History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedHan VS Rome

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 89101112 15>
Author
Omnipotence View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 477
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omnipotence Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Mar-2006 at 17:04

Gladiator is still an awsome movie

I have to agree.

I concede that you do have something of a point there, but, you've gone and made the opposite mistake by portraying the armour of Han military elites - the lorica segmentata and other Roman armours like chainmail were not special armours worn by elites and special units, but the universal armour of the common foot soldier.

The average Roman foot soldier - and therefore the mass of their armies - had better and more appealing armour. But I will certainly grant that the Han elite armours have much more appeal than the armour worn by Roman elites, which was a muscle cuirass (I don't think one can get any uglier than armour that has nipples) and a skirt. Not a pretty sight.


Those are not Han elites, but Han heavy infantry(although Rome have way more heavy infantry than the Han by proportion), which is comparable to Romans wearing the Lorica Segmentata. Although those armor worn by cavalry are out of place because the Han in reality had few armor as shown which is worn by cavalry. In the pictures shown, the armor for cavalry would in reality be closer to the armor worn by Han heavy infantry. The heaviest, or the "elite", of Han armor would probably belong to the charioteers. I can't find a picture of it right now, but it would usually cover the upper half of the arm or more instead of just the shoulders as worn by heavy infantry. The armor would also include a neck protector(yes, it's connected TO the armor). Note that the commander's armor would in fact be lighter than a charioteer armor, for their armor is much similar to the typical heavy infantry armor, except that one of their sleeves would be rolled up.

Considering that 60% of the Han army would be unarmored, yes, Roman armor would be more appealing. However, if you only compare the different types of armor, than it just depends on your style. The knight in shiny armor style, or the ancient buglike style(whenever I see lamellar armor I can almost hear it creaking, I like that sound).



Edited by Omnipotence
Back to Top
Omnipotence View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 477
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omnipotence Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Mar-2006 at 17:23

Actually, I found some pictures now, some for heavy armor, some for elite armor. Based on the descriptions that I described you can figure out for yourself which ones heavy/charioteer.

The above 3 are not art but from actual acheological digs. The bottom is art.

 

Note that these are during the Warring States, not the Han, but they're close enough. Just a 200-100 yr difference.



Edited by Omnipotence
Back to Top
Sino Defender View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 23-Jan-2006
Location: Hong Kong
Status: Offline
Points: 413
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sino Defender Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Mar-2006 at 18:39
play dynasty warriors and u will see the han armors.
"Whoever messes with the heavenly middle kingdom, no matter how far s/he escapes, s/he is to be slaughtered"
Back to Top
BigL View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 30-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 817
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BigL Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Mar-2006 at 05:50
Does china use sheild wall tactic?
Back to Top
Sino Defender View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 23-Jan-2006
Location: Hong Kong
Status: Offline
Points: 413
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sino Defender Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2006 at 02:58

Originally posted by BigL BigL wrote:

Does china use sheild wall tactic?

sometimes, but not always. depends on the situation. they usually have a wall of shields in the front of the crossbowmen during the han dynasty. and the crossbowmen are organized into three rolls per group with the first roll shooting, the second roll reloading, and the third roll preparing. after the first roll finishes it moves to the third roll, and the second roll moves forward. only ancient china used such a tactic, and the han chinese were able to keep the arrows attacks continue without any pause.

when the enemy forces broke through the attacks, they already sufferred heavy causualty. then the heavry infantrymen stationed behind the crossbowmen would move forward and the crossbowmen would step back and continued firing at farther away enemies.



Edited by Sino Defender
"Whoever messes with the heavenly middle kingdom, no matter how far s/he escapes, s/he is to be slaughtered"
Back to Top
Praetorian View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 28-Nov-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 190
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Praetorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Apr-2006 at 12:18

“no, i dun agree with any of that. han got better looking armors imo. it's just a matter of preference. and roman soldiers wore sandles. that was really ugly imo, too. for the past 20 centuries, chinese civilization was the leading one in 18 of them. so ur last point also is pointless”

No offence but, face it Romans were more advance!!!

Chinese civilization was not the leading in the past 18 out of 20 centuries. They were the most advance during 800-1100 AD or so, that about it, every civilization is leading in some time. The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans and others were the leading civilizations for a long wile, each in there own time!  

