 to 40 YARDS with perhaps full draw strength!! Still it was not a 100% every shot! The ill-equipped Romans still with stand arrow fire for a very, VERY LONG TIME! It was the Cataphract that took two or three tries to break the Romans not the bow or hit and run…[/QUOTE]

Chinese crossbows CAN penetrate Roman shields, in a Range of 50 to 100 metres, REMEMBER Roman shield are made out of WOOD Chinese crossbow bolts are made of Steel or IRON, WOOD against iron u decide.

REMEMBER Persian bows are WEAK Compared with the CHinese crossbows,

[/QUOTE]My argument is this: If wooden shields were that helpless as you put them too be; why is it that Medieval Crossbow men hide behind it? In Medieval times there were Crossbow men hiding behind wooden shields similar to that of the Roman shields (similar but not the same), and medieval crossbows are much more powerful too… Ever herd of Pavise shields or Pavise Crossbow men? There were also Pavise Crossbow men that have a shield very similar to the Romans on there back, and they tern their backs so the shield will protect them wile reloading… This not including other wooden shields in Medieval times…[/QUOTE]

they do it for Protection from few shoots(they have to carry wooden shoelds Steel shields are too expensive or too heavey too carry around) its the same with the USA force WHY do American soilders have helmet? they cant stop a bullet. MAYBE A Roman shield can stop ONE bolt, BUT after 10 bolts 100 bolts the Roman shield will surely shatters. WOOD and STEEL u decide.

[/QUOTE]Tell me then why if shields were that helpless as you put them too be; why use them at all?[/QUOTE]

there was NO alternatives


[/QUOTE]“…single-bow siege crossbow would be between 270 and 500 yards. Up to a certain distance, the bolts were armour piercing”

And most of the Roman big ballista shot over 500 yards or over 460 meters!! Or others say way over 300 to over 400 meters! I think it was Veracious that says the same what I said up there about the big Roman Ballistas![/QUOTE]

Chinese siege crossbow can reach over 600 to 700 metres. REMEMBER Roman empire were NO WHERE near as indutrialised as the Han dynasty Han dynasy can MASS Produce crossbows in millions.


[/QUOTE]And accounting to “Ancient Rome History of a Civilization that ruled the world” says that small Ballistas can fire a bolt 550 yard far! And that a Roman Onager can hurl a 110-pound projectile way over 400 yards with devastating effects![/QUOTE]


Siege weopons Were NEVER effective against Chinese army. BECAUSE Chinese dont stand in Tight formations like the Roman do I would say Siege weapons are useless against Chinese. BUT Romans stand in tight formations where Chinese siege crossbow can do MAX damage on Romans.




[/QUOTE]Ohhh wait a tick; was that Roman archers with composite recurve bows? YES THEY ARE![/QUOTE]

so what, compossite recurve bows Are No where near as accurate as Chinese Crossbows and SURELY NO WHERE near as Strong as Chinese crossbows.

[/QUOTE]Look the Romans did have other bows like self-bows as well, but for good reason!

Composite bows can lose strength in humid conditions & can be ruined by submersion. Also self-bows are much easier to maintain and are more resistance to wither, as well as cheaper and easier to make and still be a good bow.[/QUOTE]

Han dynasty can mass produce Crossbows in MILLIONS.

[/QUOTE]The composite bows main advantage over self-bows is the combination of smaller size with high power… That also makes it much bettor for use on horseback…[/QUOTE]

One hand held crossbows are used by Chinese cavalry and CHinese cavalry Are better trained in terms of USing bows on horse back Than Romans.

[/QUOTE]What are you talking about? The Romans in fact had a very excellent industry by its own right… They produce pig iron in very big mass… Pig iron is not higher quality but lower. They may not use it for war though… (LOL I hope not)[/QUOTE]

NO WHERE NEAR.

[/QUOTE]And the truth is that; the Romans also had excellent quality control for their production as well. Why is it that all of the Roman Gladius and other stuff are generally the same design and just about the same quality..[/QUOTE]

I dont think there is pirated DVDs and PSPs 2000 years ago.


[/QUOTE]How ells do you think the Romans were able to outfit hundreds of thousands of soldiers in their standing professional army?[/QUOTE]

How else do u think CHinese can outfit Millions of soldiers.


[/QUOTE]ARMOR
Han Chinese armor made of iron and steel not all that much higher quality and toughness to Roman armor my friend, and also steel was known to the Roman… Ever herd of Noric Steel?

