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  <12345 15>
Author
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: 15-Feb-2006 at 00:22

the question is the overall power of the han vs the roman empire.

not individual soldiers fighting one another.

the han empire was the largest economy in the world at the time with superior production capability and technology.

the roman armors wouldn't matter because a crossbow could easily penetrate them.

even 40 percent of the han troops armed with armors are already more than 100 percent of the roman troops. the han could mobilize as many as 1 million troops.

"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: 15-Feb-2006 at 00:34

Furthermore regarding the qualities of the weapons and superiority of blastffurnace

This topic is already presented in this forum twice.

 

Quote from S.A.M. Adshed's book China in world history 2nd edition.

The whole book is comparative and begins from 200 b.c. to 1976 In page 10 of comparison:

"Chinese agriculture was further differentiated from Roman by China's superiority in mettallurgy in antiquity particularly iron...This mettarlugical superiority both affected agriculture and war. The Chinese arable farmer , in addition to his other advantages, had more and better iorn implements than their Roman counterpart. If China clung to infantry where Constantinople switched to cavalry, it was partly because the Chinese footsoldier was better armed and was better able to cope with his equestrian opponents than the Roman legionary, for example it was doubtful if Roman artisans could have produced the precision-made bronze trigger mechanism required for the Chinese crossbow.......The capacity to cast iron, in turn, raised the level of steel production both in quantity and quality. Wrought iron is low in carbon, cast iron is high in carbon, and steel lies in between. For premodern siderurgy it was easier to decarbonize than recarbonize. So, by the Han period, the Chinese, starting with cast iron, could produce considerable quantities of good steel by what was, in essence the Bessemer process of oxygenation, liquifying the iron while simultaneously blowing away part of the carbon; while the west, starting with wrought iron, could only produce limited amounts of poor steel by heating the iron in charcoal. "

and further more

"This is probably the reason why the Byzantines switched to cavalry oriented warfare while the infantry still played the paramount role in Chinese warfare"

 

 

 

And isn't this posted like a million times both here and the CHF?

"By no later than the end of the Spring and Autumn Period (770-476 B.C.), the Chinese developed the technology of the blast furnace. This allowed them to heat the ore above its melting point, and produce cast iron. Among the inventions that made this possible, was the double-action bellows. The manufacture of iron, using a blast furnace to produce a molten metal, greatly expanded production: The process could be continuous, as the molten metal flowed from the reducing furnace, was poured into molds, and made into a large variety of products.
The blast furnace was introduced in Europe, on a wide scale, only in the late 14th Century, almost 2,000 years later. "

So I'm sorry Conan, what was that you said regarding to "lack of proof"?

Even Kenneth has explained the better quality of Han methods in sword making. Armour plates is no different. I simply don't see a "superiority" in Roman melee. If anyone thats biased and onesided, its you.

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: 15-Feb-2006 at 08:44

Oh dear, this joker is back for more.

"No it just mean you are more ignorant."

Very mature, I'm sure.

"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."

And the obvious reason for this is that you know little about the Roman army. On the other hand, I have read extensively on both the Roman and Han armies.

"No they don't, stop making up rubbish. Where is your source for this supposed superiority of yours?"

It's funny that the only rebuttal you seem capable of is "No you idiot" or "stop making things up, your ignorant of military matters!", what a laugh. Let's get a few things straight, because it's quite clear you have a very limited knowledge of military history.

1. The Roman infantry were proffessional, the Han infantry were militia. Even in the eastern Han infantry were only semi-proffessional.

2. The Romans had armor, weapons, training and tactics all geared specifically towards massive, close quarters infantry engagements. On the other hand, Han armies were more focused on missile fire and cavalry attacks, with the infantry used to protect archers and crossbowmen, rather than taking on the offensive role of Roman infantry.

"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."

Yup, but the fact is Qin/Han armies weren't specifically trained and equipped to fight in this manner.

"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."

Erm, what's the point in telling me this?

"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."

Actually the majority of infantry seem to have been equipped with Ji, which is primarily a swinging weapon.

"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."

You imbecile, Katzabalgers were about 20 inches long. Hardly "long swords"

"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."

Thrusting IS superior to cutting when dealing with an armoured man.

 

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: 15-Feb-2006 at 08:50
Originally posted by honeybee honeybee wrote:

Furthermore regarding the qualities of the weapons and superiority of blastffurnace

This topic is already presented in this forum twice.