Yes I do agree that China was the most advanced at one point of time, and in most of there history they were not primitive people.

The Romans were the leading in the late B.C.s and early A.D.s. The Romans had so much inventions that thought have bin in vented in the Renaissance and in the industrial Revolution!! one of them are anti friction ball bearing and more. (“The concept of ball bearings can be traced all the way back to the Roman Empire…”

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-ball-bearings.htm), Roman medical science first modern surgery and first sanitized treatment, Roman architecture the most advanced (like the first Coliseum and still one of the biggest and still being used), first water filters, The Roman aqueduct (some still work today), Roman plumbing that was the most advanced in till the 20th century (some still work today), Roman and Greek Death Rays and more.

http://web.mit.edu/2.009/www/lectures/10_ArchimedesResult.ht ml

I’m not going in to other civilizations rite now like I did before, It would take too long…

No offence but I am tired of explaining to you that OTHER civilizations were leading in some other time lines!!

And I am also tired of some of the advancements that you name that China did when others already had it before them, or even say stuff like “Romans did not have paper” but the Romans had their own type! Its like if I say “Well Europe had the most advance armor,” or saying “the Incas had the best math in Earth, oh that makes them more advance then China in the 800-1100 AD or so.” My point is that no one civilization can have every thing, but the most advance ones have a LOTS of big advancements, not just little advancements like paper or thing like that. To make my slef clear yes I do agree that China was the most advanced at one point of time, and in most of there history they were not primitive people.

“Well, by the second century there is really no comparison on which armor look better because by then the Lorica Segmentata went out of style.”

The Romans needed cheaper armor because of the Roman economy, so they went back to Chain Mail and used Lamellar armor, (the economy went down because of corruption, mismanagement, and bad leader ship…)

“The average Roman foot soldier - and therefore the mass of their armies - had better and more appealing armour. But I will certainly grant that the Han elite armours have much more appeal than the armour worn by Roman elites, which was a muscle cuirass (I don't think one can get any uglier than armour that has nipples) and a skirt. Not a pretty sight.”

I agree about the average Roman foot soldier, but as for the skirt, it was a piece of armor as well… Ever herd of armor skirt? Dude, they had pants under the armor skirt!

Ok people, Roman armor was much, much more advance, it was the most advanced in the world at that time (including the helmets)…   FOR ALL SOME ROMAN AROMOR INFO!!

SUBARMALIS: "Helped distribute the weight of the armor. It also forced the shoulder sections to line-up more squarely, putting less strain on the closure strap on the pectoral plates.  This also helped stop trauma or help reduce it, and another layer you have to go through (other words , if you get through the medal somehow then there’s another layer of leather armor underneath. Look at it.

http://www.legionsix.org/body_armor.htm  (more info here)

(note: helmets will have padding underneath to stop the trauma or help reduce it, the same exact thing applies with almost every piece of armor like the Segmentata, Legs protection, neck guard, and others.)

The Roman iron or Steel Cuirass :  The Roman iron or steel Cuirass. I do not have that much knowledge about this armor. All I know about this is that, the Cuirass is more or less like plate armor. You can say its a precursor of plate armor! This is perhaps the most earliest form of plate, dating back to the ancient Greeks to my knowledge. If the Cuirass is like plate armor, then it should be very strong, it should take more abuse then any armor at that time even then the LORICA SEGMENTATA armor. I do not know how much this weighs, maybe 20lbs? But the Steel or iron Cuirass is a very strong type of armor… There are also bronze and lather type as well.

http://i2.ebayimg.com/02/i/04/b4/65/26_1_b.JPG

http://www.elvenforge.com/images/breastplate1.jpg

The Segmentata Armor:  The Segmentata Armor was very flexible and gave good strong protection. The Segmentata waste is 15 to 20 lbs. depending witch type. It will provide protection against missiles, speeders, swords and etc. This armor was perhaps the strongest armor made at this time, at least between the Cuirass. (there’s 3 types of this Segmentata Armor).

 

 LORICA SEGMENTATA NEWSTEAD TYPE is faster and easier to produce, its also the strongest type...

