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  <1234 15>
Author
Loknar View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 09-Jun-2005
Location: Somalia
Status: Offline
Points: 666
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Loknar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Feb-2006 at 00:36

Lets examine this objectively shall we?

The Chinese once sent an expedition to the West where it even reached the Ukraine. I believe the total force was 40,000.

I believe 40,000 to 60,000 on both sides in a more appropriate number. Before Julius Caesar died, he was preparing for a campaign into Parthia, how many troops was he able to amass? Since its closer to Rome i would think he Romans would be able to field more troops.

I donít know about the Han army but the Roman army was extremely professional and well trained and in very good shape. The troops served on average I believe for 20 years or so? Plus the Romans had auxiliary units from the north African deserts to the Scottish border.

Couldnít the armored turtle formation (which the Romans mastered) block the arrows? Iím not sure because I dont know that much into it. But I do know that a Roman legion wasnít entirely made up of heavy infantry. They also had Auxilla.

Back to Top
Gubook Janggoon View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar
Retired Global Moderator

Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 2213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gubook Janggoon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Feb-2006 at 00:47
Originally posted by Loknar Loknar wrote:

Lets examine this objectively shall we?

The Chinese once sent an expedition to the West where it even reached the Ukraine. I believe the total force was 40,000.



Wait what?  The Han in Ukraine?
Back to Top
Loknar View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 09-Jun-2005
Location: Somalia
Status: Offline
Points: 666
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Loknar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Feb-2006 at 01:29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_embassies_to_China

 

scroll down to "The expedition of Ban Chao. It happened in 97 CE with an army of 70,000 (which means I was wrong).

Back to Top
Gubook Janggoon View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar
Retired Global Moderator

Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 2213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gubook Janggoon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Feb-2006 at 02:10
Wow, I never knew that.  That's pretty amazing.
Back to Top
poirot View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 21-May-2005
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 1838
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote poirot Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Feb-2006 at 02:55
Originally posted by Loknar Loknar wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_embassies_to_China

 

scroll down to "The expedition of Ban Chao. It happened in 97 CE with an army of 70,000 (which means I was wrong).

Do not trust Wikipedia completely.  Ban Chao went no further than Parthia.

AAAAAAAAAA
"The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.ÔŅĹ   ~ HG Wells
           
Back to Top
Loknar View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 09-Jun-2005
Location: Somalia
Status: Offline
Points: 666
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Loknar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Feb-2006 at 03:15
Can you prvide a link?  I'm not trying to contradict you, I;m just curious.
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: 13-Feb-2006 at 14:52

"Couldnít the armored turtle formation (which the Romans mastered) block the arrows? Iím not sure because I dont know that much into it. "

 

Dubs in his history work of Romans in the east claim that Chinese crossbows would have easily ripped through Greco-Roman shields.

Back to Top
Conan the destroyer View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 21-Jun-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 105
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Conan the destroyer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Feb-2006 at 15:28
The Roman's had infantry better suited for close combat, (heavy armour, short swords and tower shields) but the Chinese cavalry and missile weapons were much superior.
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: 14-Feb-2006 at 01:55

Originally posted by Conan the destroyer Conan the destroyer wrote:

The Roman's had infantry better suited for close combat, (heavy armour, short swords and tower shields) but the Chinese cavalry and missile weapons were much superior.

short swords are actually a disadvantage for close combat. the longer the swords, the better they are for combat.  

"Whoever messes with the heavenly middle kingdom, no matter how far s/he escapes, s/he is to be slaughtered"
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: 14-Feb-2006 at 09:56

"The Roman's had infantry better suited for close combat, (heavy armour, short swords and tower shields) "

 

I'm not sure why you are still holding on to that notion. Didn't the 70 page in CHF already refuted this? Chinese armour weigh over 20 KG. Hardly lighter than the legionnaires. And longer swords are better for thrusting. Chinese had better sword technology that has the ability to create longer swords. Qin swords have a length of 90mm compared to around 60mm for Rome. Furthermore, Chinese soldiers also carry short swords as a secondary weapon.

Back to Top
Conan the destroyer View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 21-Jun-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 105
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Conan the destroyer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2006 at 17:04

I'm a regular on CHF for your information. But I also happen to take a rather balanced view on this subject.

1. Roman short swords were more suited to fighting in close formation, because they were specifically designed for thrusting. On the other hand, Han single edged sabres needed much more space to be used effectively.

2. The weight of an armour makes no difference, the fact is Roman Lorica Segmentata and Lorica Hamata are more protective than Chinese scale or lamellar.

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: 14-Feb-2006 at 20:13
Originally posted by Conan the destroyer Conan the destroyer wrote:

I'm a regular on CHF for your information. But I also happen to take a rather balanced view on this subject.