 

Quote from S.A.M. Adshed's book China in world history 2nd edition.

The whole book is comparative and begins from 200 b.c. to 1976 In page 10 of comparison:

"Chinese agriculture was further differentiated from Roman by China's superiority in mettallurgy in antiquity particularly iron...This mettarlugical superiority both affected agriculture and war. The Chinese arable farmer , in addition to his other advantages, had more and better iorn implements than their Roman counterpart. If China clung to infantry where Constantinople switched to cavalry, it was partly because the Chinese footsoldier was better armed and was better able to cope with his equestrian opponents than the Roman legionary, for example it was doubtful if Roman artisans could have produced the precision-made bronze trigger mechanism required for the Chinese crossbow.......The capacity to cast iron, in turn, raised the level of steel production both in quantity and quality. Wrought iron is low in carbon, cast iron is high in carbon, and steel lies in between. For premodern siderurgy it was easier to decarbonize than recarbonize. So, by the Han period, the Chinese, starting with cast iron, could produce considerable quantities of good steel by what was, in essence the Bessemer process of oxygenation, liquifying the iron while simultaneously blowing away part of the carbon; while the west, starting with wrought iron, could only produce limited amounts of poor steel by heating the iron in charcoal. "

and further more

"This is probably the reason why the Byzantines switched to cavalry oriented warfare while the infantry still played the paramount role in Chinese warfare"

 

 

 

And isn't this posted like a million times both here and the CHF?

"By no later than the end of the Spring and Autumn Period (770-476 B.C.), the Chinese developed the technology of the blast furnace. This allowed them to heat the ore above its melting point, and produce cast iron. Among the inventions that made this possible, was the double-action bellows. The manufacture of iron, using a blast furnace to produce a molten metal, greatly expanded production: The process could be continuous, as the molten metal flowed from the reducing furnace, was poured into molds, and made into a large variety of products.
The blast furnace was introduced in Europe, on a wide scale, only in the late 14th Century, almost 2,000 years later. "

So I'm sorry Conan, what was that you said regarding to "lack of proof"?

Even Kenneth has explained the better quality of Han methods in sword making. Armour plates is no different. I simply don't see a "superiority" in Roman melee. If anyone thats biased and onesided, its you.

I'm sorry Honeybee, but superiority in iron doesn't mean superiority in close quarters combat. I feel sorry for you, I really do.

Firstly, the quality of iron in Han armour doesn't matter when it has horizontal gaps and exposed lacing. Secondly, Roman shortswords were  primary weapons DESIGNED for infantry combat, whereas Han swords were usually only a secondary weapons. So again, it's likely that Roman infantry were better trained in close combat than their Han counterparts. The same way Han soldiers were much better at long-distance and cavalry warfare.



Edited by Conan the destroyer
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: 15-Feb-2006 at 10:33
roman armors wouldn't matter as well as they would not protect them from the assault of crossbows. so why are u constantly stating that as an advantage?

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: 15-Feb-2006 at 10:58

"Oh dear, this joker is back for more."

 

No sweat, I'm always here to correct your mistakes.

 

"Very mature, I'm sure."

 

lol, speaking of maturity, who is the one that resorted to personalized attacks in the first place? You can't even conduct this debate in a mature professional manner in the very beggining. In a historical debate, only facts talk. There is no need for groundless personalized accusations when someone questions your statements.

 

 

"And the obvious reason for this is that you know little about the Roman army. On the other hand, I have read extensively on both the Roman and Han armies."

Sorry, but how much do you know what I know about the Roman army? Another immature and poor accusation. You know extensively on the Han? For someone that doesn't even know the dominant weapon is the polearm?

 

"It's funny that the only rebuttal you seem capable of is "No you idiot" or "stop making things up, your ignorant of military matters!", what a laugh. Let's get a few things straight, because it's quite clear you have a very limited knowledge of military history."

 

No it isn't, don't tell me you didn't even read the sentence below it. And lets get a few things straight, you stated this immature rebuttal and personal attacks, so stop nagging about what I do in retaliation. The only limited knowledge fool here is you.

 

"1. The Roman infantry were proffessional, the Han infantry were militia. Even in the eastern Han infantry were only semi-proffessional."

Wrong, Warhead has already refuted this comment, Eastern Han army are full time proffessional, stop making up nonsense that you do not understand.