LORICA SEGMENTATA "CORBRIDGE" TYPE - A

corbridgeA.jpg (119611 bytes)

http://www.legionxxiv.org/corbridgaenlrg/ (more info here)

LORICA SEGMENTATA "CORBRIDGE" TYPE - B

corbridgeB.jpg (115003 bytes)

http://www.legionxxiv.org/corbridgbenlrg/ (more info here)

LORICA SEGMENTATA "NEWSTEAD" TYPE

newstead.jpg (107672 bytes)

http://www.legionxxiv.org/newsteadenlrg/  (more info here) This "NEWSTEAD" TYPE LORICA SEGMENTATA is easier and faster to produce, its also the strongest type...

HRRL51

Chain Mail or in Latin, Lorica Hamata:   Chain Mail provides protection against slashes, chops, and a certain degree of missile protection. Chain mail is vulnerable against missiles I think, Spears, and a swords that is cable to thrust (like most European swords ). But I think it is also the most flexible armor made! it is is over all lightweight, wing about 13 lbs. to 30 lbs. the heaviest (depending what type and how much you cover your self).

Roman Lorica Hamata Extra protection on the shoulders...

http://www.gemina.nl/dutch/hamata.htm

http://www.kultofathena.com/product~item~AH6803~name~Roman+L orica+Hamata.htm

Lamellar armor:   The best way that I can described it, is like steel strips put together. Just take a look at it. I do not know how much this weighs, I think its bettor agent missiles then the Chain Mail, but very week agents sword’s slashes & chops, and I think spears… Late Romans often wore the lamellar armor on top of Chain Mail! I think Chinese and others had this armor…

http://www.discounttrainsonline.com/graphics/HAT/L8086.jpg

http://www.regia.org/warfare/lamellar.htm

The Romans had other armors as well like the:  Scale Armor Called Lorica Squamata, Leather and more!

Roman helmets is uniquely designed. This helmet stretches down to the neck (built in neck guard) providing protection to the back and sides part of the neck, also two pieces that protected cheeks (Cheek guards) , and also the top of the helmet (cannot really described it, just look at the picture) is like a type of steel visor built on. Well anyways that part of the helmet I was talking about protects you from from the sun light and heavy weapons, and also from weapons going across your face (at least downward).  

As for the Imperial Italic this helmet was a improved Imperial Gallic type, as you can see the cross on the helmet. The cross made the skull of the helmet stronger, the cross was like a support to the skull part of the helmet.

As you can see Roman helmets are very advance.

roman soldier

http://www.legionsix.org/ballista%20113.jpg  As you can see in this picture, the helmet’s neck guard is covering the Roman solder’s back and sides of their neck.

http://ecs.lewisham.gov.uk/youthspace/ca/roman%20home%20page /

http://www.romanhideout.com/Armamentarium/H_Imp_Gall_G.asp

http://www.lundyisleofavalon.co.uk/history/romans/romanhelm3 b.jpg

Arm Manica flexible arm defense. This Roman armed defense will be just like any armor, protection against swords, arrows, and etc.

mannicafrt.jpg (20798 bytes)

http://198.144.2.125/Armour/Full/SCA%20manica.jpg

http://www.legionxxiv.org/loricapage/

Roman Greaves  Well you know what their for...

http://therionarms.com/reenact/therionarms_c613a.jpg

“Considering that 60% of the Han army would be unarmored, yes, Roman armor would be more appealing. However, if you only compare the different types of armor, than it just depends on your style. The knight in shiny armor style, or the ancient buglike style(whenever I see lamellar armor I can almost hear it creaking, I like that sound).”

What?! I thought that the Han heavy infantry were the main infantry unit?    What was their main infantry?        &am p;am p;am p;am p;am p;am p;am p;am p;am p;am p;nb sp;   Bug like style?



Edited by Praetorian
“Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris”
“--If Caesar were alive, you'd be chained to an oar.”

"game over!! man game over!!"
Back to Top
BigL View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 30-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 817
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BigL Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Apr-2006 at 18:26
No the chinese are most advanced from 600bc -1400ad ,apart from some other cultural inventions like Aztec brain surgery+hot air balloon,greek scientific method,indian maths,arabic chemistry and roman plumbing the chinese are far in advance.
Back to Top
Praetorian View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 28-Nov-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 190
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Praetorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Apr-2006 at 13:18

The dating sounds about rite to me… But I think in the 800s to 1380 AD ones I look back on it…   Like I said before, not all civilizations can have every thing…



Edited by Praetorian
“Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris”
“--If Caesar were alive, you'd be chained to an oar.”