1. Roman short swords were more suited to fighting in close formation, because they were specifically designed for thrusting. On the other hand, Han single edged sabres needed much more space to be used effectively.

2. The weight of an armour makes no difference, the fact is Roman Lorica Segmentata and Lorica Hamata are more protective than Chinese scale or lamellar.

the toughest of roman lorica segmentata and lorica hamate also makes no difference, the fact is chinese crossbows can easily penetrate them.

the reason roman swords were short was not because of its effectiveness but the fact that they could only produce short swords at the time.



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
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: 14-Feb-2006 at 21:05

"I'm a regular on CHF for your information. But I also happen to take a rather balanced view on this subject."

I wouldn't call this a balanced view, but a distortion.

 

"1. Roman short swords were more suited to fighting in close formation, because they were specifically designed for thrusting. On the other hand, Han single edged sabres needed much more space to be used effectively."

 

lol, thats already explained in CHF, Han swords changed to cutting,(because of cavalry, the Romans did the same in the 3rd century C.E.) prior to that, it was for thrusting, the Qin used Jian, not Dao. And the longer the Jian is, the stronger the thrust.

Second of all, your comparison on swords is irrelevant, for Han army is a polearm army, not a predominantely sword carrying one.

 

"2. The weight of an armour makes no difference, the fact is Roman Lorica Segmentata and Lorica Hamata are more protective than Chinese scale or lamellar. "

 

Sorry, but thats quite unfounded, in what way is the segmentata more protective? Segmentata is horrible in lower thrusts, its ability to prevent arrows is no more than the scale and lamellar. Han armour has over 1,000 scales and highly flexible. Lastly, you forgot that Han armour is made of treated steel, Roman armour is made of wrought iron, the quality already belong to two different leagues.

Back to Top
Conan the destroyer View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 21-Jun-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 105
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Conan the destroyer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2006 at 21:40

"I wouldn't call this a balanced view, but a distortion."

Wow, this coming from a guy who is obviously one-sided.

"lol, thats already explained in CHF, Han swords changed to cutting,(because of cavalry, the Romans did the same in the 3rd century C.E.) prior to that, it was for thrusting, the Qin used Jian, not Dao. And the longer the Jian is, the stronger the thrust. "

I can't imagine why you are laughing. For one thing, we aren't talking about the Qin. Secondly, you've said yourself that Han swords were longer and thus not as suitable for close formation fighting. Even German warriors of the rennaissance favoured short swords when fighting in dense formations.

"Second of all, your comparison on swords is irrelevant, for Han army is a polearm army, not a predominantely sword carrying one."

Not really, the majority of Han infantry soldiers judging by historical records and finds seem to have been armed with swinging weapons--predominantly dagger axes and single-edged sabres.

"Sorry, but thats quite unfounded, in what way is the segmentata more protective? Segmentata is horrible in lower thrusts, its ability to prevent arrows is no more than the scale and lamellar."

I take it you have proof that the Lorica Segmentata cannot resist against thrusts? The idea of upward thrusts penetrating Roman "banded" armour is nothing but a myth.

"Han armour has over 1,000 scales and highly flexible. Lastly, you forgot that Han armour is made of treated steel, Roman armour is made of wrought iron, the quality already belong to two different leagues."

What a joke. 1000 scales and treated steel for a high-ranking officer's armour maybe. But only 40% of Han infantry were armoured, and in armour made up of large, rectangular iron plates.



Edited by Conan the destroyer
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: 14-Feb-2006 at 22:12

"Wow, this coming from a guy who is obviously one-sided."

 

No, just someone that likes the truth

"I can't imagine why you are laughing. For one thing, we aren't talking about the Qin. Secondly, you've said yourself that Han swords were longer and thus not as suitable for close formation fighting. Even German warriors of the rennaissance favoured short swords when fighting in dense formations."

 

I'm laughing because of your supposed "balanced view" when its nothing but ignorance on military operations. We aren't talking about the Qin, thats correct, but you seem to say that Romans have a advantage because they have thrusting swords, that wrong. It only shows an underdevelopment in their cavalry when they have not adopted slashing swords. German armies of the rennaissance used the rapier a sword thats longer than the Gladius, guess why? because longer swords makes better thrusts, and Han swords prior to the 1st centruy b.c. is simply superior. Your insistence on their lashing sword is really pointless, it only means their more adaptability to cavalry, nor do you have prove that thrusting swords are better in combat, later melee in China all used the slashing swords, there is no clear superiority in slash vs. thrust, and Europeans had both as well, stop generalizing.

 

"Not really, the majority of Han infantry soldiers judging by historical records and finds seem to have been armed with swinging weapons--predominantly dagger axes and single-edged sabres."

 

Incorrect, they are mostly armed with Ji and the Mao. What historical records have you been reading? And I thought you were in CHF all this time, this has already been refuted over and over many times.