 

"The Romans had armor, weapons, training and tactics all geared specifically towards massive, close quarters infantry engagements. On the other hand, Han armies were more focused on missile fire and cavalry attacks, with the infantry used to protect archers and crossbowmen, rather than taking on the offensive role of Roman infantry."

"Yup, but the fact is Qin/Han armies weren't specifically trained and equipped to fight in this manner."

 

Sorry, but speaking of simplicity, melee is much more complicated than simple shock. Let me say this again, 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. For a amateur military historian, shock might be all they think of when they talk about melee, but those that know better realize that flexibility and tactical maneuvre is far more important.

 

"Erm, what's the point in telling me this? "

To dispel your fantasy that closer formation somehow = superior melee. Read above.

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 11:05

"Actually the majority of infantry seem to have been equipped with Ji, which is primarily a swinging weapon."

So now you just contradicted your previous statement that the infantry is equipped more with swords? lol. I'm talking about swords alone here, not polearms. But even your assertion on polearms is typically simplistic, there are two types of Ji, one that focuses on swinging with a larger Ge in proportion to the Mao, and one that focus more on thrusting with a longer Mao in proportion to the Ji. And the Mao, the Qiang, the Pi are all widely equippted(even more than the Ji)which are all thrusting weapon.

 

"You imbecile, Katzabalgers were about 20 inches long. Hardly "long swords" "

 

you imbecile, I'm talking about the Estoc and other long swords, stop diverting from the debate when you are losing, the point is, both cutting and thrusting exist, so your "prove" that thrusts is somehow superior is simply wrong. 

 

"Thrusting IS superior to cutting when dealing with an armoured man. "

 

No, it depends on the armour, you are been simplistic just like always. Western full plate has less gaps, while the eastern scales has points which can be cut through.

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 11:18

"I'm sorry Honeybee, but superiority in iron doesn't mean superiority in close quarters combat. I feel sorry for you, I really do. "

 

I'm sorry, but I never said anything like it. So you can save your pity for yourself, you need it. The original statement you made was there is no proof of superiority of Han armour, now you are proved wrong, admit your error and defeat.

 

"Firstly, the quality of iron in Han armour doesn't matter when it has horizontal gaps and exposed lacing. "

Absolute nonsense. The quality of the iron matters very much, in case geometry fails you which it does in this case, there are far greater area that are covered by armour than the gaps. And the fact is, the Tong Xiu Jia can stop a 10 dan crossbow, Roman armours can't. Stop this pointless rhetoric debate you already lost, you have no professional sources to back up your analysis that Roman armour is superior. You simply think it is because of your limited knowledge.

 

"Secondly, Roman shortswords were  primary weapons DESIGNED for infantry combat, whereas Han swords were usually only a secondary weapons. "

You are already in a desperate position in your defense buddy. Even ignoring the point of polearms been the dominant weapon than swords which you mistakenly claim previously, Han had both primary weapon swords and secondary weapons, the primary swords ARE designed for infantry combat, with the units especially trained in sword fighting, Han has a much greater variety of arms because they are more advanced in military science, they understood the concept of equal arms in proportion. But that doesn't mean those weapon wielders are in any sense inferior, if you insist, back it up.

"So again, it's likely that Roman infantry were better trained in close combat than their Han counterparts. The same way Han soldiers were much better at long-distance and cavalry warfare."

 

Sorry, but it seems your whole argument is based on obsolete information and simplistic generalizations, how in any sense, are swords superior to polearms in combat? Swords has always been a less dominant weapon next to polearms in later European armies. And yes polearm users probably have an inferior training than the romans in close melee, but thats certainly not the case with infantries that wields swords as their first hand weapon. Nor is this relevant to the topic we are discussing now, and thats how Romans have superior melee in general, which as I already said, is completely unfounded.

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: 15-Feb-2006 at 11:54
you guys are both immature. just admit it. i used to be like that too.
"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: 15-Feb-2006 at 14:02
used to? lol, I don't see you in any brighter light, instead all you have done is made a few simple quotes. I don't care about immaturity, as long as the arguments are backed by facts, he can be a 5 year old for all it matters.
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: 15-Feb-2006 at 14:58

I've highlighted the key parts of your posts.

"No sweat, I'm always here to correct your mistakes."

Unfortunate that you are unable to correct your own.