"game over!! man game over!!"
Back to Top
BigL View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 30-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 817
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BigL Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Apr-2006 at 19:40
I said 600bc not 600ad
Back to Top
Omnipotence View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 477
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omnipotence Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 00:09

No one, not even the Romans, were decisively the most advanced at any time until the Industrial Revolution, and even then some nations still had superiority in certain technological developments over Europe at this time. Even for things such as "medical science" or "architecture" wouldn't be specific enough. The only thing the China had a complete 100% lead on over the world would be farming technology/techniques, while for Rome it's roads quality/extent.

 

Seriously people, talking about one countries achievements and not even bothering to compare it to another doesn't mean anybody's more advanced. Else I could rightly say that stone age people are more advanced than us because they had sharp stone tools for cutting.

Back to Top
BigL View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 30-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 817
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BigL Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 05:34

Like japan now is not the most advanced but it has some advantages.

Back to Top
Praetorian View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 28-Nov-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 190
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Praetorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Apr-2006 at 18:25

Originally posted by BigL BigL wrote:

No the chinese are most advanced from 600bc -1400ad ,apart from some other cultural inventions like Aztec brain surgery+hot air balloon,greek scientific method,indian maths,arabic chemistry and roman plumbing the chinese are far in advance.  I said 600bc not 600ad

Ok I’m going to repeat my self, yes I do agree that China was the most advanced at one point of time!!! But not the dates that you give… It was more like this! The Egyptians, then the Persians, then the Greeks, then the Romans, then China, then the Mid-East, then Europe (The Renaissance), and then Europe-USA…

Well agene, its like I said before, not all civilizations can have every thing… But over all it was the Romans that was leading Earth in technology and achievements at that time (about 200BC-300sAD). I will explained my self about Roman technology and achievements. And I am tired of expelling way and how… If you disagree then tell me way and how…

Some Roman technology and achievements

1. Roman Armor: (most advanced armor at the time including helmets) well just look in my earlier post.

2. The medical science:  Roman medical science was very advance, they knew so many things that are still being practiced today. Especially the “trainers” in sports (trainers are pretty much like medics).

The Romans have the same exact medical tools that a modern doctor will have. The only difference between the modern tools and the Roman tools is that, the Roman tools were made out of bronze also some are much more decorated, and none of the modern tools are decorated, and they’re made of stainless steel I think. Other than that, if you lighten up the medical tools together, they will look exactly the same (beside the decoration of the some of the Roman tools). What the Romans would do be for the operation is, they will give some thing to drink to the person, so their body will be num or numish…

In some operations Roman doters could even take out organs and clean them and put it back, the ill person will get better in 1 or 2 weeks (with the rite tools that they have). They even had history’s first sanitized treatment to treat the injured or wounded person, to kill of infections!!

Also, the Romans were capable doing some bran surgery, and EVEN replace some body parts with metal!!

The Romans perform virtually modern-day surgeries!

3. Roman Dentistry: The Romans will check soldier's teeth or even the Gladiator’s as well…    The Romans can place a tooth or teeth made out of, wood, horn, bone, bronze, or even iron… (this must tell us that the Romans cast metals as well) The Romans have also invented the fist mouthwash, that actually cleans your teeth, and was not harmful to your body or your teeth… They even got toothpaste from Egypt (The Egyptians invented toothpaste)…. Do you want a like to prove this?

4. Architecture: http://heraklia.fws1.com/introduction/graphics/RomeScan.jpg

http://graphics.stanford.edu/~bjohanso/england/march-trip/ba th/bridge.jpg

http://www.eriding.net/media/photos/history/romans/050910_cb rown_mp_his_romans_017.jpg

http://www.eriding.net/media/photos/history/romans/050910_cb rown_mp_his_romans_020.jpg

The first Coliseum (The Roman Coliseum) and still today one of the biggest, as tall as 175 feet or so, it held as many as 75,000 spectators, it had drinking water fountain, elevators, had the first cover called the Velarium, also had pluming to fill the Coliseum up with water for navy wars!

http://www5.worldisround.com/photos/0/130/405.jpg

http://www.geo.txstate.edu/courses/summer/Coliseum.jpg

The Pantheon’s dome is an architectural marvel. Its by far the largest dome built in the second century, and its size was not surpassed for over 1,300 years. this dome also had architectural revolution… I’ll give you the details some other time.

http://faculty.evansville.edu/rl29/art105/img/rome_extpanthe on.jpg

Roman architecture, heavily influenced in our culture today… For example, the Roman archers which helped build structures tall, and etc. “The Romans were building to the future” or “the Romans not only conquered the world but the future.” The Romans build these things, they had no modern machines to do it, most of Roman architecture would take computers and modern machines to build what the Romans built!