 

 

"I take it you have proof that the Lorica Segmentata cannot resist against thrusts? The idea of upward thrusts penetrating Roman "banded" armour is nothing but a myth."

No, I only stated that its underside is weak against a diagonal upward thrust, thats why cavalry officers never were the lorica segmentata.

 

"What a joke. 1000 scales and treated steel for a high-ranking officer's armour maybe. But only 40% of Han infantry were armoured, and in armour made up of large, rectangular iron plates."

 

The joke is on you. You constantly fail to mention the superiority of Han armour material, and you still haven't told me how Roman segmentata is superior. I take that as nothing but blind guessing.


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: 14-Feb-2006 at 22:41

"1000 scales and treated steel for a high-ranking officer's armour maybe. But only 40% of Han infantry were armoured, and in armour made up of large, rectangular iron plates."

Conan, I'm not going to argue with you what the facts are. But your oversimplistic explanations needs further corrections. There are 3 types of armour during the Han, the most common one is the Xuan Jia. There are 3 types of scales, the first is the large rectangular sized scale measuring 23.4 cm by 4.4 cm, the second type has scales that measures 4.6-5 cm by 2.7-3.4 cm weighing 10 grams, the third type is even smaller, approaching a squre measuring 4 cm by 2.5 cm. All 3 covers up to the underside and neck area with complex overlaying of plates after plates, more intricate than average lammellar any where else.

Since all three have been found in large amounts, where did you find the claim that "only the general wears" the intricate ones? 

 

Back to Top
Conan the destroyer View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 21-Jun-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 105
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Conan the destroyer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2006 at 23:13

"No, just someone that likes the truth"

Everyone has a different interpretation of what the truth is. It just so happens that my view of the truth is more balanced and less distorted by personal bias.

"I'm laughing because of your supposed "balanced view" when its nothing but ignorance on military operations."

 That's rich coming from a guy who won't admit that the Han army had a single disadvantage when compared to the Romans.

"We aren't talking about the Qin, thats correct, but you seem to say that Romans have a advantage because they have thrusting swords, that wrong."

They do have an advantage when fighting on foot, in tight formation against enemy infantry--which is precisely how the Roman's liked to fight. The shortsword, tower shield, and banded armour become a disadvantage when fighting against, for instance, cavalry warriors.

"It only shows an underdevelopment in their cavalry when they have not adopted slashing swords."

Agreed--but it also shows the fact that the Roman's specialised in close-quarters infantry combat.

"German armies of the rennaissance used the rapier a sword thats longer than the Gladius, guess why? because longer swords makes better thrusts, and Han swords prior to the 1st centruy b.c. is simply superior."

Ummm, German infantry of the rennaissance used two-handed greatswords, short thrusting swords ("katzbalgers") and the cavalry used a type of stabbing sword, the so called "Estoc"

"Your insistence on their lashing sword is really pointless, it only means their more adaptability to cavalry, nor do you have prove that thrusting swords are better in combat, later melee in China all used the slashing swords, there is no clear superiority in slash vs. thrust, and Europeans had both as well, stop generalizing."

I never said thrusting swords were better for combat, merely that they were more suited to infantry engagements with masses of armoured soldiers. Stop twisting my words.

As for the Chinese, they too saw the importance of the thrust. Leading to the development of the Yanmaodao or Goose Quill sabre--a stout, straight, single edged sabre. Which became the standard sidearm of Ming/Qing infantry.

"Incorrect, they are mostly armed with Ji and the Mao. What historical records have you been reading? And I thought you were in CHF all this time, this has already been refuted over and over many times."

I've examined a number of Han tomb figurines, read modern scholarship such as Yang Hong's "Weapons in Ancient China", and read translations of Chinese texts regarding the matter.

"No, I only stated that its underside is weak against a diagonal upward thrust, thats why cavalry officers never were the lorica segmentata."

Source? Swordforum members have convincingly shown that the Lorica Segmentata is not vulnerable to an upward thrust. 

"The joke is on you. You constantly fail to mention the superiority of Han armour material, and you still haven't told me how Roman segmentata is superior. I take that as nothing but blind guessing."

Face it, you've lost this argument buddy.

I have seen no proof that Han dynasty armour materials were superior, and Roman segmentata is superior because it is of plate construction, wheras Han armours were lamellar or scale. The weakness in the former is the gaps between each lamella and exposed lacing, and the weakness of the latter is that the scales hang downwards, making the wearer vulnerable to upward thrusts. The Segmentata has neither of these weaknesses.

 



Edited by Conan the destroyer
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: 14-Feb-2006 at 23:35

 Some imput to Han armour archeology updates. Just 3 years ago, the tomb of king Chu in Xu Zhou(174-154b.c.)has been uncovered, The scale armour is 1.2m high and around 15 kg in weight. There are over 3000 plates laced together. Even the least armour has over 150 plates. The more astounding part is the armour contain iron from the blast furnace, the earliest of such armour in the world. By the later part of Western Han, such armour is already in wide production.