"lol, speaking of maturity, who is the one that resorted to personalized attacks in the first place? You can't even conduct this debate in a mature professional manner in the very beggining. In a historical debate, only facts talk. There is no need for groundless personalized accusations when someone questions your statements."

Read through this thread again, and you'll find that you are the one who started throwing personal insults like a baby who throws his toys.

"Sorry, but how much do you know what I know about the Roman army? Another immature and poor accusation. You know extensively on the Han? For someone that doesn't even know the dominant weapon is the polearm?"

You are basing all your opinions on some posts warhead made on CHF. Quit this futile mission and admit your mistake.

"No it isn't, don't tell me you didn't even read the sentence below it. And lets get a few things straight, you stated this immature rebuttal and personal attacks, so stop nagging about what I do in retaliation. The only limited knowledge fool here is you."

lol, everybody point and laugh at this hypocrite. I repeat it was YOU who started throwing insults.

"Wrong, Warhead has already refuted this comment, Eastern Han army are full time proffessional, stop making up nonsense that you do not understand."

Then "warhead" is spitting in the face of military historians.

"Sorry, but speaking of simplicity, melee is much more complicated than simple shock. Let me say this again, 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. For a amateur military historian, shock might be all they think of when they talk about melee, but those that know better realize that flexibility and tactical maneuvre is far more important."

Oh jesus, this moron really loves to blow his own horn while downplaying others. The Roman's had "flexibility and tactics maneuvre", as did the Han.

"To dispel your fantasy that closer formation somehow = superior melee. Read above."

Close formation isn't the only factor in determining which army will prevail in close combat. Roman tactics, equipment and training were more suited to HTH infantry engagements than Han--a fact which you are desperately avoiding.

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 17:07

 

"Unfortunate that you are unable to correct your own."

 

Fortunately, I don't need to, because I don't make any.

 

"Read through this thread again, and you'll find that you are the one who started throwing personal insults like a baby who throws his toys."

 

Nope, you did. By calling me biased.

 

 

"You are basing all your opinions on some posts warhead made on CHF. Quit this futile mission and admit your mistake."

 

Nope, its more than just that, I believe many others already contributed to it as well. Why should I quit, you haven't proven me wrong, you are the that should quit because you have provided nothing to back yourself up.

 

"lol, everybody point and laugh at this hypocrite. I repeat it was YOU who started throwing insults."

Laugh at yourself, can't you even read? It was YOU.

 

"Then "warhead" is spitting in the face of military historians."

 

Which military historians? You? lol. Why don't you show it? He made a very detailed analysis on the Han military structures consulting primary sources, something you never did. And you expect me to trust you?

 

"Oh jesus, this moron really loves to blow his own horn while downplaying others. The Roman's had "flexibility and tactics maneuvre", as did the Han."

Nope, but this idiot here still haven't proved his point, so zip your hole and prove it.

 

"Close formation isn't the only factor in determining which army will prevail in close combat. Roman tactics, equipment and training were more suited to HTH infantry engagements than Han--a fact which you are desperately avoiding"

 So now you know, I'm sorry, but you are constantly repeating this cliche, prove to me how they are "more suited". you claim you drew your source from military historians, so quote it. Do you honestly think I'll take the word of some idiot who don't even know the Han weapon components?

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 17:37

"Close formation isn't the only factor in determining which army will prevail in close combat. Roman tactics, equipment and training were more suited to HTH infantry engagements than Han--a fact which you are desperately avoiding."

 

 

Conan, you have failed to understand the nature of HTH combat with melee weapons. Polearms has the initial advantage over shorter weapons, and polearms have universally been used because of their inherent advantage in this area. A polearm user has the range advantage, and he can control the combative-engagement distance  better than an opponent armed with a sword unless its a cramped quarter. Polearms can also be used both as a team of people and as individual combat weapons. So I'm sorry, your claim of Roman superiority in melee is simply unfounded.

Back to Top
cyclops View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 15-Feb-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cyclops Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2006 at 18:50

You know, I'm reading the post of two unprofessional tweets that flung insults at each other without providing any detailed information that can be interpreted.

 

The argument is like

you are wrong,

no you are wrong

you are a moron

no you are a moron

A is correct, because someone mentioned it

No A is wrong, and B is correct because some unkown historian mentioned it.

 

For God's sake who? And what did he write?