5. Roads: Roman Roads were the longest Roads before modern ones…With those roads they had check points which made a mail system that was faster than anything before the modern age!!    And also help to maintain the Empire, it helped the Romans to respond to threats much faster, as well helped the speed of trade and communication ….  Some roads still are in very, very good conditions…

6. Roman Law: “Rome's legal system and language remain the basis of continental Western law and speech, and lifelike portraiture became the basis of the realistic tradition in Western art.” http://www.travelswithfriends.com/Sights_Italian_History.htm

7. Some Roman weapons:

 http://www.eriding.net/media/romans.shtml

Roman throwing bolt/dart. This throwing bolt/dart was one of the most lethal throwing weapon made… The throwing bolt/dart can go much farther then the javelins...      The Romans chose the Gladius (The Roman short sword) is because they can fight in closer formations. They also can maneuver faster in there formations, they also have no problem fighting in a tighter or closer terrain, and with shorter swords they could also have a bigger shield, and could make better formations. Also the formations be more affective with the sort sword and big shield. There is also more reasons they chose the Gladius. It can be wheeled faster than a bigger swords, and its more maneuverable, it’s lighter than any sword at that time (to my knowledge), they can carry other weapons as well, like 3 javelins, or 1 spear and 2 javelins, or 5-6 throwing bolt/dart or 1 spear 4 throwing bolt/dart, well you get the idea. Roman swords are good for piercing through armor, at least through light or medium armor.

The Roman infantry sword that I mention, it is 22 In. or 24 In. long, the Roman cavalry sword looks exactly the same as a Roman infantry sword but much longer its called the Sparta.

8. A very brief Roman war tactics:    Think about the Roman tactics. After 2000 years police still use LOTS, and I mean LOTS of Roman tactics.

Just look allover the world, they use it because its the most affective way to control big crowds of people, and problems!!

http://www.nato.int/kfor/chronicle/2002/chronicle_10/17.htm

http://www.cavazzi.com/roman-empire/diverse/pics/corbridge-l egionaries/toroise-01.jpg

http://www.cavazzi.com/roman-empire/diverse/pics/corbridge-l egionaries/orb-01.jpg

Can you imagine what the Roman can do!?

“A more complex formation designed to repel cavalry. It's very unlikely any horse could be persuaded to pile into that wall of shields and spears. Notice also the archers which are ready to pick off any brave barbarian who tries to give it a go anyhow” http://www.cavazzi.com/roman-empire/diverse/pics/corbridge-l egionaries/repel

A Roman legionary can play as a anti-cavalier (with javelins and spears), if cavalry attack them, they can be anti-infantry with javelins or Roman throwing bolt/dart they have, they can be infantrymen with the swords their armed with, and they are also known to be Engineers as well. The Roman legionary is not your average infantry men…

9. Some machinery: Romans had great machinery...

“Engineers calculate that the original machine could have emptied water at the rate of two litres per second. The machine can therefore raise 120 litres (25 gallons) per minute; 7200 litres (1500 gallons) per hour; 72,000 litres (15,000 gallons) per ten-hour day.”

http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/frames.asp?http%3A//www.mus eumoflondon.org.uk/MOLsite/templates/learn001.asp%3Fpage_Nam e%3Droman_water_introduction

They even invented the Catapult, Onager, Masada, and improve the Ballista, and more (invented or improve). The Roman Ballista can fire a 200lb stone ball over I think 100 miters

And almost forgot to mention one more thing. “The Romans invented the world’s first chain gun.” it was a Ballista that can shoot multiple projectiles, and the funny thing is the way they reload it is a lot like the American Civil War Gatling gun but with bigger projectiles.