Face it; Roman armor is bettor in design and more protective then that of the Han…[/QUOTE]

FACE it Chinese crossbows can cut Roman armour open like Hot knife though Butter.




[/QUOTE]I herd about the “1 million” men armies that China supposedly have had at times. But never read it from a true historical source…[/QUOTE]

Warlord CaoCAo 500,000 to 600,000 soldiers, WArlord LiuBie 200,000 to 300,000 soldiers Warlord Sun Quan 400,000 add that together 1,100,000 Professional Soldiers earlier in Han dynasty Even MORE.

[/QUOTE]It cost money to have a big army like that… How well trained were they?
The Chinese did not armored their troops very well…[/QUOTE]


How many times do i have to say, THEY fight mainly for HONOR and protection of their family.

[/QUOTE]And you can have that big 1000,000 men peasant army! I will keep my Romans and Spartans![/QUOTE]

Idiot During the Han dynasty Chinese defeated XiongNus or Huns, later these people and Europian barbarians DESTROYED Rome. Chinese soldiers WERE PROfessional And WELL Trained.

[/QUOTE]Over 1 million army? The Han had that? Because a wile back ago I read in the Chinese forum that they even agree that the Roman army & the Han army were just about the same size… If they were about the same size; then it must tell you and me that the Romans too must produce very good weapons and standards with efficiency...[/QUOTE]

MAX professional Roman soldiers 450,000

MAX Professional Chinese soldiers 1,000,000 WHAT IS so HARD ABOUT That?????


its really pointless for u to argue when Roman infantry cant take on the mighty Chinese cavalry
MAX professional Roman soldiers 450,000

MAX Professional Chinese soldiers 1,000,000 WHAT IS so HARD ABOUT That?????


its really pointless for u to argue when Roman infantry cant take on the mighty Chinese cavalry

Last edited by obsidianstatue; 09 Nov 08 at 05:19..
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 09 Nov 08, 06:49
nameless dude's Avatar
nameless dude nameless dude is offline
Sergeant
Australia
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: sydney
Posts: 83
nameless dude is on the path to success [1-99] nameless dude is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by German-Knight View Post
Heyyyyy Wat is this? http://www.cavazzi.com/roman-empire/...allista-01.jpg

Look I still think you are overrating the Chinese Crossbows a bit that were from Han and Roman times…
Also Han Chinese crossbows had at best around 500 lbs? (Dude that’s in a weak side of Medieval Crossbows!)

I agree it can penetrate a legion's shield. But how far? Parthian bows did have to come up very, VERY close to the Romans to have a chance to penetrate the Roman weaker shields from the BCs!! 50 to 40 YARDS with perhaps full draw strength!! Still it was not a 100% every shot! The ill-equipped Romans still with stand arrow fire for a very, VERY LONG TIME! It was the Cataphract that took two or three tries to break the Romans not the bow or hit and run…

My argument is this: If wooden shields were that helpless as you put them too be; why is it that Medieval Crossbow men hide behind it? In Medieval times there were Crossbow men hiding behind wooden shields similar to that of the Roman shields (similar but not the same), and medieval crossbows are much more powerful too… Ever herd of Pavise shields or Pavise Crossbow men? There were also Pavise Crossbow men that have a shield very similar to the Romans on there back, and they tern their backs so the shield will protect them wile reloading… This not including other wooden shields in Medieval times…

Just look at the Pavise shields!
http://www.bractea.freha.pl/imgs/shields/sh_mp01.jpg
http://www.bractea.freha.pl/imgs/shields/sh_spv04.jpg

Look at some of the Crossbow men…
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/35/10...e695c0.jpg?v=0
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/pre...0/25138047.JPG
http://content.answers.com/main/cont...lestriere1.jpg
Tell me then why if shields were that helpless as you put them too be; why use them at all?

Also what about other wars like the US Civil war? Were there is no armor to protect from the plenty deadly projectiles, and also march in tight formation but yet troops were able to get close and have hand-to-hand combat!! Think of what I said!
What's that? that is what appears to be a cheiroballista, a form of a ballista. I'll repeat this "The Balistae of the Greek and Romans had a average range up to 410 yards while that of the central plains of the same period launch its arcuballista at over 500 yards. Not to mention the vastly simpler design of the eastern ballista that makes it the more efficient. While the sling and torsion catapults(onagers used mainly for sieges threw stones of roughly 50 pounds and maximum some 175 pounds on occasinal cases never more than 160 yards. The ancient eastern manned trebuchet could send missiles up to 275 pounds from 80-190 yards as max. while the fixed counterweight had a somewhat heavier missile and longer range on average but was merely a improvment on the normal trebuchet and has many set backs just like the arbalest is to the normal hand primed crossbows. All this is not including the other forms of field artillery in China not seen in the west. This include the Lien nu or multiple firing bolts, this is rarely seen on western fields and only in occasion which merely two bolts were delivered at once opposed to the vastly more numbers in the asian form that could deliver up to 10 at once. Second is the Chuang zi nu which has a number of spring constant which could impart their stored energy to the same projectile giving far greater damage. This type was never used in the west."