Thats only the Western Han, there was an armour known as Tong Xiu Jia that appeared in the Eastern Han which was said to be nearly unpenetrable.

Also, about the percentage of troop with armour, NO army is completely armed. Roman legions also isn't mostly armed with segmentata, mail shirts and even leather are all present and common. The second poinis that armour isn't always the best. Light troops are simply used as skirmishers. Many soldiers in the Roman army behind the first 3 rank were without armour, some even without helmet. The 4th century writer Vegetius said that soldiers throw off their armour because it is too much of a burden. None of the Roman light infantry has armour, as were their auxiliars. So ther ereally is no ground to accuse Han army's armour content when its simply tactically different(Qin soldiers were once said to be all armoured in the Shi Ji)

 

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: 14-Feb-2006 at 23:59

"Everyone has a different interpretation of what the truth is. It just so happens that my view of the truth is more balanced and less distorted by personal bias."

No it just mean you are more ignorant.

 

"That's rich coming from a guy who won't admit that the Han army had a single disadvantage when compared to the Romans."

Is this all you can babble without sources? Too typical. Unlike you I state what they are, I don't pretend that there must be an equal amount of Roman advantages that counters Han advantages when there clearly isn't.

 

"They do have an advantage when fighting on foot, in tight formation against enemy infantry--which is precisely how the Roman's liked to fight. The shortsword, tower shield, and banded armour become a disadvantage when fighting against, for instance, cavalry warriors."

 

No they don't, stop making up rubbish. Where is your source for this supposed superiority of yours? Your genearlizations are way too simplistic and shows that you have no grasp of military organization's complexities. The terracota warrior formation shows that the army can be "tight" when the organizations require it.  Furthermore Chinese troops are the first to innovate the tactic of combining several combat arms within a single tactical unit and training it to fight together as a unit, employing their arms in concert, or as individuals. (Fairbank "the varieties of Chinese Military Experience") So stop making up something you do not know.

 

"Agreed--but it also shows the fact that the Roman's specialised in close-quarters infantry combat."

No, it just mean that they have an underdeveloped cavalry, You claim they are superior to Chinese in melee, thats simply unfounded, because China had thrusting infantry men just the same prior to the importance of cavalry.

 

"Ummm, German infantry of the rennaissance used two-handed greatswords, short thrusting swords ("katzbalgers") and the cavalry used a type of stabbing sword, the so called "Estoc""

Look, I don't know what your point is, you are comparing Medieval long swords which average at 1.1 meter, are of which are longer than the Gladius. If you try to show Roman superiority in melee from this, sorry but its poor attempt.

 

"I never said thrusting swords were better for combat, merely that they were more suited to infantry engagements with masses of armoured soldiers. Stop twisting my words. "

I never said you did. Stop twisting mine. I AM talking about infantry engagements.

 

"As for the Chinese, they too saw the importance of the thrust. Leading to the development of the Yanmaodao or Goose Quill sabre--a stout, straight, single edged sabre. Which became the standard sidearm of Ming/Qing infantry."

Yet the dominant arm is still the Dao. Which still means that thrusting isn't always superior to cutting, it depends on the armours in question.

 

 

 

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: 15-Feb-2006 at 00:09

"I've examined a number of Han tomb figurines, read modern scholarship such as Yang Hong's "Weapons in Ancient China", and read translations of Chinese texts regarding the matter."

 Do show me the quote in Yang Hong's translation where swords are more abundant than polearms. This is one of the most ridiculous statements I have heard. Chinese reports of weaponry all states that polearms are the dominant Han weapons.

 

"Face it, you've lost this argument buddy.

I have seen no proof that Han dynasty armour materials were superior, and Roman segmentata is superior because it is of plate construction, wheras Han armours were lamellar or scale. The weakness in the former is the gaps between each lamella and exposed lacing, and the weakness of the latter is that the scales hang downwards, making the wearer vulnerable to upward thrusts. The Segmentata has neither of these weaknesses."

 

I'm not going to argue with you whether the sky is blue or not. Face what? Your poor counterargument? Han armour is superior precisely because it came out of the blast furnace. http://big5.china.com.cn/chinese/TEC-c/160938.htm So no, there is plenty of proof. Your knowledge is just too limited. As for your other big claim, WuJiang has already explained your BS. The fact is Tong Xiu Jia is said to be able to prevent the assault of a 10 dan crossbow, nothing that any Roman armour can remotely dream of.

It seems you are the one that has already lost this argument, why don't you quit and look up more sites than making up rubbish that when you simply haven't understood it.

 

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 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 0.078 seconds.