10. First firemen and police force:   They also organized the first firemen and police force in history, as in there were literally the fire departments and police departments. They were called the Vigilantes which was the Roman police and fire Department. No one in history has organized such things, they were not soldiers or town watch, which was different, but the Romans had a separate branch from the military and town watch, they were called Vigilantes. The Vigilantes were the fire department, and police officers. The vigilantes wore standard bronze Roman helmet and chain mail.

11. First field medics:   They organized the first field medics in there army (this is the first time in history).
The Roman medic were white, had medical supplies, and had standard armor, and helmets. The Roman's medical officer was "medicus" and their equivalent of modern-day enlisted medic were called the "medicus ordinarius". The medicus ordinarious was drawn from the ranks of soldiers, and trained by the Roman army…. “Our own armed forces traditionally train and employ technicians to care for troops in the field just as the early Romans did.”

http://www.idmtassociation.org/idmt2.htm

I lost some other links or sites, also got this information from some books while back from the school library…

This site is about the history of medics, yes everyone did have some form of medics, but the Romans took it up in another level. Having the first field medics…

12. Some Siege Warfare!:    You got to see that the Romans too had mass production, they even had Steel as well… http://www.eriding.net/media/romans.shtml    Look at some tools and other stuff they had.

How do you think their going to produce armor, weapons, tools, Anti-friction ball-barings, and more. There is also new evidence about Roman grain and brad mass production!! And new discoveries about inventions that thought to be invented in the Renaissance and industrial revolution!!

“The Romans had access to goods from around the world, a mail system that was faster than anything before the 20th Century, very well maintained roads, unrivaled security, central heating, police and fire departments, large amounts of public entertainment, and more.”

Like they say, “Rome was a virtue of modern civilization!”

I can not see how the Han can even mach the Romans in advances… All I keep hearing is they were more advanced. Pleas tell me how so? I can not fine too many things that they surpass the Romans in, but I can fine many other big things that the Romans surpass them on.

Roman culture has not been vanished, it has evolved to what is today the Western culture. Roman culture is still all around us today.

I mean think about it, if Western culture is influencing the world, even today, that’s tells you a lot. Yes even China is westernizing… And new research by the Europeans and Chinese show it was not the first time… In ancient times lots of knowledge that China had came from out side!! Some ancient text speak of different men that came from the west to trade or what ever. They brought goods and some knowledge… Well it’s a long story but it was in TV…



Edited by Praetorian
“Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris”
“--If Caesar were alive, you'd be chained to an oar.”

"game over!! man game over!!"
Back to Top
honeybee View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 203
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote honeybee Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 11:54

"""However, the problem is that warfare is not a matter of weapons. Warfare is a matter of money. I'm not convince that both Han and Rome fielded armies whose weapons were the best in their design. In the later Roman Empire, it was determined that more infantry troops of inferior equiptmen was better than fewer troops with superior equiptiment. """

 

The blast furnace is superior in both the production of quantity and quality, read Wagner's Steal and iron in ancient China. The bloomery furnace can only go up to 800 degrees celsius, the process to make iron is to hammer out the weapon while the iron is soft. The blast furnace can go up to 1,100 degrees celsius and directly liquify iron and pour it into mold, the process is much simpler and can produce far more iron.




Back to Top
honeybee View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 203
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote honeybee Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 12:06

"""The whole topic is about who would win in an overall war. What do you want me to do, talk about EVERYTHING in one post? Not if it kills me, mostly because no one can. In fact, the topic is kind of wierd because the question is on who's going to win IF THEY ARE BORDERED TO EACH OTHER. That'll mean you'll have to change the course of the Pangea, which means Han/Rome probably wouldn't exist. Humans probably wouldn't even exist."""

 

No, the actual refutation is your claim that the Romans had an overall superiority in infantry melee. And the fact is, there is no evidence that its true other than blind speculations.

 

 

"""And I also stated design superiority as well, which is also a given fact. I never rejected your mention of overall iron production."""

 

 

No, you didn't, you claimed Roman armour is superior in general. Not just the design. Furthermore, care to show me what superiority in design did the Roman armor had?

 

 

 

 

 

 

""People who "fight on walls" may count as "siege units" depending on the definition of siege units, but the are also infantry because they fight on foot. """

 

You can say the same with cavalries, they are infantry on horse.