As I said again, do some research and the videos I've posted on page 11 would be a good start. Also, why are you comparing medieval crossbows to ancient crossbows? 500ibs is much more than enough power to penetrate a Roman scotum judging by the fact that Parthian bows penetrated them. Again, don't forget the highly advanced armour peircing crossbow bolts. Also, don't forget that the Chinese didn't just favour the crossbow for its effectiveness, penetration ability, range, etc. The crossbow was also favoured for its ability to fire at the enemy volley after volley and row after row. Again as I said before, the crossbow was used to pin enemies and restrain their movements while killing or disabling them. This method of usage was proven to be extremely effective against the Roman legions as shown with Parthia with their bows (don't forget the crossbow was much more effective than the Parthian bow as explained before, and its ability to fire in volleys was devastating. It would have been "hell" for the legions, since the Parthian bows already did this much).

Why are you comparing medieval pavise shields to Roman shields? Might be a good cover up for the weaker Roman scotum, but it has been proven that even Parthian bows can penetrate the scotum. Again, repeating the quotes from Salinator's posts:

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


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

Wow, your'e comparing an industrial age battle with an ancient battle. 1stly, they were able to go into hand in hand combat because the industrial age battle is different and melee was a major deciding factor even in the industrial age battle. The battle of Carrhae with the Parthian shot are excellent examples of how the slow legions could not cope with mobility and firepower as I've explained before.
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 09 Nov 08, 07:14
Gooner's Avatar
Gooner Gooner is offline
General of the Forums
England
ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Posts: 14,137
Gooner is a jewel in the rough [500]
Gooner is a jewel in the rough [500] Gooner is a jewel in the rough [500] Gooner is a jewel in the rough [500] Gooner is a jewel in the rough [500] Gooner is a jewel in the rough [500] Gooner is a jewel in the rough [500] Gooner is a jewel in the rough [500]
Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless dude View Post
I've mentioned this before. The full metal Chinese bolt weighed at around 1-1.5 kilograms. Now, if I assume the bolt was a kilo and the pila as you said as 2, in theory, the bolt only has to move twice as fast as the slow, muscle launced pila to have the same impact.
Unless this is more Han Magick we haven't heard about, I suggest you rethink that.


(a reconstruction from the Qin era)

Quote:
Can you explain what you wanted to say in the last sentence?
Ancient and Medieval period battles were rarely decided in a few minutes. If a Roman legion couldn't breakthrough a Han shieldwall, they are quite competent to retire in good order, let another unit have a go or take a breather, have a biscuit and restock with Pila before having a go again.
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 09 Nov 08, 07:32
Gooner's Avatar
Gooner Gooner is offline
General of the Forums
England
ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Posts: 14,137
Gooner is a jewel in the rough [500]
Gooner is a jewel in the rough [500] Gooner is a jewel in the rough [500] Gooner is a jewel in the rough [500] Gooner is a jewel in the rough [500] Gooner is a jewel in the rough [500] Gooner is a jewel in the rough [500] Gooner is a jewel in the rough [500]
Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless dude View Post
So as you can see, the link proved my point. The Roman legions were no match for the phalanx in a front-on clash relying on sheer force. The legions had to exploit the phalanx formation's weakness of immobility the fact that the phalanx formation was greatly affected by terrain to gain the advantage. Again, as I've explained before, the phalanx cannot be compared to Han infantry, as they are different.
Uh, what makes you think the Han infantry would be a match for a Pike phalanx? Persian spear and bow combined formations (like the Han) were runover by the Macedonians and earlier by spear hoplites. And before I hear more of Uber-Crossbow I'll remind you that the Pike was a feature of European conflict until the early Eighteenth century, long after the crossbow had died out.

The fact that the Legions used their greater mobility and flexibility to defeat the Phalanxes is supposed to reflect badly on the Romans?!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

Reply

Please bookmark this thread if you enjoyed it!


Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 14:55.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.