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: 15-Feb-2006 at 19:43

honeybee, in close combat, long weapons may have initial advantage, but that's pretty much all they have(except combined arms). Once the battle becomes face to face, long weapons become a liability because they simply can't use it so close to an opponent. The Greeks thought long weapons were perfect for close combat. They became skewered by shorter Roman weapons.

Conan has valid arguments(at least for the first page, after that I just stopped reading and came here), and he fully admits that Han had better cavalry and archers. You can't just say the Han was militarily superior to the Romans at EVERYTHING. That's simply not possible even today so I doubt the Han could do such a thing back then.

 Han infantry was mostly designed to clash with cavalry, not infantry, simple as that. This is because cavalry have a much better chance at reaching the archers/crossbowmen than infantry(for obvious reasons). Another  would be the fact that the Ji is simply cheaper to make and train. Being "dominant" doesn't mean the Ji or Ge are better in close combat.

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: 15-Feb-2006 at 19:50
Originally posted by cyclops cyclops wrote:

You know, I'm reading the post of two unprofessional tweets that flung insults at each other without providing any detailed information that can be interpreted.

We've been debating 3 pages, you just got here, this is your first post. Who the hell do you think you are?



Edited by Conan the destroyer
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: 15-Feb-2006 at 19:54
Originally posted by Omnipotence Omnipotence wrote:

Conan has valid arguments(at least for the first page, after that I just stopped reading and came here), and he fully admits that Han had better cavalry and archers. You can't just say the Han was militarily superior to the Romans at EVERYTHING. That's simply not possible even today so I doubt the Han could do such a thing back then.

Thanks, Omnipotence, this sums my opinion up nicely. I don't think I need to argue with honeybee any further, he's just going in circles.

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 20:17
Originally posted by Omnipotence Omnipotence wrote:

honeybee, in close combat, long weapons may have initial advantage, but that's pretty much all they have(except combined arms). Once the battle becomes face to face, long weapons become a liability because they simply can't use it so close to an opponent. The Greeks thought long weapons were perfect for close combat. They became skewered by shorter Roman weapons.

 

The problem is that its NOT all they have. All Han soldiers are armed with a short sword in addition to their polearms. Chinese infantry has the special trait of combining different weapons for different purposes into one single cohesive unit. One single unit contains both long and short weapons. Halberd wielders, spear wielders as well as sword wielders in proportion to efficiency, in long distance the polearms will attack, when the opponent moves in, the swords men will take over, (the other polearm carriers carried swords as well.) Chinese polearms ARE NOTHING like Greek pikes, Chinese polearms can be wielded individually by a single men. Even if their formation is broken, they have no problem fighting as individuals. Furthermore, just about all Chinese soldiers are trained in different arms, in close combat they have no problem taking out their swords and fight.

 

"Conan has valid arguments(at least for the first page, after that I just stopped reading and came here), and he fully admits that Han had better cavalry and archers. You can't just say the Han was militarily superior to the Romans at EVERYTHING. "

I didn't say it is superior in everything, Roman armies has a better medicare system as well as Road system. But the part that Rome has superior melee is unfounded. There is way too much complexity here to make any that statement.

 

 "Han infantry was mostly designed to clash with cavalry, not infantry, simple as that. "

No, its not as simple as that. Warring States armies has been clashing with each other for centuries before cavalry even came into China. Chinese swords were originally designed against infantries not cavalries, when cavalries were introduced, Chinese infantries changed to the one-sided sword. 

 

"This is because cavalry have a much better chance at reaching the archers/crossbowmen than infantry(for obvious reasons). Another  would be the fact that the Ji is simply cheaper to make and train. Being "dominant" doesn't mean the Ji or Ge are better in close combat. "

Cheaper? I doubt it, Ji has more area than the Mao. I don't think its better, in fact Mao probably outnumber the Ji in combat.

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 20:20

"Thanks, Omnipotence, this sums my opinion up nicely. I don't think I need to argue with honeybee any further, he's just going in circles."

 

Speaking of going in circles, you have not provide me a single scholarly source on your claims despite the fact that I asked you so many times. I still want to see your source on the unprofessionalism of Han army and the fact that Roman formations is somehow "more suitable" for HTH combat.

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: 15-Feb-2006 at 21:12
Conan and Honeybee, both of you need to stop it with the personal attacks.  Ya'll are both highly inteligent people, and it discourages me to see you two stooping to such vulgar attacks.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 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 0.094 seconds.