 

 

 

 

 

"I see no mention of field infantry unless if you count the 200 armoured infantry guarding the gates as field infantry. "

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

"How is it baseless? There are arguments on the infantry, the crossbow, mobility, seige, etc... If you don't believe it just read back. Again, it is not up to anyone to dictate that one topic must be dropped to focus on another merely because it's the "orginal" topic, even though it's not.  "

 

Its baselss because you still haven't explained how Romans can beat the Hans in close combat.

 

 

 

 

"Actually, that depends on how you define an open field. If you count the seas as "open" areas, than hell yeah, there's a lot of open fields. However, battles take place within and well as out of cities, which I would not count as "open" areas. Although much of Eastern and Southern Roman are flatlands, the North contain dense forests, and its very heart and those near it were either incredibly mountainous or forested(in fact about 30% of the world in the 1990s were forested, despite massive human logging over the centuries)."

 

The point is, there is Romans did not have this "overall advantage" you are speaking of.

 

 

"I don't really think it's rhetorical. We have at least concluded that Rome had the superiority of design while Han had the superiority of material. "

 

The point isn't that, the point is that Romans did not have superior armour in general. That is the topic and you know that perfectly well.

Furthermore, no one has even explained how the Romans had superior design either. So I'm afraid its not concluded until someone does so.

 

"Needleham, Wager, and YangHong are not "webpages". They are real people, although being alive or not currently is another story. Osprey is also not a webpage, it is a booktype. Saying that your sources are more professional because they are "Chinese" is biased, maybe even a little bordering on racism. A well-known historian should not be criticized for writing the history of one country in another language."

Funny, because none of them supports any of your claims about armour, all your claims derived either from your speculation or some second had web page.

 

"I am happy, but that's because I just excercised, andrenaline rush and all. I have to say that crossbows would be the prominent weapon against the Hxiong Nu, which is the prominant enemy of the Han. Now by using logic we can make our conclusion. While against infantry didn't I already give a battle? (hint: Yuan Hsuan). I'm not saying it's THE weapon against infantry, but it was prominent against it every once and a while"

 

Ok, thats agreed, so thats go back to the original debate, the fact that Romans didn't have superior melee in general.

 



Edited by honeybee
Back to Top
honeybee View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 203
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote honeybee Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 12:19

"No offence but, face it Romans were more advance!!!

Chinese civilization was not the leading in the past 18 out of 20 centuries. They were the most advance during 800-1100 AD or so, that about it, every civilization is leading in some time. The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans and others were the leading civilizations for a long wile, each in there own time!   "

No offense, but your statement is the worst type of one-sided sample selectivity. The most important factors of determining the sophistication of a civilization in ancient times is actually the population density, the living standard, and the amount of literary works produced, of which China leads the first two.

Back to Top
man eater View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 21-Apr-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote man eater Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 13:11

Agriculture is the best way to measure the productivity of a society as a whole, and hence their ability to sustain a prolonged war. And a glance at the historical records we have suggests the disparity of economic strength we have between the Roman Empire and the Han dynasty.



Edited by man eater
Back to Top
Omnipotence View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 477
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omnipotence Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 17:41

¡°¡±¡±¡±¡±the actual refutation is your claim that the Romans had an overall superiority in infantry melee. And the fact is, there is no evidence that its true other than blind speculations.¡±¡±¡±¡±¡±

Never said that. I fully admitted that Han infantry were better adapted in certain situations, such as in flat terrain.

 ¡°¡±¡±No, you didn't, you claimed Roman armour is superior in general. Not just the design. Furthermore, care to show me what superiority in design did the Roman armor had?¡±¡±¡±

Nope, I didn¡¯t. I admitted that Roman armour had inferior quality in the type of iron used. As for design, Roman armor tend to have a higher proportion of mail than that of the Han. Mail was for the elite class(generals, elite troops, etc¡­) for dynasties after the Han period. Another one was the proportion of the body that is actually covered in armour. Roman armor tends to have more coverage than the typical Han armor(which covers only the lower body)

 

"I see no mention of field infantry unless if you count the 200 armoured infantry guarding the gates as field infantry. ">>

 

Yes

The 200 people consisted of 100 people training at one gate and 100 people training at the other gate. This does not mean that the entire infantry in the whole army was training. The primary source only said that the Han general saw 100 infantry training in fish shield formation at both gates.

 

 

 

"How is it baseless? There are arguments on the infantry, the crossbow, mobility, seige, etc... If you don't believe it just read back. Again, it is not up to anyone to dictate that one topic must be dropped to focus on another merely because it's the "orginal" topic, even though it's not.  "

 

Its baselss because you still haven't explained how Romans can beat the Hans in close combat.

I already did.

 

 

 

 

"Actually, that depends on how you define an open field. If you count the seas as "open" areas, than hell yeah, there's a lot of open fields. However, battles take place within and well as out of cities, which I would not count as "open" areas. Although much of Eastern and Southern Roman are flatlands, the North contain dense forests, and its very heart and those near it were either incredibly mountainous or forested(in fact about 30% of the world in the 1990s were forested, despite massive human logging over the centuries)."

 

The point is, there is Romans did not have this "overall advantage" you are speaking of.

Overall advantage = 100% advantage?

 

 

"I don't really think it's rhetorical. We have at least concluded that Rome  had the superiority of design while Han had the superiority of material. "

 

The point isn't that, the point is that Romans did not have superior armour in general. That is the topic and you know that perfectly well.

 

No, actually, I don¡¯t. Never said that Romans had complete superiority in armor.

 

Furthermore, no one has even explained how the Romans had superior design either. So I'm afraid its not concluded until someone does so.

 

Actually, I already did, and I did so in this post as well.>>

 

"Needleham, Wager, and YangHong are not "webpages". They are real people, although being alive or not currently is another story. Osprey is also not a webpage, it is a booktype. Saying that your sources are more professional because they are "Chinese" is biased, maybe even a little bordering on racism. A well-known historian should not be criticized for writing the history of one country in another language."

Funny, because none of them supports any of your claims about armour, all your claims derived either from your speculation or some second had web page.

Not all of my claims are about armor. And as a matter of fact, some of them did support my claim that Han armor was made of low carbonated steel, not regular carbonated steel, which means they did support my claims on armour.  



Edited by Omnipotence
Back to Top
wefone90 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 26-Feb-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wefone90 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2006 at 00:58
"The 200 people consisted of 100 people training at one gate and 100 people training at the other gate. This does not mean that the entire infantry in the whole army was training. The primary source only said that the Han general saw 100 infantry training in fish shield formation at both gates."

Actually primary sources only mention about 100s infantry practise (xi) fish shield and 100s cavalry at one gate backed up with several hundred men defending the ramparts, there were also several hundred cavalry attempted to break out of the siege, as for second guarding of gate, I don't know where you get it from, probably they never had a second gate. Zhizhi had around 3,000 armies, as mentioned earlier on the source, if correctly he would had been used it in this battle.

Edited by wefone90
Back to Top
wefone90 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 26-Feb-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wefone90 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2006 at 01:25
"Not all of my claims are about armor. And as a matter of fact, some of them did support my claim that Han armor was made of low carbonated steel, not regular carbonated steel, which means they did support my claims on armour. "

I suppose he meant to say that there was no such thing as low or high carbonated steel, this division only appeared after the 19th century, when higher (high, as oppose to earlier low) carbonated steel existed.

Edited by wefone90
Back to Top
Omnipotence View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 477
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omnipotence Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2006 at 14:29

"""""Actually primary sources only mention about 100s infantry practise (xi) fish shield and 100s cavalry at one gate backed up with several hundred men defending the ramparts, there were also several hundred cavalry attempted to break out of the siege, as for second guarding of gate, I don't know where you get it from, probably they never had a second gate. Zhizhi had around 3,000 armies, as mentioned earlier on the source, if correctly he would had been used it in this battle."""""

 

Hmmm, upon reading it again, u could be right. Here's a quote from Needleham's book.

According to the careful description of the battle in the biography of the former, the Chinese, upon setting up their camp and beginning the siege of the city, could see from afar ¡®more than a hundred foot-soldiers, lined up on either side of the gate in a fish-scale formation (yu lin chhen, practicing military drill¡­¡¯ After the sack of the place, 145 soldiers were captured alive.

 

I suppose he meant to say that there was no such thing as low or high carbonated steel, this division only appeared after the 19th century, when higher (high, as oppose to earlier low) carbonated steel existed.

In China the Bessemer process(or at least a process much similar to it) during the 3 kingdoms allowed the production of higher carbonated steel than previously. Of course, the Chinese back then never literally called them "carbonated steel", be it "low" or "high".




 

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 89101112 15>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.